Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-09 Public Hearing, Citizens Participation Meeting, and Regular Meeting e . MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING, CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING, AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 9, 1991 1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Malone at 6:00 P.M. Members of ci tv Council Present: Mayor Norman Malone, Councilpersons Guy Sutherland, Mike Cooper, Bob Thrower, Bob McLaughlin, Alton Porter, Deotis Gay, B. Don Skelton, Jerry Clarke Members of citv Council Absent: None Members of citv Staff Present: City Manager Bob Herrera, City Attorney Knox Askins, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Assistant to the City Secretary Sue Lenes, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Police Chief Bobby Powell, Fire Chief Joe Sease, Assistant Fire Chief Champ Dunham, Director of Finance Jeff Litchfield, Assistant Public Works Director Buddy Jacobs, Solid Waste Superintendent Bill Fitzsimmons, Human Resources/purchasing Manager Louis Rigby, EMS Chief Chris Osten, Chief Building Official Ervin Griffith, Inspectors Mark Lewis, Debbie Wilmore and Ernest Creveling, Recreation Superintendent Tim 0' Connor, Parks Maintenance Superintendent Bert Clark, Aquatics/Special Events Coordinator Kelly J. penewitt Members of the Planninq and Zoninq Committee Present: Chairperson Inge Browder, District 1 Betty Waters, District 2 Wayne Anderson, District 3 Eugene Edmonds Others Present: Vice President Manufacturing for Solvay Polymer W. D. Bachman; Owner Manning Engineering Bill Manning and a number of citizens 2. Invocation was given by Mayor Malone 3. Council considered approving minutes of the Emergency Called Meeting held October 17, 1991. Motion was made bv Councilperson Skelton to approve the October 17th minutes as presented. Second by Councilperson Thrower. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte city Council December 9, 1991, Page 2 Ayes: Nays: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor 4. Council considered approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting held November 11, 1991. Motion was made bv Councilperson Skelton to approve the November 11th minutes as presented. Second by Councilperson Thrower. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Nays: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor 5. Council considered approving the minutes of The Emergency Called Meeting held November 13, 1991. Motion was made by Councilperson McLauqhlin to approve the November 13th minutes as presented. Second by Councilperson Thrower. The motion carried, 7 ayes, 0 nays and 2 abstain. Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, Thrower, McLaughlin, Gay, Skelton and Mayor Malone None Councilpersons Porter and Clarke 6. Consider approving minutes of the Special Called Meeting and Workshop Meeting held November 18, 1991. Note: Mayor Malone declared Councilperson Clarke's abstaining vote as a vote on Items 6 rather than Item 5, therefore Item 6 was not voted upon and will appear on the next Regular Meeting to be held on January 13, 1992. 7. Employee of the Quarter for July, August and September 1991 was presented to Kelly J. Penewitt, Aquatics/Special Events Coordinator. Tim O'Connor, Recreation Superintendent, informed Council of Kelly's dedication to her work and her professionalism. Mr. O'Connor stated he is proud of Kelly and she has earned the recognition as "Employee of the Quarter". e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 3 8. Special presentation was made by Solvay Polymers, Inc. City Manager Bob Herrera introduced Mr. Bill Bachman, Plant Manager for Solvay Polymers, and stated the interest Solvay Polymers has shown in the City of La Porte and its recycling program and together his staff and the City staff have worked together and decided on an appropriate gift in the most needed area of the City's recycling program. Mr. W. D. "Bill" Bachman on behalf of Solvay Polymers, Inc. presented a check in the amount of $10,800.00 for a Piqua 30/60 Industrial Hi-Density Baler for use by the city of La Porte in its plastic recycling efforts. Mr. Bachman stated how pleased his firm was to present this contribution to promote community awareness in the City's recycling program. Mayor Malone stated Council's appreciation for the contribution and reminded citizens under the direction of Director of Public Works Steve Gillett the City has a recycling program every other Saturday and that we would like to have more citizens participate Mayor Malone called for a short Executive Session to meet with an Attorney at 6:08 Council reconvened at 6:27 9. Proclamation designating an official Historian for the City of La Porte. Mayor Malone called the attention of the Council, Staff and citizens to a recent article which appeared in the Bayshore Sun Newspaper written by Barbara Neal honoring Gordon Black, who knows more about the history of La Porte than any other person. The proclamation designating Gordon Black as the official Historian for the City of La Porte was read and presented to his wife, Cherie Black, and his other family members. The Council will take the proclamation to the hospital and present it to him sometime this week, as it means a great deal to this Council to present Gordon with this honor. Mayor Malone stated Councilman Alton Porter's wish to present to Gordon a print of the five schools in this City, and Council felt that Gordon would be proud to have this framed print. - e Minutes, Public Hearing, Citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 4 10. Petitions, Remonstrances, Communications, and citizens and Taxpayers wishing to address Council. Mr. Joe Shunta addressed Council regarding Ordinance 1784, the ordinance regarding hunting game animals in the city limits of La Porte. Mayor Malone read a letter from Leslie Doran, 4901 Glenvalley, La Porte, regarding requesting Council consider passing an ordinance regulating Garage Sales in the city limits of La Porte. Several citizens spoke to Council regarding carport regulations proposed as an amendment to Ordinance 1501. For: Leon Waters, Theresa Lamar, Ella Sotelo, Janice M. Greer, Linda Nieman, Lawrence B. Guy, Walter Groda, Gary Groda, Jim Longnecker, Beverly Carman, and Betty Rouse. Against: E. W. "Buddy" Felscher and Reba Felscher. Wayne Anderson asked Planning and Zoning Commission to give the matter further review. Tommy Green, 10107 Oakmont, addressed the Fairmont Park West homeowners' concerns about this ordinance superseding deed restrictions in Fairmont Park West subdivision. 11. Public Hearing - Regarding proposed changes to Ordinance 1501, The City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance Call to Order by Mayor Malone at 7:01 Review of Proposed Changes was conducted by Inspector Mark Lewis. Mr. Lewis read and explained each amendment to Ordinance 1501 and answered questions from Council. Public Input: Dean Wyman, 2226 26th Street, spoke on rezoning this area from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. Jim Longnecker, 233 San Jacinto Street, had questions on setbacks for fences. e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 5 Bill Herrick, 1023 Hackberry, President of Atlantis Homes, had a question on setback requirements from utility easements. He asked that City Council deny the request for a change in the amendment covering that area until there is a demonstrated need where utility easements are not adequate. Inspector Mark Lewis and John Joerns clarified the intent of the amendment to the code, which satisfied Mr. Herrick's concerns. Councilpersons Cooper, Clark, Sutherland, Gay, Porter, Thrower, Skelton, McLaughlin and Mayor Malone asked questions and commented on various aspects of the proposed ordinance amendments. Questions were addressed, discussed and answered by Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, City Manager Bob Herrera and Assistant City Manager John Joerns. City Manager Bob Herrera stated it would be appropriate for the Council to move on if there were no other public comments to the agenda item and if there were other questions Council could direct those to our city Attorney. If not, Council has the authority to vote on the issue tonight. Councilpersons Thrower and position on the carport issue. input from the public. Sutherland again stated their Mayor Malone asked for further Joyce smith Brooks, Jim Longnecker and Buddy Felscher made further comments on the carport issue. Councilperson Cooper addressed further questions to Chief Building Official Ervin Griffith regarding the Building Codes in place. Mayor Malone adjourned the Public Hearing at 8:13. 12. Council considered approving directing Planning and Zoning commission to further study recommendations regarding bed and breakfast establishments as addressed in Ordinance 1501 - Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, Thrower, Gay, Skelton, Clarke, Porter. Motion was made by Councilperson Sutherland to approve directinq Planninq and Zoninq Commission to further studY recommendations regarding bed and breakfast establishments as addressed in Ordinance 1501. Second by Councilperson Gay. e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City council December 9, 1991, Page 6 Councilperson Porter stated it is important but not critical for Planning and Zoning commission to look at this and start working it into their schedule. Councilperson Sutherland asked that all members of the committee be present when this issue is discussed unless there is some good and valid reason for one to be absent. Mayor Malone asked Chairperson Inge Browder and Committee members Betty Waters and Wayne Anderson if they had any problem with this criteria. No objection was made. The vote was then taken, and the motion carried, 9 ayes and o nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: 13. Council considered ordinance amending Ordinance No 1501, by changing classification of that certain parcel of land herein described COrd. 1501-M). City Attorney Knox Askins read: ORDINANCE 1501-M - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1501, BY CHANGING CLASSIFICATION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. City Attorney Knox Askins asked Council to turn to section 6. the operative part of the ordinance, as the passage of this ordinance would change the zoning classification of the parcel of land herein described to GC - General Commercial. The description of said parcels of land rezoned are as follows: La Porte Outlot 241, La Porte Outlot 261, Outlot 280, Tract 260A out of La Porte Outlot 260. Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blk 1; pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blk 2; pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blk 3; pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; Blk 4; pine Grove Valley e e Minutes, Public Hearing, Citizens participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 7 More particularly described on Exhibit F, attached hereto and fully incorporated by reference herein. Motion was made bv Councilperson Sutherland to adopt ordinance 1501-M as read bv the city Attorney. Second by Councilperson Gay. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper~ McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: 14. Council considered amending Ordinance No. 1501, The City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance, Article III, section 3-100; Article IV, section 4-400; Article V, Section 5-701, section 5-800; Article VI, section 6-400 & section 6-600; Article X, section 10-300, section 10-304, section 10-401, section 10-500 & section 10-1000 (Ord. 1501-N). City Attorney Knox Askins read: ORDINANCE 1501-N - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1501, THE CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III, SECTION 3-100; ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4- 400; ARTICLE V, SECTION 5-701, SECTION 5-800; ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6-400; SECTION 6-600; ARTICLE X, SECTION 10-300, SECTION 10-304, SECTION 10-401, SECTION 10-500 & SECTION 10- 1000; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FINED A SUM OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) FOR EACH VIOLATION; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Motion was made bv Councilperson Skelton to adopt Ordinance 1501-N as read by the city Attornev. Second by Councilperson Sutherland. Councilperson Porter made a motion to table the entire ordinance in order to develop further information and legal language and to have this ready for the next regular meetina on January 13th. Councilperson Cooper seconded the motion. The motion to table failed, 3 ayes and 6 nays. Ayes: Nays: Councilpersons Cooper, Thrower and Porter Councilpersons Sutherland, McLaughlin, Gay, Skelton, Clarke and Mayor Malone e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 8 The original motion was voted upon and carried, 7 ayes and 2 nays. Ayes: CouncilpersonsSutherland, Thrower, McLaughlin, Gay, Skelton, Clarke, and Mayor Malone Councilpersons Cooper and Porter Nays: Council directed City Attorney Knox Askins to address the Fairmont Park section of the City and bring it to the January 13th meeting. 15. citizens participation meeting for proposed projects for 1992 Community Development Block Grant Funds. Mayor Malone called the meeting to order at 8:24 P.M. City Manager Bob Herrera stated the purpose of this meeting is to receive information from the public as to items that would be eligible of the 1992 Harris County Community Development Block Grant funds this year. Mr. Herrera stated staff has identified the needs in the North La Porte area which will be eligible. We do not know if there are any other sections of the City of La Porte until we receive the official 1990 census on income levels. Councilperson Gay asked Mr. Herrera to resubmit some of the previous items which were turned down by CDBG and to ascertain if assistance in the Northside Community Group's fight against drugs and crime is eligible. Mayor Malone asked the Council and citizens if anyone had any suggestions or concerns. Council discussed funding and target areas of need. Citizen Charlie Young spoke on drainage assistance. Council directed Bob Herrera to work up a proposal of projected needs, with input from Councilperson Gay. Mayor Malone adjourned the citizens participation meeting at 8:40 P.M. and called for a short break. Mayor Malone reconvened the meeting at 8:56 P.M. e e Minutes, Public Hearing, Citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 9 16. Council considered adopting the city of La Porte Personnel Policy Manual Dated January 1, 1992 (Ord. 1798). Human Resources/Purchasing Manager Louis Rigby read and discussed with Council each item and change in the Personnel Policy Manual. city Attorney Knox Askins read: ORDINANCE 1798 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CITY OF LA PORTE PERSONNEL POLICYiMANUAL DATED JANUARY 1, 1992; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUsi; CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to adopt Ordinance 1798 as read by the city Attorney. Second by Councilperson McLaughlin. The motion carried, 8 ayes and 1 nay. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, Thrower, McLaughlin, Gay, Skelton, Clarke and Mayor Malone Councilperson Porter Nays: 17. Council considered an ordinance establishing new emergency medical service (EMS) rate structure for the City of La Porte ( Ord . 1799). Fire Chief Sease, with input from EMS Chief Chris Osten, discussed new rate structure for the City and recommended adoption thereof. City Attorney Knox Askins read: ORDINANCE 1799 - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE RATE STRUCTURE FOR THE CITY OF LA PORTE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Motion was made by Councilperson Coo~er to approve Ordinance 1799 as read by City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Thrower. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 10 18. Council considered resolution naming representative and alternate representative to the Houston-Galveston Area Council General Assembly/Board of Directors (Res. 91-15). Council nominated Councilperson Skelton as Representative and Councilperson Porter as Alternate. After discussion, both agreed to accept nomination of the Council. Motion was made bv Counciloerson Sutherland to approve Resolution 91-15 naminq Counciloerson Skelton as Representative and Counciloerson Porter as Alternate Reoresentative to the Houston-Galveston Area Council General Assembly/Board of Directors. Second by councilperson Cooper. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: 19. Council considered ratifying Change Order #2 for additional reinforcement steel in ceilings of the single and multi-story burn building at the Fire Training Facility. Assistant City Manager John Joerns led discussion with Council. Motion was made bv Councilperson Coooer to aoorove Change Order #2 in the amount of $7.461.00. Second by Councilperson McLaughlin. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, Thrower, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke and Mayor Malone None Nays: 20. Council contract services facility. considered authorizing City Manager to execute with Manning Engineering Corporation for engineering necessary to design and construct dechlorination Assistant Public Works Director Buddy Jacobs led discussion with Council. e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 11 Motion was made bY Councilperson Skelton to authorize the City Manaqer to execute the contract with Manninq Engineerinq Corporation. Second by Councilperson Sutherland. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, Thrower, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke and Mayor Malone Nays: None 21. Council considered approving award to Physio Control as sole source vendor for Life Pak 10 (Monitor/Defibrillator). Fire Chief Joe Sease led discussion with Council. Motion was made by Councilperson McLaughlin to a~prove purchase and award Physio Control as sole source vendor for Life Pak 10 (Monitor/Defibrillator. Second by Councilperson Gay. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: 22. Council considered authorizing purchase of 55 gallons of mosquito control chemical through interlocal agreement with the City of Bay town. Assistant Public Works Director Buddy Jacobs led discussion with the Council. Motion was made bv Councilnerson Gay to authorize purchase of 55 qallons of mosquito control chemical throuqh interlocal aqreement with the City of Bavtown. Second by Councilperson Thrower. The motion carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: e e Minutes, Public Hearing, citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City council December 9, 1991, Page 12 23. Consent Agenda: A. Consider awarding bid for plastic garbage bags B. Consider awarding a bid for lime slurry C. Consider awarding bid for crushed limestone (flexible base) D. Consider awarding a bid for a light system for baseball field E. Consider awarding a bid for a 5 Gang Reel Mower F. Consider awarding bid for furnishing of wastewater lab testing service Council discussed items on the consent agenda with the City Attorney and City staff. Motion was made bv Counciloerson Sutherland to aoprove items A. B. C. D. E and F of the consent agenda. Second by Councilperson Cooper. The motion carried, 8 ayes and 1 nay. Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, Thrower, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke and Mayor Malone Councilperson McLaughlin Nays: 24. Administrative Reports There were no administrative reports. 25. Council Action Councilpersons Cooper, Skelton, Clarke and Council's attention. Thrower, McLaughlin, Mayor Malone brought Porter, items to Gay, the 26. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:47 P.M. under V.A.T.S. Article 6252-17, A. section 2 (R) - (Conference), to receive report from City Manager on Main Street sidewalk project; B. section 2 (E) - (Legal), receive report from City Attorney on redistricting; C. section 2(E) - (Legal), receive report from City Attorney and special counsel on Allen Ray Prince Case. Council returned to the table at 11:08 P.M.. e e Minutes, Public Hearing, Citizens Participation Meeting, And Regular Meeting La Porte City Council December 9, 1991, Page 13 Item A. Council discussed Main street sidewalks. No action was taken. Item B. Mayor appointed a committee consisting of Councilpersons Gay, MCLaughlin, Mayor and City Attorney to meet together and prepare a map and recommendation for redistricting that will be acceptable to the minority community. Item C. had been discussed in the first executive session. Motion was made bv Counciloerson Gay to neqotiate with Construction reqardinq a orooosal reqardinq Main sidewalks. Second by Councilperson Sutherland. carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays. Follis Street Motion Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Cooper, McLaughlin, Porter, Gay, Skelton, Clarke Malone None Thrower, and Mayor Nays: Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to aoorove the committee aopointed to oreoare map and recommendation for redistrictinq. Second by Councilperson Cooper. The motion carried. 4 ayes, 1 nay and 2 abstain. Ayes: Councilpersons Cooper, Thrower, McLaughlin, Gay and Mayor Malone Nays: Councilperson Porter Abstain: Councilpersons Sutherland, Skelton 27. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Sue Lenes Assistant to the City Secretary Passed and Approved this the 13th day of January, 1992 e:~~~~ e e K- yY\ ~ \o~ 0\ ~ o~,~~ (~f'-' fC\~..-\\-..~ ~ Svl~ - ~J v--\T - SJ-ft \~q\ CITY OF LA PORTE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM October 17, 1991 TO: FROM: Bert Clark, Chairman "Employee of the Quarter Committee" .J). } Tim O'Connor, Recreation superintendent~ Nomination of Kelly J. Penewitt "Employee of the Quarter" 07 thru 09, 1991. SUBJECT: Kelly joined the City in January of 1990. During her twenty-one (21) months of employment she has made significant positive impacts on the recreational and leisure services offered our citizenry. Kelly has proven an excellent/multi-talented employee during her tenure. She was hired as the Fairmont Recreation Center Supervisor, but has been the driving force behind the implementation of our waterfront and watersafety programs. She has obtained six (6) certifications in the areas of aquatics and recreation services that were not prescribed as terms of her employment. She has completed these time/skill intensive courses at the top of her classes. Much of the time and some of her registration fees were covered out of her own resources. Kelly is a dedicated professional, who over and above her job responsibilities has taken the initiative to implement our new lifeguard certification programs, waterfront programs and a junior lifeguard program as well as the development of comprehensive operations and safety manuals for both our aquatics division and recreation division. In September of this year, Kelly was promoted to the position of Aquatics/Special Events Coordinator. Aside from the many demands of her new position, Kelly has continued to manage the Fairmont Center operation. I am extremely proud of Kelly and consider it an honor and privilege to have such a bright and dedicated employee on our "team". It is with much confidence that I recommend Kelly J. penewitt for recognition as "Employee of the Quarter" ,for the period of July thru September 1991. Thank you for your time and consideration of this nomination. If I may be of any further service to your committee in regards to this matter, please contact me at your nearest convenience. xc: Kelly Penewitt, Aquatics/Special Events Coordinator Stan Sherwood, Director of P.A.R.D. I W I.SOLVAY · SOLVAY POLYMERS e Quality Polymers Through Technology and People December 9, 1991 City of La Porte On behalf of Solvay Polymers, Inc., we are pleased to contribute $10,800.00 for a Piqua 30/60 Industrial Hi-Density Baler for use by the City of La Porte in its Recycling Programs. We sincerely hope that this machinery will "make a difference" in further establishing your city's plastic recycling efforts. a)a6~. A_~ W.O. Bachman Vice President Manufacturing Solvay Polymers, Inc. 1230 Battleground Road, Deer Park, Texas 77536 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1000, Deer Park, Texas 77536 713/479-2381 Fax: 713/479-3469 I (j) I SOLVAY SOLVAY POLYMERS tale IJ::I:~~;':~:' .i.~'~:l'~ ~IRSrll' IV VUIU Ar--I LI) 01/\ hiIUI'~ Ill-.J ~....:..~ Quality Polymers Through Technology and Pe0p/6 ~ Solvay PolYl11ers. Inc. P.O. Box 27328/ Houston, Texas 77227-7328 Date chINO. 1131 e Net Amount 12/03/91 00163120 SlO,800.00USD Pay To The Order Of: I....;. C I TV OF J.APOR TE PO BOX l1i5 LAPORTf: TX 11512 \ ,.. ,;;,:{}'~~>';~lt,\,!,. I ,. Authorized Representatlve(s) III ~b~ ~ 20111 I: ~ ~~ ~ 2 2~ 251: o 5 2 q 0 2111 01-001-191105 SOLVAY POLYMERS-GREENWAY Check No. 00163120 v oucher Invoice Purchase Invoice Amount Discount Net Amount Number Number Order Date 11186 110191 11-07-91 10,800.00 .00 10,800.00 ALING UNIT . AME C ~ANGEO FROM S OLTEX POL' MER 10,800.00 .00 10,800.00 Address all inquiries relating to lhis remillance to Solvay Polymers, Inc./ P.O. Box 27328 I Houslon. Texas 77227-7328 I (713) 522-1781 I Allention: Accounts Payable Please Detach Before Depositing 1 B N Offi~e of the ~ayor 0\1 ~(J () ~~#ii"&9 r ion DJl~rrra.a : The City of La Porte is most fortunate to have a resident who was born and raised in our City and who has been a "historian" most of his life; and WHEREAS, this dedicated and hard working individual has given wlselfishly of his time and energies so others could benefit from his great resource and knowledge of the history of our City; and WHEREAS, this individual has shared his historical pictures, documents and knowledge with interested and inquiring persons throughout the State of Texas; and WHEREAS, it is felt that this gentleman, who is one of LaPorte's finest sons, should be named as the official "JIistorian" of the City of La Porte because of his contributions of historical knowledge. NOW, THEREFORE, I, NORMAN MALONE, MAYOR of the City of La Porte, do hereby proclaim that GORDON BLACK shall be recognized as the Official Historian for the City of La Porte from this day forward, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to recognize the contributions which Gordoll Black, Historian, has provided to La Porte and its citizens. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of La P0I1e to be affixed hereto, this the 9th day of December, 1991. CITY OIl' LA PORTE Norman L. Malone, Mayor . . e e December 5, 1991 Honerable City Council Members City of LaPorte P.O. Box 1115 LaPorte, Texas 77571 Re: City Ordinance # 1784 Dear Council Members: On October 28, 1991, I made a personal appeal to the City Council to see if my hunting rights on 300 acres of land could be grand fathered under the amended City Ordinance 1784, since hunting on the land did not pose any threat to Public Health or Safety. Obviously the issues that I raised did not warrant further consideration by the Council and therefore I must reconnoiter all of the options available to me under the Law. In my letter to the City I also addressed the fact that the City had no intention of keeping their promise to the landowners 18 years ago, that if the landowners did not oppose annexation, the City would reciprocate by providing utilities to the tract. I have since recommended to the landowners that they pursue Deannexation from the City of LaPorte, since the City is not providing any services to the landowners for the City Taxes that have been paid over the past 18 years. The City Council amended an ordinance at the request of one small taxpayer, to the detriment of several large taxpayers and at considerable expense to me personally. The City Councils' action constitutes a " Taking " and therefore the City should compensate me for my financial loss, that resulted from your actions. I enclose herewith a UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT LANDMARK TAKINGS OPINION, for your legal counsel to review. Since the ordinance only speaks to " game animals as defined by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code "I assume that by the City Councils' lack of response to my stocking the property with Mouflon Rams, Barbadoau Sheep and other non "game animals" that it is acceptable for me to do so and therefore I will. Respectfully yours, iti!~ /l:~ Mul'WcIPAUTIES 1I4f THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT " June 9, 1987 - Special issue containing entire text of the Court's landmark "takings. opinion. NOTE: Where it is (euible. I.yllabus (headnote) will be released. u it beinl done in coMection with thi. case. at the time tile opinion is issued. E. Ilabua constitutes no part o( the opinion o( the Court but has been J)re- by tile Re~rter o( Decisions (or tile convenience o( the reader. See Il'Wd StlJlu v. Detroit LumbtT Co.. 200 U. S. 321. 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT No. 85-1199. Argued January 14, 1987-Decided June 9. 1987 In 1957, appellant church purchased land on which it operated a camp- ground, known as "Lutherglen," as a retreat center and a recreational area for handicapped children. The land is located in a canyon along the banks of a creek that is the natural drainage channel for a watershed areL In 1978, a flood destroyed Lutherglen'. buildings. In response to the flood. appellee Los Angeles County, in 1979. adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of any building or structure in an interim flood protection area that included the land on which Lutherglen had stood. Shortly after the ordinance was adopted. appellant filed suit in a California trial court. alleging, inter a.lia.. that the ordinance denied appellant all use of Lutherglen. and seeking to recover damages in inverse condemnation for such loss of use. The trial court granted a motion to strike the allegation. basing its niling on Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266.598 P. 2d 25 (afr'd on other grounds. 447 U. S. 255). in which the California Supreme Court held that a landowner may not maintain an inverse condemnation suit based upon a "regulatory" taking, and that compensation is not required until the challenged regu- lation or ordinance has been held excessive in an action for declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus and the government has nevertheless de- cided to continue the regulation in effect. Because appellant alleged a regulatory taking and !'ought only damages, the trial court deemed the allegation that the ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen to be irrele- vant. The California Court of Appeal affinned. Held.: 1. The claim that the Agina case improperly held that the Just Com- pensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation (For an announcement concerning the dissent, refer to the last page of this issue.) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS 1000 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. NoW. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202) 466.5424 Charles S. Rhyne, EdItor-in-Chief Jan MaJe~sld, EdItor Rachel Sobin Ullman, Assistant Editor D FIRST LIHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGlES COUNTY Syllabus as a remedy Cor "temporary" regulatory takings-those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts-is properly pre- sented in this case. In earlier cases, this Court was unable to reach the question because either the regulations considered to be in issue by the state courts did not effect a taking, or the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred. Here, the California Court of Appeal assumed that the complaint sought damages for the uncompensated "taking" of all use of Lutherglen by the ordinance, and relied on the California Supreme Court's Agins decision for the conclusion that the remedy for the taking was limited to nonmonetary relief, thus isolating the remedial question for this Court's consideration. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo CCYUnty, 477 U. S. -; Williamson Ccyunty Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172; San Diego Gas &: Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621; and Agim, all distinguished. pp. 5-8. 2. Under the Just Compensation Clause, where the government has "taken" property by a land-use regulation, the landowner may recover damages for the time before it is finally detennined that the regulation constitutes a WWdng" of his property. The Clause is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interfer- ence amounting to a taking. A landowner is entitled to bring an action in inverse condemnation as a result of the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to compensation. While the typi- cal taking occurs when the government acts to condemn property in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, the doctrine of inverse con- demnation is predicated on the proposition that a taking may occur with- out such Connal proceedings. "Temporary" regulatory takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from pennanent takings for which the Constitution clearly requires compensa.tion. Once a court detennines that a taking has occurred, the government retains the whole range of options already available-:- amendment of the regulation, withdrawal of the invalidated regulation,oor exercise of eminent domain. But where the government's activities have am~ady worked a taking of all use ot property, no subsequent action by the government oan nlllvl It ot thl duty to provldl oompenlltlon tor the period durlnlJ whloh the takJnl WAl IfTloUvl. (nvalhlaUon ot thl ordinance without payment 01 fair value for the use of the property during such period would be a constitutionally insufficient remedy. pp. 9-16. Reversed and remanded. e e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY nI Syllabus REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREN- NAN, WIDTE, MARsHALL, POWELL, and ScAUA, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in Parts I and III of which BLACKMUN and O'CONNOR, JJ., join. NO'~C . opinion is Iubject to. tonnaJ revision bertAubUeation in the pre" rint of the United States Reporta. ReadllPare requested to DotiIJ the .porter of Deciaions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wub- iftctOn. D. C. 20643, of any typographical or other formal error'l, in order that c:orrectiona may be made before the preliminary print roes to prell. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 85-1199 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE, APPELLANT v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT [June 9, 1987] CWEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case the California Court of Appeal held that a land- owner who claims that his property has been "taken" by a land-use regulation may not recover damages for the time be- fore it is finally determined that the regulation constitutes a "taking" of his property. We disagree, and conclude that in these circumstances the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution would require compensa- tion for that period. In 1957, appellant First English Evangelical Lutheran Church purchased a 21-acre parcel of land in a canyon along the banks of the Middle Fork of Mill Creek in the Angeles . National Forest. The Middle Fork is the natural drainage channel for a watershed area owned by the National Forest Service. Twelve of the acres owned by the church are flat land, and contained a dining hall, two bunkhouses, a care- taker's lodge, an outdoor chapel, and a footbridge across the creek. The church operated on the site a campground, lmown as "Lutherglen," as a retreat center and a recreational area for handicapped children. In July 1977, a forest fire denuded the hills upstream from Lutherglen, destroying approximately 3,860 acres of the wa- e 85-1199-0PINION e 2 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY tershed area and creating a serious flood hazard. Such flooding occurred on February 9 and 10, 1978, when a storm dropped 11 inches of rain in the watershed. The runoff from the storm overflowed the banks of the Mill Creek, flooding Lutherglen and destroying its buildings. In response to the flooding of the canyon, appellee County of Los Angeles adopted Interim Ordinance No. 11,855 in Jan- uary 1979. The ordinance provided that "[a] person shall not construct, reconstruct, place or enlarge any building or struc- ture, any portion of which is, or will be, located within the outer boundary lines of the interim flood protection area lo- cated in Mill Creek Canyon. . .." App. to Juris. Statement A31. The ordinance was effective immediately because the county detennined that it was "required for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety . . . ." I d., at A32. The interim flood protection area described by the or- dinance included the flat areas on either side of Mill Creek on which Lutherglen had stood. The church filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Cali- fornia a little more than a month after the ordinance was adopted. As subsequently amended, the complaint alleged two claims against the county and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The first alleged that the defendants were liable under Cal. Gov't Code Ann. ~ 835 (West 1980) 1 for dangerous conditions on their upstream properties that contributed to the flooding of Lutherglen. As a part of this claim, appellant also alleged that "Ordinance No. 11,855 de- nies [appellant] all use of Lutherglen." App. 12, 49. The second claim sought to recover from the Flood District in in- verse condemnation and in tort for engaging in cloud seeding during the stonn that flooded Lutherglen. Appellant sought damages under each count for loss of use of Lutherglen. The defendants moved to strike the portions of the complaint al- I Section 835 or the California Government Code establishes conditions under which a public entity may be liable "for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property. . . ." e 85-1199-0PINION e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 3 leging that the county's ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen, on the view that the California Supreme Court's decision in Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P. 2d 25 (1979), aff'd on other grounds, 447 U. S. 255 (1980), rendered the allegation "entirely immaterial and irrelevant(, with] no bearing upon any conceivable cause of action herein." App. 22. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. ~ 436 (West Supp. 1987) ("The court may. . . strike out any irrelevant, false, or im- proper matter inserted in any pleading"). Iri Agins v. Tiburon, supra, the Supreme Court of Califor- nia decided that a landowner may not maintain an inverse condemnation suit in the courts of that State based upon a "regulatory" taking. 24 Cal. 3d, at 275-277, 598 P. 2d, at 29-31. In the court's view, maintenance of such a suit would allow a landowner to force the legislature to exercise its power of eminent domain. Under this decision, then, com- pensation is not required until the challenged regulation or ordinance has been held excessive in an action for declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus and the government has never- theless decided to continue the regulation in effect. Based on. this decision, the trial court in the present case granted the motion to strike the allegation that the church had been denied all use of Lutherglen. It explained that "a careful re- reading of the Agins case persuades the Court that when an ordinance, even a non-zoning ordinance, deprives a person of the total use of his lands, his challenge to the ordinance is by way of declaratory relief or possibly mandamus." App. 26. Because the a.ppellant alleged a regulatory taking and sought only damages, the allegation that the ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen was deemed irrelevant. Z · The trial court also granted deCendants' motion Cor judgment on the pleadings on the second cause oC action, based on cloud seeding. It limited trial on the first cause oC action for damages under Cal. Gov't Code Ann. f 835 (West 1980), rejecting the inverse condemnation claim. At the close of plainttff's evidence, the trial court granted a nonsuit on behalf oC defend- ants, dismissing the entire complaint. e 85-1199-0PINION e 4 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY On appeal, the California Court of Appeal read the com- plaint as one seeking "damages for the uncompensated taking of all use of Lutherglen by County Ordinance No. 11,855 . . .." App. to Juris. Statement AI3-AI4. It too relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in Agins in rejecting the cause of action, declining appellant's invitation to reevalu- ate Agins in light of this Court's opinions in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621 (1981). The court found itself obligated to follow Agins "because the United States Supreme Court has not yet roled on the question of whether a state may constitutionally limit the remedy for a taking to nonmonetary relief . . . ." App. to Juris. State- ment A16. It accordingly affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the allegations. concerning appellee's ordinance. 3 The Supreme Court of California denied review. a'The California Court of Appeal also affinned the lower court's orders limiting the issues for trial on the first cause of action, granting a nonsuit on the issues that proceeded to trial, and dismissing the second cause of action-based on cloud seeding-to the extent it was founded on a theory of strict liability in tort. The court reversed the trial court's ruling that the second cause of action could not be maintained against the Flood Con- trol District under the theory of inverse condemnation. The case was re. manded for further proceedings on this claim. These circumstances alone, apart from the more particular issues pre. sented in takings cases and discussed in the text, require us to consider whether the pending resolution of further liability questions deprives us of jurisdiction because we are not presented with a "final judgmen[t] or de- cre[e]" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. t 1257. We think that this case is fairly characterized as one "in which the federal issue, finally decided bY the highest court in the State [in which a decision could be had], will sur- vive regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings." C oz Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 480 (1~75). As we explain infra, at ---, the California Court of Appeal rejected appellant's federal claim that it was entitled to just compensation from the county for the taking of its property; this distinct issue of federal law will survive and require decision no matter how further proceedings resolve the issues con- cerning the liability of the flood control district for its cloud seeding operation. e 85-ll99-0PINION e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 5 This appeal followed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 478 U. S. -. Appellant asks us to hold that the Supreme Court of California erred in Agins v. Tiburon in detennining that the Fifth Amendment, as made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not require com- pensation as a remedy for "temporary" regulatory takings- those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts..a Four times this decade, we have considered similar claims and have found ourselves for one reason or an- other unable to consider the merits of the Agins rule. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. - (l98~); Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172 (1985); San Diego Gas & Electric Co., supra; Agins v. Tiburon, supra. For the rea- sons explained below, however, we find the constitutional claim properly presented in this case, and hold that on these facts the California courts lic:.,e decided the compensation question inconsistently with the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. I Concerns with finality left us unable to reach the remedial question in the earlier cases where we have been asked to consider the rule of Agins. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates, supra, at - (summarizing cases). In each of these cases, we concluded either that regulations considered to be in issue by the state court did not effect a taking, Agins v. Tiburon, supra, at 263, or that the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates, supra, at -; Williamson County, supra, at-; San Diego Gas & Electric Co., supra, at 631-623. Consider- 4 The Fifth Amendment provides "nor shall private property be taken Cor public use, without just compensation," and applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897). e 85-l199-0PINION e 6 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ation of the remedial question in those circumstances, we concluded, would be premature. The posture of the present case is quite different. Appel- lant's complaint alleged that "Ordinance No. 11,855 denies [it] all use of Lutherglen," and sought damages for this depri- vation. App. 12, 49. In affinning the decision to strike this allegation, the Court of Appeal assumed that the complaint sought "damages for the uncompensated taking of all use of Lutherglen by County Ordinance No. 11,855." App. to Ju- ris. Statement A13-A14 (emphasis added). It relied on the California Supreme Court's Agins decision for the conclusion that "the remedy for a taking [is limited] to nonmonetary re- lief. . .." Id., at A16 (emphasis added). The disposition of the case on these grounds isolates the remedial question for our consideration. The rejection of appellant's allegations did not rest on the view that they were false. Cf. M acDon- aid, Sommer & Frates, supra, at -, n. 8 (California court rejected allegation in the complaint that appellant was de- prived of all beneficial use of its property); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S., at 259, n. 6 (same). Nor did the court rely on the theory that regulatory measures such as Ordinance No. 11,855 may never constitute a taking in the constitutional sense. Instead, the claims were deemed irrelevant solely because of the California Supreme Court's decision in Agins that damages are unavailable to redress a "temporary" regu- latory taking. II The California Court of Appeal has thus held 'It has been urgeci that the California Supreme Court's discussion of the compensation question in Agins v. Tibunm, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P. 2cr25 (1979), aff'd on other grounds, 447 U. S. 255 (1980), was dictum, because the court had already decided that the regulations could not work a taking. See Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 703 F. 2d 1141, 1147 (CA9 1983) ("extended dictum"). The Court of Appeal in this case consid- ered and rejected the possibility that the compensation discussion in Agins was dictum. See App. to Juris. Statement A14-A15, quoting Aptos Sea- scape Corp. v. County of Santa Cruz, 138 Ca!. App. 3d 484, 493, 188 Cal. Rptr. 191, 195 (1982) ("[I]t is apparent that the Supreme Court itself did not intend its discussion [of inverse condemnation as a remedy for a taking] e ~l199-0PINIO~ FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 7 that regardless of the correctness of appellants' claim that the challenged ordinance denies it "all use of Lutherglen" ap- pellant may not recover damages until the ordinance is finally declared unconstitutional, and then only for any period after that declaration for which the county seeks to enforce it. The constitutional question pretermitted in our earlier cases is therefore squarely presented here.6 We reject appellee's suggestion that, regardless of the state court's treatment of the question, we must independ- ently evaluate the adequacy of the complaint and resolve the takings claim on the merits before we can reach the remedial question. However "cryptic"-to use appellee's descrip- tion-the allegations with respect to the taking were, the California courts deemed them sufficient to present the issue. We accordingly have no occasion to decide whether the ordi- nance at issue actually denied appellant all use of its prop- erty 7 or whether the county nJght avoid the conclusion that to be considered dictum. . . . and it has r.nt ~n treated as such in subse.- quent Court of Appeal cases"). Whether trea~!:'!f: ~he claim as a takings claim is inconsistent with the first holding of Agins is not a matter for our concern. It is enough that the court did so for us to reach the remedial question. · Our cases have also required that one seeking compensation must "seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so" before the claim is ripe for review. Williamson County Re- gional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172, 194 (1985). It is clear that appellant met this requirement. Having assumed that a taking occurred, the California court's dismissal of the action establishes that "the inverse condemnation procedure is unavailable. . . ." Id., at 197. The compensation claim is accordingly ripe for our consideration.. T Because the issue was not raised in the complaint or considered rele- vant by the California courts in their assumption that a taking had oc- curred, we also do not consider the effect of the county's pennanent ordi- nance on the conclusions of the courts. below. That ordinance, adopted in 1981 and reproduced at App. to Juris. Statement A32-A33, provides that "[a] person shall not use; erect, construct, move onto, or. . . alter, modify, enlarge or reconstruct any building or structure within the boundaries of a flood protection district except . . . [a]ccessory buildings and structures that will not substantially impede the flow of water, including sewer, gas, e 85-1199--0PINION e 8 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY a compensable taking had 'occurred by establishing that the denial of all use was insulated as a part of the State's author- ity to enact safety regulations. See e. g., Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590 (1962); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U. S. 394 (1915); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 (1887). These questions, of course, remain open for decision on the remand we direct today . We now turn to the question of whether the Just Compensation Clause requires the govern- ment to pay for "temporary" regulatory takings. 8 electrical, and water systems, approved by the county engineer. . . [a]uto- mobile parking facilities incidental to a lawfully established use . . . [and] [f]lood-control structures approved by the chief engineer of the Los Ange- les County Flood Control District." County Code t 22.44.220. . · In addition to challenging the finality of the takings decision below, appellee raises two other challenges to our jurisdiction. First, going to both the appellate and certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. t 1257, appellee alleges that appellant has failed to preserve for review any claim under federal law. Though the complaint in this case in- voked only the California Constitution, appellant argued in the Court of Appeal that "recent Federal decisions. . . show the Federal Constitutional error'in. . . Agins[ v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P. 2d 25 (1979)]." App. to Appellant's Opposition to Appellee's Second Motion to Dismiss Al3. The Court of Appeal, by applying the state rule of Agins to dismiss appel- lant's action, rejected on the merits the claim that the rule violated the United States Constitution. This disposition makes irrelevant for our pur- poses any deficiencies in the complaint as to federal issues. Where the state court has considered and decided the constitutional claim, we need not consider how or when the question was raised. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S.123, 134 (1914). Having succeeded in bringing the federal issue into the case, appellant preserved this question on appeal to the Supreme Court of California, see App. to Appellant's Opposition to Ap- pellee's Second Motion to Dismiss A14-A22, which declined to reView its Agins decision. Accordingly, we find that the issue urged here was both raised and passed upon below. Second, appellant challenges our appellate jurisdiction on the grounds that the case below did not draw "in question the validity of a statute of any state. . . ... 28 U. S. C. i 1257(2). There is, of course, no doubt that the ordinance at issue in this case is "a statute of [a] state" for purposes of t 1257. See Ennoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 207, n. 3 (1975). As COl18trued by the state courts, the complaint in this case al. e 85-l199-0PINION e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 9 II Consideration of the compensation question must begin with direct reference to the language of the Fifth Amend- ment, which provides in relevant part that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensa- tion." As its language indicates, and as the Court has fre- quently noted, this provision does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exer- cise of that power. See Williamson County, 473 U. S., at -; Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 297, n. 40 (1981); Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S. 95, 104 (1932); Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336 (1893); United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 518 (1883). This basic understand- ing of the Amendment makes clear that it is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of other- wise proper interference amounting to a taking. Thus, gov- ernment action that works a taking of property rights neces- sarily implicates the "constitutional obligation to pay just compensation." Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960). We have recognized that a landowner is entitled to bring an action in inverse condemnation as a result of "'the self- executing character of the constitutional provision with re- leged that the ordinance, by denying all use of the property, worked a tak- ing without providing for just compensation. We have frequently treated such challenges to zoning ordinances as challenges to their validity under the federal constitution, and see no reason to revise that approach. here. See, e. g., MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. - (1986); Loretta v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980); Penn Central Transporta- tion Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978). By holding that the fail- ure to provide compensation was not unconstitutional, moreover, the Cali- fomia courts upheld the validity of the statute against the particular federal constitutional question at issue here-just compensation-and the case is therefore within the terms of f 1257(2). e 85-l199-0PINION e 10 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY spect to compensation. . . .''' United States v. Clarke, 445 U. S. 253, 257 (1980), quoting 6 P. Nichols, Eminent Domain ~ 25.41 (3d rev. ed. 1972). As noted in JUSTICE BRENNAN'S di$sent in San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 450 U. S., at 654-655, it has been established at least since Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13 (1933), that claims for just com- pensation are grounded in the Constitution itself: "The suits were based on the right to recover just com- pensation for property taken by the United States for public use in the exercise of its power of eminent domain. That right was guaranteed by the Constitution. The fact that condemnation proceedings were not instituted and that the right was asserted in suits by the owners did not change the essential nature of the claim. The form of the remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition was not necessary. A promise to pay was not necessary. Such a promise was implied because of the duty imposed by the Amendment. The suits were thus founded upon the Constitution of the United States." Id., at 16. (Em- phasis added.) Jacobs, moreover, does not stand alone, for the Court has frequently repeated the view that, in the event of a taking, the compensation remedy is required by the Constitution. See e. g., Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U. S. 1, 5 (1984); United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 267 (1946); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299, 304-306 (1923); Monongahela Navigation, supra, at 327. · 'The Solicitor General urges that the prohibitory nature of the Fifth Amendment, see supra, at -, combined with principles of sovereign im- munity, establishes that the Amendment itself is only a limitation on the power of the Government to act, not a remedial provision. The cases cited in the text, we think, refute the argument of the United States that "the Constitution does not, of its own force, furnish a basis for a court to award money damages against the government." Brief for United States as e 85-1199-0PINION e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 11 It has also been established doctrine at least since Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393 (1922) that "[t]he generaIrule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." Id., at 415. While the typical taking occurs when the gov- ernment acts to condemn property in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, the entire doctrine of inverse con- demnation is predicated on the proposition that a taking may occur without such fonnal proceedings. In Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 177-178 (1872), constnring a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution identical to the Just Compensation Clause, this Court said: "It would be a very curious and unsatisfactory result if . . . it shall be held that if the government refrains from the absolute conversion of real property to the uses of the public it can destroy its value entirely, can inflict irreparable and permanent injury to any extent, can, in effect, subject it to total destruction without making any compensation, because, in the narrowest sense of that word, it is not taken for the public use." Later cases have unhesitatingly applied this principle. See, e. g., Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164 (1979); United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 750 (1947); United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256 (1946). While the Supreme Court of California may not have actu- ally disavowed this general rule in Agins, we believe that .it has truncated the role by disallowing damages that occurrea prior to the ultimate invalidation of the challenged regula- Amicus Curiae 14. Though arising in various factual and jurisdictional settings, these cases make clear that it is the Constitution that dictates the remedy for interference with property rights amounting to a taking. See San Diego Gas &: Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621, 655, n. 21 (1981) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), quoting United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 748 (1947). e 85-ll99-0PINION e 12 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY tion. The Supreme Court of California justified its conclu- sion at length in the Agins opinion, concluding that: "In combination, the need for preserving a degree of freedom in the land-use planning function, and the in- hibiting financial force which inheres in the inverse condemnation remedy, persuade us that on balance man- damus or declaratory relief rather than inverse con- demnation is the appropriate relief under the circum- stances." Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d, at 276-277, 598 P. 2d, at 31. We, of course, are not unmindful of these considerations, but they must be evaluated in the light of the command of the - Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court has recognized in more than one case that the govern- ment may elect to abandon its intrusion or discontinue regu- lations. See.e. g., Kirby Forest Industries; Inc. v. United States, 467 U. S. 1 (1984); United States v. Dow, 357 U. S. 17, 26 (1958). Similarly,a governmental body may acquiesce in a judicial declaration that one of its ordinances has affected an unconstitutional taking of property; the landowner has no right under the Just Compensation Clause to insist that a "temporary" taking be deemed a permanent taking. But we have not resolved whether abandonment by the government requires payment of compensation for the period of time dur- ing which regulations deny a landowner all use of his land. In considering this question, we find substantial guidance in cases where the government has only temporarily exer- cised its right to use private property. In United States v. Dcyw, supra, at 26, though rejecting a claim that the Govern- ment may not abandon condemnr tion proceedings, the Court observed that abandonment "results in an alteration in the' property interest taken-from [one of] full ownership to one of temporary use and occupation. . . . In such cases com- pensation would be measured by the principles normally gov- erning the taking of a right to use property temporarily. See Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U. S. 1 e 85-1199-0PINION e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 13 [1949]; United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S. 372 [1946]; United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373 [1945]." Each of the cases cited by the Dow Court involved appropriation of private property by the United States for use during World War II. Though the takings were in fact "temporary," see Petty Motor Co., supra, at 375, there was no question that compensation would be required for the Government's interference with the use of the property; the Court was concerned in each case with determining the proper measure of the monetary relief to which the property holders were entitled. See Kimball Laundry Co., supra, at 4-21; Petty Motor Co., supra, 377-381; General Motors, supra, at 379-384. These cases reflect the fact that "temporary" takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation. Cf. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 450 U. S., at 657 (BRENNAN, J., dissent- ing) ("Nothing in the Just Compensation Clause suggests that 'takings' must be pennanent and irrevocable"). It is axiomatic that the Fifth Amendment's just compensation provision is "designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Arm- strong v. United States, 364 U. S., at 49. See also Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S., at 123-125; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United St.ates, 148 U. S., at 325. In the present case the interim ordinance was adopted by the county of Los Angeles in January 1979, ana became effective immediately. Appellant filed suit within a month after the effective date of the ordinance and yet when the Supreme Court of California denied a hearing in the case on October 17, 1985, the merits of appellant's claim had yet to be determined. The United States has been required to pay compensation for leasehold interests of shorter duration than this. The value of a leasehold interest in property for a pe- riod of years may be substantial, arid the burden on the prop- e 85-l199-0PINION e 14 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY erty owner in extinguishing such an interest for a period of years may be great indeed. See, e. g., United States v. Gen- eral Motors, supra. Where this burden results from govern- mental action that amounted to a taking, the Just Compensa- tion Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that the government pay the landowner for the value of the use of the land during this period. Cf. United States v. Causby, 328 U. S., at 261 ("It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken"). Invalidation of the ordinance or its successor ordinance after this period of time, though converting the taking into a "tem- porary" one, is not a sufficient remedy to meet the demands of the Just Compensation Clause. Appellee argues that requiring compensation for denial of all use of land prior to invalidation is inconsistent with this Court's decisions in Danforth v. United States, 308 U. S. 271 (1939), and Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980). In Dan- forth, the landowner contended that the "taking" of his prop- erty had occurred prior to the institution of condemnation proceedings, by reason of the enactment of the Flood Control Act itself. He claimed that the passage of that Act had di- minished the value of his property because the plan embodied in the Act required condemnation of a flowage easement across his property. The Court held that in the context of condemnation proceedings a taking does not occur until com- pensation is determined and paid, and went on to say that "[a] reduction or increase in the value of property may occur by reason of legislation for or the beginning or completion o(a project," but "[s]uch changes in value are incidents of own- ership. They cannot be considered as a 'taking' in the consti- tutional sense." Danforth, supra, at 285. Agins likewise rejected a claim that the city's preliminary activities consti- tuted a taking, saying that "[m]ere fluctuations in value dur- ing the process of governmental decisionmaking, absent ex- traordinary delay, are 'incidents of ownership.'" See 447 U. S., at 263, n. 9. e 85-l199-0PINION__ FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 13 [1949]; United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S. 372 [1946]; United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373 [1945]." Each of the cases cited by the Dow Court involved appropriation of private property by the United States for use during W orld War II. Though the takings were in fact '1emporary," see Petty Motor Co., supra, at 375, there was no question that compensation would be required for the Government's interference with the use of the property; the Court was concerned in each case with detennining the proper measure of the monetary relief to which the property holders were entitled. See Kimball Laundry Co., supra, at 4-21; Petty Motor Co., supra, 377-381; General Motors, supra, at 379-384. These cases reflect the fact that "temporary" takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation. Cf. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 450 U. S., at 657 (BRENNAN, J., dissent- ing) ("Nothing in the Just Compensation Clause suggests that 'takings' must be permanent and irrevocable"). It is axiomatic that the Fifth Amendment's just compensation provision is "designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Arm- strong v. United States, 364 U. S., at 49. See also Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S., at. 123-125; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S., at 325. In the present case the interim ordinance was adopted by the county of Los Angeles in January 1979, and became effective immediately. Appellant filed suit within a month after the effective date of the ordinance and yet when the Supreme Court of California denied a hearing in the case on October 17, 1985, the merits of appellant's claim had yet to be determined. The United States has been required to pay compensation for leasehold interests of shorter duration thanethis. The value of a leasehold interest in property for a pe- riod of years may be substantial, arid the burden on the prop- e 85-1199-0PINION e 14 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY erty owner in extinguishing such an interest for a period of years may be great indeed. See, e. g., United States v. Gen- eral Motors, supra. Where this burden results from govern- mental action that amounted to a taking, the Just Compensa- tion Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that the government pay the landowner for the value of the use of the land during this period. Cf. United States v. Causby, 328 U. S., at 261 ("It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken"). Invalidation of the ordinance or its successor ordinance after this period of time, though converting the taking into a "tem- porary" one, is not a sufficient remedy to meet the demands of the Just Compensation Clause. Appellee argues that requiring compensation for denial of all use of land prior to invalidation is inconsistent with this Court's decisions in Danforth v. United States, 308 U. S. 271 (1939), and Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980). In Dan- forth, the landowner contended that the "taking" of his prop- erty had occurred prior to the institution .of condemnation proceedings, by reason of the enactment of the Flood Control Act itself. He claimed that the passage of that Act had di- minished the value of his property because the plan embodied in the Act required condemnation of a flowage easement across his property. The Court held that in the context of condemnation proceedings a taking does not occur until com- pensation is determined and paid, and went on to say that "[a] reduction or increase in the value of property may occur by reason of legislation for or the beginning or completion o(a project," but "[s]uch changes in value are incidents of own- ership. They cannot be considered as a 'taking' in the consti- tutional sense." Danforth, supra, at 285. Agins likewise rejected a claim that the city's preliminary activities consti- tuted a taking, saying that "[m]ere fluctuations in value dur- ing the process of governmental decisionmaking, absent ex- traordinary delay, are 'incidents of ownership.'" See 447 U. S., at 263, D. 9. e e .. . v ~ U iii:!!! I\I~ E~ IllD 1l/UlF.!!1I1- '9 _ :i !f ~~ I ~:: Hi I": 1IIJ1 .nllf: I. <<If,........... ..-It 1ft:'!!: JI~:lnllln,"::::iil ....'IIe.nbe'-s m= 1[111 ii II"" ....111 1J[]l1l"~ I: 1]0 Ill...... Ie: UIIIO II' 11[1lIIlj:l~IIf.]Ii"II::e.~ ...-exn:s: -1'75-1'1 O'U~'!!il[II" f.::,u::..~u.nc:ii. Me.nbe....s... I d1"llE!eN will: 1I.1l.lIIif)llU*d be <<:lot' ...e~'!jj:1t ill'UllltelM"'e:!5l~1t II::t:t IfI:W.u~ tI.:iit.:llj1 if.:lf' 1Il.'UP'IJIoIll-II::Ijf.l.!: i(j:ifl::J~ illl1l'IfII:1lellnell'lIIlt' '1lI91l1l1l"'oqe s.ole IAie.........iill:. pll-OV.........DIII._ . .....e Jl.1Blf"ol[-! UIII/rlllflj blj[!!!lIh.iilfulll soa:=:belldlhlde in de,uliill"ujI 1I..,.I:h this:.. P'-IlCII"'lellu,_ The t:::iit.:iiil:!!l:!!jj: ..:..1' r.tJIJ!l:!!il~t:lIIllllII:.'!:1I1fJllDl ilulId Dee.- II-lJIoll-k lIhroue 1.....J1d 01. Cil:l~. CU-IjfJllilulIlOlnce on 't;JII[Ulllrn9~F.!!: :!jj.OIWes .:0.... s:,,:!!:uE!lIl-ol. llIj,1eoof's_ · IllUIII't,fl'e: "fll/ltll::l(llol[~bed 1(11 COIrJtlllj. allf I:he Cii II: IlIJ' 0111: Pil':!ij:I(UI4l:1!:I""I1-S ...~ill::'J olu..i1c'.iin'Bullc:e :lUIft:fIu/'i.--.I:rL"I Guru. a ,C'ICIof.IItlIJJ otlf t:he t~iilll:lII' 011" IIl:h:!!le.- .lli..lII....k-s 1(!!l::IIl&:lft:..h:uU.lIllftiiil:Ufft llt...1f .:III1Eur....ill:s. ........d If,ees 11'. e....u"-4eHI:/L. 1.1 o p'[!".ld h:1II 1I,t:.nJl CtJ(UlII /Use IItblJ:!!!SoE!: .lIlI:l:oclulIlIenll:s..'.os" '91uideliilllllles l1fi.....-.ulII l(:u.dinIjfJlI.....:::oE!!! 11111 OIl.U. OU....III <<:: ill: 11'_ . . IUlluf:!!i "', olso. ot:I::oc:bed rU list: Oof' si911rulluJllII:ll.lof'es oI:IJli1: P'l!!:OI)Jlfte lI.ubo live iillllll.loPo..t:e llI.....IlI1IOI[IU..e mlllllll:e..est:ed in t:he Clift"', ii:!i>SlIlIIiill'u.J Illoelll".nit:5~.... ",:ulIhJ asked ....... hl[UllIIUn::ul of,.' peop....'!!l_ oIlI'fU:~ . .]111' ltlll~~:S:J1!: ptl'!!:ople: 'on lllJle.-e 11"011" . Itbis p.-I[]II'.liI'"l[.n._ :s......... '11101.11 'l:.;oa:IllIU.. ;!,jj:'P-ltlE!!: lI:....ell-e is ; oltlllst:....onq . iill1lll::e......:!!:sll: .'0.. It.: h J1!: .....if!!lll-....II iill.: 5_ . .... ~. . , 1lI~.IIIHIlI,=' do II d::eel so. s 1:... 0 111 9 I..,. 11"00.... tthii:s::. ~c:u-di""oOlIrlic:e 11::0 be 1f.,4[UI:!!;i:s.!!d.? . m ftu:lue lived in t:he .c:it:IJ . all::. 1....1tIlJl..."]'....lI:e I'D.... "'111 lIiHf':lI:h>.!! ........'~.JIIl[.~III- II 1I;.eoU:lurs .......'1'1.._. . III: . is .. 9....::...uiin9. of'opidlllJ llIuill:h. oU II::lhi'1E!!: 1I1lif:!!!1l1ll.Jl hl/(l~IUnlle!::~ beiilllllQ buiillt:_ . ~iike, 111...1'11<<111:. see_ B....II: I:he....e is oDIlIfIIl iill.lIl'lIrIlllllll'iE.".:diiiflli:e 1l:.............blle:ulII in 1"111111). subdivisio.... lJI.11.11iil:h 08:11 hon..enu....IIJ1ui!!:1f" hilllK'uiiiUlJlit.J 'gJIif01l....0lge s..lIImes t:osupplleunru-!1l\1II: Ita.lllei.. il1llill:::ollll"l'.Ie_ /I ..:illll.n l~tj[lYlIlkillfllJl!!JII. oIrlllblltr.nJllt: on I[IIV4:'!:....<<.ge; of'. 2: t:.JIo 3: 90......11..j1e ~'!i..:d.e:s: ..... IITIlJlIJloIl1J/O:I'lI!- Tlhliis lII:lIIIII'i..III~';!jj:"''' 1......ll:olf' peaple . iinl:o . ou.... :S:lJIJIllIulIli,,~'i:!..iollll 1II:1I11111:1i1lt do n nolO: Ifllllll:!:oI:!!: d I: Do be II:heHre_ ".'. lit.. olso .111l1l1:11k e:!!ij: I:"u~ 1(." II?!! 1[11 h:....:iIlli/:: ilI:"!:~;'~:lI::""iIi!!i1rll.u~hJ 1:1M"'i/[1:!!ij:hlllJ, 1lI.uben 01 .,JOI..ailjle., f'ulll ollF SI:Oil'"i1E!!!I11i1 illtill;"!:lilns Ibllll,,!!qr::ollrne IJIII4lIC:i1PH:ftl iIIlIIn c....,.!:..... t:heiJl-, 1)<<11""111:1 . fa.. sOlle_ II h,uv'lI:! It.II'oU?!.E!1U ihC:i["~nt:.:ilct:, llIuiit:ItIII.,. t:he< .ciIltIlJ).of' l.d..t:......l:e-s f..e....lrilrIlUift c:h:'!!!II]1i11l11."III:Jrm'llIif!nt:: abDut:. II:hi:s:' pof'ablem ....~ seve,,,,]" ltiii........~'!::!5L .. bf"JI't"'iIE! beljf.!1I11a lIt:olBd .:1I1111e ci':." doe.es:. not:. .........ue lI.:he InQIlII:llloUllltI!!!"" 1:0 llrIlI"II~::JI.niil:"J/I" IhoulII IfW1lI(.OIllJ ....I01..oge... s.lIles: SOlUtE! on olf.!: b.!OlI:!!.~_ II . IIIlttJPOI/l.IlfI"':lI liiike II:I[]~ :!!jj:4:'!:ofE!: llI:he tII'.:::iII:~:lII olf' LarJllIl,rrltljf.! b...'!!:oIt".:C....lNlII.lf.!!: IIIJ11p 11:.:... d":lftll.~e IIlIltJliill:h lI.:he UlttlbolE!!lIl- cill:iies o....d I/f,et.: IB::he nUllllll1ll"Ol!lI.JIIoellf"~ :1Ijj, ii llflllIH:::: 1fE.~ IIf 11t~~ ~ IIfJII... IB.. 11E!~ :!.: II ii ill'!!! ~]JIIj[:1Jo ilI- 011:11111"11, 4'!!:lIII/liU Gh!~II"IIII1f,J11I/f.lllnlj[-!!IIIJ I. oftlU 1/[110 0 IU. lit ill:! ... l'Ijf1~:X: 1[1I:!!jj: '7 -If 5"711. oll!. ..If Il!) _.- di~': '19JI::~ .." ., e e \. ORDINANCE NO. 86-J13 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING OCCASIONAL SALES OR GAI~GE SALES; ESTABLISI liNG DEFINITIONS; REQUIRING NECESSARY PERMIT AND APPLICATION; CITING SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING A SEVEIW3ILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASADENA: SECTION 1. Definitions: TIle following terms shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them: Garage Sale: Any sale entitled "garage sale", "yard sale", "patio sale", "rurrunage sale", "flea market sale", or any similar casual, occasional sale of tangible personal property which is advertised by any means whereby the public at large is or can be made aware of said sale. Goods: Any commodity, ware, merchandise, or any other property capable of being the object of sale. Occasional Sale: For the purpose of this ordinance, the definitions of Garage Sale and Occasional Sale shall be synonymous. Such sales are: 1) by persons not in the general business of selling, leasing, or renting, and 2) goods sold or purchased via such a sale are exempt from the State sales and use tax W1der the Texas Tax Code, Section 151.304. SECTION 2. Permits: It shall hereinafter be Wllawful for any person or persons to conduct a garage sale in the City without first filing with the City Permit Division the information hereinafter specified and obtaining a permit to do so, herein to be called a garage sale pennit. TIle fee for such a pennit shall be five dollars ($5.00). If the garage sale permit is returned to the City Permit Division within seven (7) days of said garage sale, the $5.00 fee will be refW1ded. Said permit shall be issued to anyone person at a specific address only once within a six (6) month period and no such pennit shall be issued for more than five (5) consecutive calendar days. Each pennit shall be prominently and conspicuously displayed on the premises upon which the garage sale e e is conducted so as to be readily seen from the street during the entire period of the penni t ted sale. SECfION 3. Pennit Application: Infonnation to be filed with the City Pennit Division by an applicant for a garage sale shall include the following: 1) Name of person, fiIll}.J.- group, corporation, association, or organization conducting said sale. 2) Name of owner of the property on which said sale is to be conducted, and consent of owner if the applicant is other than the owner. 3) Specific address at which sale is to be conducted. 4) Number of days and dates of the sale. 5) Dates of any past sales at the specific address. 6) Relationship or connection the applicant may have had with llilY person, fi~, group, orgllilization, association, or corporation conducting said sale and the date or dates of such sale. 7) Whether or not the applicant has been issued any other vendors, resale or peddlers license by any local, state, or federal agency. A statement shall be given by the person signing the garage sale pennit application that the infonnation contained therein is full, true and correct, and known to the applicant to be so. SECTION 4: Exemptions from said penni t: The provisions of this ordinance requiring a garage sale pennit shall not apply to or affect the following: 1) Persons selling goods pursuant to an order or process of a court of competent jurisdiction. -2- e e ~ 2) Persons acting In accordance with the powers and duties of public officials. 3) Any person selling or advertising for sale a good or goods of personal property which are specifically named and described in an advertisement and which separate goods do not exceed twenty (20) in total nU1llber. SECfION 5: Provisions and tenus of this Ordinance shall be enforced by the Pasadena Police Department, the building official of the City of Pasadena or designee of the building official of the City of Pasadena. SECfION 6: TIle Ci ty Cowlcil of the City of Pasadena, Texas does hereby declare that if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or portion o'f the Ordinance is declared invalid, or un- constitutional, by a court of competent jursidiction that in such event it would have passed and ordained any and all remaining portions of this Ordinance without the inclusion of that portion or portions which may be so fOWld to be unconstitutional or invalid, and declares that its intent is to make no portion of this Ordinance dependent upon the validity of any other portion thereof, and that all said remaining portions shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 7. Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for each offense. A seaparate offense shall be deemed cOITnnitted on each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues. PASSED ON FIRST READING by the City Cow1Cil of the City of Pasadena, d Texas, in regular meeting in the City Hall this the 3 f_ day of ~ \.In<<. , A.D., 1986. APPROVED this the 7> ....sA _-<lay of ~ "'-not. . A. D.. 1986. ~AA~k~~ cAiNC1lY OF PASADENA, TEXAS -3- e e ATTEST: ~~'J~ C I'IY SECRETARY CI1Y OF PASADENA, TEXAS ~~ ACTING CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING by the City Cow1Cil of the City of Pasadena, the \ 0 p Texas, in regular meeting in the City Hall this day of 4 v.~ L , A.D., 1986. \D~ 9 \1," of a~1~F IE CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS f APPROVED this the day of , A.D. 1986. ATTEST: f7cw g~~ ACTING CITY AliORNEY CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS L.D. File No. 10,090 DS:rn1h 5/29/86 -4 - e e EXPLANATION OF 2 TYPES OF GARAGE SALE PERMITS AND FEES REQUIRED (1) Garage Sale Permit - $5.00 (allows one sign on same premises as the sale) (2) Garage Sale Permit $ 5.00 Garage Sale Sign Permit - $ 5.09 (allows up to.7 signs) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * $10.00 Deposit Requirement - $25.00 (refundable if return stickers) GARAGE SALES 1. A garage sale permit must be obtained before conducting a garage sale. The fee for the permit is $5.00, and may be obtained from the Water Department at City Hall. 2. A garage sale permit can' be issued only once within a six (6) month period for the same address or same person and cannot exceed ten (10) consecutive days. GARAGE SALE SIGNS 1. If a sign is placed on the property where the sale additional permits are required. is . held, no 2. If additional signs are to be put up, a sign permit must be obtained from the Water Department. .The fee for a garage.sale sig~ permit is $5.00, and a $25.00 check is required as a deposit to guarantee the City that you. will pick up all of your signs. 3. All signs are required to have a City of Deer Park sticker on them or they will be picked up. These stickers are given to you at the time that you obtain the permit. 4. No more than seven (7) signs may be permitted. 5. No signs shall be placed on utility poles or traffic esplanades. 6. To obtain your $25.00 refund, you must bring all seven (7) stickers to the Water Departm~nt at City Hall. At that time you~ deposit will be refunded. 7. If the garage sale signs are not removed after the ten (10) period of the sale, then the $25.00 deposit will be forfeited the City. day to * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e e .0 ~-J"', ..'11'.... "1:i~"" . .". ,";".;.:t;i;.i:...:,;. ,:::::,,~;~;~!~:X:":~;;.;."::~l);:i\~~f;~~;~~~~:!;,:,: ::.. ."....:~~:.:~;~~J.i~~:~;~~~~i~:.. ;. ,:~::.~;t(:~~\:;:~.. :.,~~:~t:-;-~.:~;.~::,",~' :.!' tV .. ":""'~"'-":;'~::(;J;'~:i;'.~f:;.,j:. ':~:':,;:~:~~:'::':::-~r::~7~:'r:",.\ " .~. t, ,'''' '" .... . ~....' _ ... ......."....L.'............,..................'...;......... -,'".;.,.;.,- .......,.., ....... ;., .i. ",'-; " .. ~ ",' .,,~ ,. ", ~ .;~~;~ .~~,;'~:,r?:~,: ~~,~~~.;:~ '..-....... . ..... ......1:;.' :- 'OJ,'' '. ~. . ..... .,;~~...~\..u""~'''' , to :..":..;:.lT~:~1~;~:Ti~. ,'" ... .'............".;..... ".~. -~ '~.~.'. ~~( :~~7.~~1:~.:.' :.:. ~:~,': ...~;, :.'. :~.~~-~Y"".'"' , ,':1'".. ..~, . .. :..:;:.~;.~i,J::.... ;. ,~. ,';4 . f~~;i~.~~~~_~~;~i.~,,:~,;'i.1~t-~.,f,~sCt7 ;9.j~TIIE.TEXAS.UA WYER: S CREED;;.;..~1~,. ....,~.,.... ,.... ,,,...~.,-,.. ~-..: ,.' - .......-.-. A MANDATE-FOR PROFESSIONALISM: t~~_;:,'~;f~tJj~,i~. PROMULGA.TED BY +~~~!~~'~~0i ~~T OFTEXAS;:-;..'~~:: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ..- ... -....., ..., . ' .. . ~ . ., ;,~';i;:l:~~~i9T;:~:;;~~Ki* -:":; ,;'~ ;:i.R;J~~1~?~.J;~t~,~~~2;~i~~~;[~ti,~ .. ..~.':-,.. . .... '.' ,\,.~.~~i':~';';~~t!.~:i;~f~.fh~~"!~ . ~ ~'. . ....~~~I;~.~JJ..~~'~~~.~~;~~. .'~'~'~', V .:"~. :,~~~,:.'I . .<~;~<::;'~4: .:.':\ ~~~:.:>;'(~ . -....-.- ..... . .. .,' '" '. '.4..,,"~\..,..~..:.\~....,h,...~ ,'. i.,.... : ~:: ~ Lf.".~'. ;. '. '- ..::~_.' ~'.;:~" ';~::;;.:'~: ~. ,..~ ,. ~\'~;. >. ~:r:.. -'':.~ ~. ", '" . :: =-"'4:~.~..1" ;,~ ...,.1''';'''4 ........ ,. ...... ~. .:~..:;,:~;...:.. '. . , ..... \-~ '. "". -, \.~',r;".,.. . ; ,'. ~:.: ,. .,.'. , ;g~i~~~~~~~f~~0~:$~f*l~~~~Jr~~. ,". }i::tp~~~\::::.~:f~t .'., i:~ :~~J :;:ii'~ )::I~.:l.~~;~1:~~~:,:~~~~' (.;'r~:~:,~~~ ~,~:.;,~~:~: i.~~~';~:; ..~:..';~.~~'^,.'...~~ ,.. ........' ,.~ './... '~;:~:"'''''i;Io...:.:.. ~:~ \'~'~":~~""""'" ..,....". . ,~.. ' , ,'. ~.;. ::t."... .~.... ,."';'- :.-..;: .. "';....:-..,_.._. . . . ' , :.. .fBit;\::.:::{:::jj~':i~:~:g};~~).fJri.' ;i,.;':".,;' ~.;" .;,"'; :'f'. .r::i1{~~':'p~~..~~~.~.lsTiUBurED:; t:..;:(. ............ '.. ...;,..............,. . . 'e, '.,,(;Ji~-~'~.~.;:-r". ...t.. .,~ '." . ~~~~~; :I~ ~~J~~1.:,i.;h...,\/:.~~.~($i.~~~) '.)':':'.~ ~;- L;:t'~.:.<...:_.. ,,: '. ...;~..:.,~~;:.:~':-,:.~.:-";,,~ :,:/:l: ',. : ,..,,_, .,....V--.... i,'-'-":"; . '., t':; ':~;"':';~':":"'~...,.~.:L")~.. ',":".-.' ". ' :l...,i..... .... t-'. ..... e e . ':'1":- ," ./0,; ,., " .'.'.. . . ~ ~..' ". , i .... . ",t' ",' .,. , ~;' .' t ..... ..,' /. . ..; ';" ..' }; . I I.. . ., '.l' fl!' ..... "1...;'.. . ii,"; ", I ., ..' " /.; j' . .:f... . . .::~:j;:t:.~~;~,~::~J:~:::L:.....:.;:. ,~,,, ::::;, .:... ...,:...;;;~:.::.;:LL';..~~';:~:~;:,;~::~:;;~!.;7..;~~ .:.~:.i:J);Bi.:;~:~{ff.~~,lL/~;.:~:::.~~~.l:.{:~;~~~.~~+::)k~.~:\;'I!.tf.~Mf.}.>..;.:~::~.;:'.:;:/: ;~; ...~~~. .. ....._..OH~~_~T7""'C'"..._~.~~ \.. ."""\1' ':).._.-'--.,.-:....--;... .....;~.:.:;S.:2L:.i:~~:_~.... ~~.:\,.:.' 2.~~ ?:.l.zr:l:;.~~~~:..di!l!.~...:if~::::\2.~~J~~li::0i.~.:ib~L.::L:x.;j:!j.;i~~~:~J~~~.2;: ::; '. t~:1?!~;;;if::lt~;t~~~::-s:sj~@!lijjl~65i'i~~fJ2 ~f~~t ~ .:~ ~.;;;~i~~w;fr~~i~~)~~~r~;~f{;~~~::.:~~ ~:;~: .._-":"7-~-~.__._--_. .,.,:" v~~l{{:.:~:t(~i~./:t~~.~J':.\ .' . . ',.. ' . ;t~;~i~~;' ~;!!';j~:~;::.:.:~=..~.:~ 1.::.ijffjJ;;~;j~: ';i:~;~f;:'~~::..~~~;~:!'.; ';"1' :' ,n:'\':;Z,?~~:;i~:~::i,'~.t~;:t;~::::~:!~"';j;!l~;ti,t;~:~~~;~~, I '.', ..;.. '.:;. .:..' "'".., i'......, I:J"", 't.': 1!'t,t.'".,), ..... '" l.ol,..~P,' '" ", I ".~ I.~ "';.. ..~~:..,.~.\' ~'l l'l.tf:'j.i"!~I.~ '\\~.,'I""'t.~. -. ............;. ..,.....,....i.,..tt....o:1,....., .j..t..fJ""'-r..l,,!- .. :'.~~""~1t' ';'., .,'" t" ....:~I l~,t.l., ..~~{~J.?,~,: "ll.H~'A.~' '!l'~h~"'.lj;"'~;II.')V!~ ~I'. ".\. "",t. ... '.1."'~1~ ,1..~f,j,...,l~I,....i;,~.r-4.:,tI,I":."""'~.,t: -:-~::f.~'''~ . '..), ",': . ; t":l'~' ~~\':'"!J;.710.J..\:. ',\ Ji.'.,.~....l. ..~'~.. ....,..,.,. 'I , j..f. 'I~~ ..., ..~.,I ""\ .,~t~,...r1' 'tr)".tl\'~(\.. . "1",,' -:'1 ." '\ 'r :' 1 I "!', l~. 'fA'<' ::_ '. . ".'::' i;~; 'y:.: ~.:~~.... ..~:::~;.hJ~~;~';\;~~li~~lt.:iM!{.i}l~%fl.;}il:t::I.:~~,~ij~\f:;.hB::~f~;~W~rB~: ;'}!;l.~.:~.1j,:rf~(!~;?~H:;.~ .. '~";/j~ i'''.,.~.' r. :,,: ,., '-,.,. ..'r}.l'i ~ .'.....f-.. :;." .~.' "I.I.I~~'''r'''~..'J)'.'''::: :Cf~~.,... ' . ;. . .....".~kF';;::i:..i..?:p.;:~};:J:~S/',~,~,~~W~;:::f:'~(,:;{';~'i~l~~;:;Jt~;'\ :::~t~~t :~~'::.l7::;.:::..;.:.~\.:..~;'.~~t . .;:,:,:di:.:I:.::;;~;~~!rl~t;Jl~:~~~ ~1~;~~:~~:;. 7o~~~t~~{~~!~i'::~2i::S': .'~ '~,I. "'.{~:. '.~>. ," '~, ~'~.')-"~';: ',~:~'.;'.~,I~:~.X(\\:i;i~l/~;~~r;~ir!,f~::.::~~i~~:~';~5;.;::;'f:"'~:;~~:,:: :.:~~~~;~.~.:~;..:~i:!~:;T~J>~> .\.\~~>~X-?i.:~;.:\~.'{~;t~.~.~t;:. :~:~~;'i,:;:.':;:'~~':'~, ::.~.', ::..:/. :' ...~....;... .... .......,... ,'r." tt.. ....-;,;, ,......,.~,..tl....... ....1J'.'t'fio...t..~..l"............ ..~.. .,..... .j!.... ;~rr......... ..... . ..JJ:.....i.~.~.'!'..~..'.lo::'.. ~...I'.~. ...'-... ....~ ......,... "'i:,;~;~ ..'~;' .. ..,.... .'",...,;~~~t;J;~~;~i~t~~;;~i~~ilii~ r~~1~it \~~;::~i~i,{~~1ii~l1~ , ..' .., . .~ ...,."",..... '.'.;.1' >' ."'iiliIF."""''''' ("\'14'~\l/"~" ",.h 'I.~f~. "II',~,,,l,!i!';,,,,,,,,,.. """".' ~ ":';'\.. '-'oj' ~i-',t;."'tJ~ """:, 'Z,";. '.' ~.~ ~ ,'.' 4.!if'li.'{.;....q,I\~:frl...~.,.. J.I~..:~"),.:~4J.;.,.,.~r' .i~,;l..,~,:.,'iJ,:.,"i't'..~.k,.a~.' 'll~.1J~~,...".~}f:,~'~~'\\:'~.t.:~...;..,;..,:'f...~<.;.!lt.': !:"':yj~;;:.:':~t~;':':i;::'"..~.z:.';:~?=.:r'!~.~;:~~~:2.i:!~.fia:~~'~ ~,~~,~W~~~:22E:7J; . '.. i:,:~ij~:~.~:I~~J~i.~J,Hi.i~Hi~.~:i. ..':~::I\::/: ~J.'.~ :)<;~t,.;j ,:~~~.~~i:'.:. :l>"~'~ it.:;~tl~:}I:.::;!.~g:~~t;f;I;: ',.- [:t~t;.;;T:;!"::,:( :~~;kN~!~!;!:!i~;~\~~:t~~ ;Yo'. ~ J~ e . REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ;================================================================ Agenda Date Requested: December 9, 1991 Requested By: John Joerill2.- Department: --AQ~inistration Report Resolution x Ordinance Exhibits: 1 ) 2 ) Proposed Ordinance 1501M (26th Street Rezoning) Proposed Ordinance 1501N (Text Amendments) NOTE: Ordinance Exhibits include all proposed text amendments, descriptions of properties to be rezoned and the transmittal letter to City Council from Inge Browder, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission. ================================================================= SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Summary: Council is requested to hold a public hearing to take citizen comment regarding Zoning Ordinance amendments and rezonings proposed as part of the 1991 Annual Zoning Ordinance review. At the close of the public hearing, the Council will be asked to take action to approve or deny the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations regarding these items. This will be done by considering for adoption, two amending Ordinances to Zoning Ordinance 1501. Proposed Ordinance 1501M will rezone certain described properties located along 26th Street (Sens Road) from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. Proposed Ordinance 1501N will adopt several amendments to the present Zoning Ordinance text. All items included in these ordinances were presented to Council during their November 11, 1991 workshop meeting. In preparation for this hearing, staff has satisfied all public notice requirements mandated by the Zoning Ordinance and state law. These included posting of notice at City Hall's front door, publication of notice in the Bayshore Sun and finally, mailing notice to all owners of property being considered for rezoning as well as the owners of property located within 200 feet of the tracts being considered. Recommendation: Approve (by adoption of Ordinances 1501M and 1501N) the rezonings and ordinance amendments proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. e e The undersigned Council members hereby respectfully request that an agenda item be put on the Council agenda for the November 25, 1991, meeting to direct the Planning and Zoning commission to further study their recommendations regarding Bed and Breakfast establishments as addressed in Ordinance 1501, the city of La Porte zoning Ordinance. District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 At Large A At Large B Mayor e e ORDINANCE NO. 1501-M AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1501, BY CHANGING CLASSIFICATION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE Section 1. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby finds, determines and declares that heretofore, to-wit, on the 17th day of October, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. a Public Hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte, Texas, pursuant to due notice, to consider the question and the possible reclassification of the zoning classification of the hereinafter described parcels of land. There is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "A", and incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof for all purposes, a copy of "Notice of Public Hearing" which the City Council of the City of La Porte hereby finds was properly mailed to all owners of all properties located within two hundred feet (200') of the properties under consideration. Section 2. The Publisher's Affidavit of Publication of notice of said hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 3. Subsequent to such public hearing, the City of La Porte Planning & Zoning Commission met in regular session of October 17, 1991, to consider the changes in classification which were the subject of such public hearing. The City Council of the City of La Porte is in receipt of the written recommendations of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission, by letter dated October 29, 1991, a true copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 4. On the 9th day of December 1991, at 6:00 P.M., a public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of La Porte, pursuant to due notice, to consider the question of the possible re-classification of the zoning classification of the hereinafter described parcels of land. e e Ordinance 1501-M Page 2 There is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "0", incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof for all purposes, a copy of the "Notice of Public Hearing" which the City Council of the City of La Porte hereby finds was properly mailed to the owners of all properties located within two hundred feet (200') of the properties under consideration. Section 5. The Publisher's Affidavit of Publication of notice of said hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "E", and incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 6. Subsequent to such public hearing, the City Council of the City of La Porte reviewed the written recommendations of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission, and all of the evidence presented before it, and the City Council of the City of La Porte hereby accepts the recommendation of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission, and the zoning classification of the hereinafter described parcels of land, situated within the corporate limits of the City of La Porte, is hereby changed and the zoning classification of said parcels of land shall hereafter be GC General Commercial. The description of said parcels of land re- zoned are as follows, to-wit: La Porte Outlot 241, La Porte Outlot 261, Outlot 280, Tract 260A out of La Porte Outlot 260. Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blk 1; PIne Grove Valley Lots 1-5, 34-37; Blk 2; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blk 3; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; Blk 4; Pine Grove Valley More particularly described on Exhibit F, attached hereto and fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 7. The City Council officially finds, determines, 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 e e Ordinance 1501-M, Page 3 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 6. This Ordinance shall be effective fourteen (14) days after its passage and approval. The City Secretary shall give notice of the passage of this ordinance by causing the caption hereof to be published in the official newspaper in the City of La Porte at least twice within ten (10) days after the passage of this ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ~ 1991. CITY OF LA PORTE By: Norman Malone, Mayor ATTEST: By: Cherie Black, City Secretary APPROVED: By: John D. Armstrong Assistant City Attorney City of La Porte e e THE S'l'ATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARIUS CITY OF LA PORTE ) ) ) No'rICE 01" PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 1501, the City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance, notice is hereby given that the La Porte Planning & Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on the 17th day of October, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the city Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, rrexas. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public input regarding rezoning of properties and amendments proposed for Ordinance 1501 during the 1991 annual review of the City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance. Amendments to be considered are as follows: I. ARTICLE FOUR - General provisions: Section 4-400 Zoning of Newly Annexed Property II. ARTICLE FIVE - Residential District Regulations Section 5-700, Table 8, Residential: Setbacks Adjacent to utility Easements B. Section 5-800: Parking Lot Screening A. Residential III. ARTICLE SIX - Commercial District RegUlations: (Table A) A. S.I.C. 473, Arrangements for Transport of Freight and Cargo as a "Permitted with Conditions" G.C. Use B. Dog Grooming as a "Permitted with Conditions" G.C. Use C. S.I.C. 5932, Antique and Used Merchandise stores as a Permitted N.C. Use IV. ARTICLE TEN ~ Special RegUlations A. Section 10-200 1. 10-200.5, Accessory Building Setbacks on Large Lot Residential Homesites 2. 10-204.2, Update Code References Pertaining to swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs 3. 10-401,' Creation of a New Paragraph Dealing with Allowable Front Yard Encroachments (Car Ports) 4. 10-500, Fencing Requirements in Commercial Use Zones 5. Section 10-1000, Prohibit Encroachment of Signs into utility Easements V. ARTICLE ELEVEN - Administration and Enforcement: Section 11- 300, Revocation of Zoning Permits PROPERTIES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REZONING ARE AS FOLLOWS: From Neighborhood Commercial (N. C. ) (G. C.): La Porte Outlots 241; 261; Outlot 260 to General Commercial 280; 'l'r. 260A out of Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blocl< 1; pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 2; pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 3 ; pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; Block 4; pine Grove Valley ~){H'Brr A e e From General Commercial (G.C.) to R-1, Low Density Residential Lots 7-28, Block 40; Town of La Porte Lots 7-28, Block 41; Town of La Porte Lots 7-28, Block 42; Town of La Porte Lots 7-28, Block 43; Town of La Porte Lots 17-26, Block 44; Town of La Porte Lots 24-33, Block 53; 'rown of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 54; 'l'own of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 55; 'rown of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 56; Town of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 57; 'rown of La Porte From General Commercial (G.c.) to Neighborhood Commercial (N.C. ) Lots 1-32, Block 37; 'rown of La Porte Lots 1-31, Block 38; 'rown of La Porte Lots 1-31, Block 39; Town of La Porte Lots 1-6 and 29-33, Block 40; Town of La Porte Lots 11-23, Block 57; Town of La Porte Lots 1-34, Block 58; 'I'own of La Porte Lots 1-34, Block 59; 'I'own of La Porte I Lots 1-33, Block 60; 'rown of La Porte Lots 1-26, Block 181; Town of La Porte Lots 1-26, Block 198; 'rown of La Porte Lots 1-9; Block 199; Town of La Porte A regular meeting will be held following the public hearing for the purpose of acting upon the public hearing items and conduct other matters pertaining to the Planning & Zoning commission. citizens wishing to address the Commission pro or con during the Public Hearing will be required to sign in before the meeting is convened. CITY OF LA PORTE Cherie Black city Secretary EXHIB'T A e e 1200 Hwy. 146 Suite 180 P.O. Box 1414 ... . ,-' La Porte; Texas 77571 (713) 471-1234 TheB re Sun 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 semi-weekly newspaper published in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who after being duly sworn, says the attached notice was publ i shed in The Bayshore Sun of SEPl'EMBER 29, 1991 ~~.~~ Sandra E. Bumgarner Office Manager Sworn and subscribed before A.D. 19.2.L. me this ~ day of )1nu~~~ ~ ~ ~C(.4 fA. d ;a~~:.-.-:J Notar Public Harris County, Texas FRANCES M. WIlliAMS Noll" Publjc STATE Of fEW "r Coma Eip. Martll28. 1994 ~Y'..nR1T lJ e e ::5. s8cIiOri "1~10(X), Prohibit EnCroach- , ment, ~f Slgnl Into U~llty Easements' ','~ ,:",,:'f".t.:: ,1.:..~;~~;~:';r'~i~itt;;o:,;,( .{ "f,,~:~.I:";':,'~': 'I : . V;'ARTiCLE;.EtJEVE~!~. Ad~illrilllon . '~ EnforcelPentl S!iCtlotl) 1-360, Revo- .. ca~~ o~ ~otil!"lgPbrm'ts,"', \r\.: ..' :~ ,.' .,,:.~,.:.1,;!~)-}'""j. ','I.,:, .,;.'.~:t~'.~":L-";. ~., ....,>:.,~',c:~ l .' . PRoPERTIES. to BE 'cONSIDERED F:OR REZONIN(). ,ARE ,.AS FOLLOWS' . :: "'., ",~. t'/I'~' '~~'<', ..:~. '; :. .i,-~}; !.{!"'" i,-i.-.-.. ,~. '. ;;~ From NelghbO~od Commerclal'(N,.C.) .' to General Commercial (G.C.): La Parle Outlots 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A out of Outlot 260 . . ,.. ' Lots i1-5; '34-37; Block 1; Pine GroVe Valley.' , . '., , Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 2;' Pine Grove Valley .' ' '. . ' , ' , . Lots 1-~;. 34-37; Block 3; Pine Grove " :,~~eyt'.::'/' ',;.-::'.?:',;: .'"-". ,. ': ;:, ' ,! Lots: 1-5;" B1oc::l< ,t;" Pine Gro\'8 ValleY . .' . !-~ . .'~, " ,.~'.' :. - ',\' . ,:; " ',' "" ~... 'j i) f~ Gener81 'Commercial (GoO.) toR-1, PUBUC NOTICE. ..',~,~ ~~Slly Reslc~tnd~ .':', ,. ::.:, .' THE STATEOF'TEXAS:, .,.Lotl 7-28, Btock40; Town~~f La'porte COUNTY OF HARRIS .' CITY OF LA PORTE Lots 7-28, B!ock41; ToWn of i..a Porte '. NOTICE OF P,UBLlC 'HEARING'. "; .,',' : ,In: ~Ce9id8nce.W1th' the 'proVtllO,(of. Lots ?-2S; :8Iocl<. 42; .Town.of L~ Porte . ordinance .1 ~l,lhf City of La PortQ Zoo- ... ..., . .' . , , , ,lngOrdnance;,notlcellherebyglveOthat Lots7-2~,.el~ 43; Town of La Po.rte rth811.:~~&P.~aVvlln" arid Zoning Com-,; .,..' .' '... .. ". ..rolsslOn wW conduct." publlO he~ulng al.:,: .Lots 17-28, Block 44; Town of L.B Porte '7:00 P.M. on the 17th clay of ()etObet/ ': .:. , 1901,lntheCounclICham!JerloflheClty; Lois 2~3, Block 53; Town of La Porte Han, 604 West Falrmont.Parkway, La' .. .," . Porte,. Texas. The purpose of the pubRo:. Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 54; Town ol.l.a hearing Is to ~Jve public Input regard-.:. Porte, . .;. Ing rez~lng of propertlel and amend-: .' ,- ..., .. . menls proposed for Orc!lnance 1501 dur~'. Lots 1-9; 24-34; Block 55; Town of~La Ing the 19918noual review of the citY of :-- Porte. .' '. . " . . ,,'. , La Porte Zoning Ordinance. Amendmentl' :'.. . . ,. , . . ' .'. 10 be considered are as fonowi:. ..' ~.. Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 56; Town 0(.La . " ,. , ' Porte. '. I I. ARTlqLE FOUR - General ProVlslOnl: . " .,. '; , Secllon 4-4~ Zoning o~ Newly ~nne~.: Loti 1-9. 24-34, ~ck57; Town o( La p.......-... ., , . , ,. ,. .,. I Porte 'vy"''',. '. .:' '~'. .. . ".~ II. ARTICLE FIVE _ Resldentl~ District From, General Commercial (G.C.)" to ReguJ~lIons .,. ,..' . ,. "Neighborhood..Commerclal (N.C.) . , ".. ,," ,'" . .." " A. Seellon 5-700, Table B. Residential.' Lots 1~32, -B!oek 37: Town of La P~e Resldentialgelbacks Adjacent to Utility.. .', ,. ..' , . Easements. ' ., Lots 1-31, Block 38; Town of La Porte o . . . I ;". " ", . . .:. . -" . ',' . " . '. ." " ~." 8 Section 5-BOl): Parlcl~g Lot ~ening 'Lots 1-31., 81oc~ 39; TOwn of La P?rte III. ARTICLE SIX. _ Commercial OISbict Lol. 1, ~ and ~9-33, 8Ioc~40; TC)wn of La Regulallons: (Table A). ..... Porte' ,,'.. ' :. '.. . . ,,' . A. S.I,C. 473, Al'lllngments for Trenlport ..' Lots 11-23,Block 57; Town of La Porte of Freight and Cargo as a .Permltted with ' ' Conditions. G.C. Use . .', .Lots 1-34~' Bloc~,58; Town. of La POrte. 8. Dog Grooming ,as a ,.Pormltted with Loti 1-34, Block 59; Town of La Porte Conditions. G.C. Use. .. ,.. . ,... .., !, ;., .. ' . ,'. Lots. .1-33,' Block '80; Town o.f La Porte C. S.I.C. 5932, Anllque and Used Mer-. ,.. ' . ,,;' .: 'c. . . . " '.,;.; ; .;, ,. .., chandlseStoreiasa.PermlttedN.C Use'( LotsA-26,.BIock'181;,Town of La Porte ',' ", .'.'~' . ".::.'1....' ~,~'''~'' ':,:'" ,..,./.....,., "'1'.:""""','" '11.''<'' ',,;.,-': . IV. "RlleL.E ,~EN ~ SP8cI~d~~g~latl~ni., ~Lo!S~,17.~;:~Io~.1~8;: t~~~f .Lari~' . ,..,.\" i' .. . ", .. \' ...' ''':. '.' ':- I .' . ~ . ,. - ..' '. " . A. Sectlo~ 10-200:.,.":.( ::.,;' ',;:;:. Lo~,~'9; BtoPk;1~::TiMn'oi La pdrte .' ." .,., :' r,.'~../.t';~l .,1, ;";.:'~:~',','~,,~1..~':.'>h~:'':;(.', ,.r.";':~,'~;r;..:!:J-'.,~;,"~"',.:~::,\"""" ',,-:.':':" ~ ...1..10-200.5, A~Sio,y Building ~Ib~k~. 'Aregular meelin~ wlli ~held follo~lng on Large Lot Residential HOmesllea ~'i i ';., the pu~U~ he~ng for Ihftpurpose of act~. . ~.'10~~4:2:;\j;~i~;:6~:' ~~i~~~\~';'::.J:OD::,~~=,{~e~:In~~:'~: Pertaining .to ~Immlilg Pools, Spas and. I ~lannlng . & Zoning Commission:. ,..",.. · Hot Tubs.", " ""'."" ",. Clllzens,wtshlngtoaddresstheCom- . i. :. r . mls~lon, pro or con, ',during the Pubiio 3. 10-401, Creation. of a New Paragraph Hearing wUl. be required 10 sign In before Dealing with Allowable Front Yard the ,~e.eling. Is convened. ..., : Encroachments.(Car ports) .,: ,'.. . ., . . .. ' '. '" .." ' '.'......:'. . CITY OF LA PORTE' .l 4. .10-500, . Fenctng 'RequiremEints, 'In,' .' ChQne Black " . Commercial Use Zones. . . ,City Secretary .'.' ' EJe ~~ \)\~ .. ~ e . CITY OF LA PORTE PHONE (713) 471-:5020 .. P.O Box 111:5 . LA PORTE. TEXAS 77571 October 29, 1991 Honorable Mayor Malone and City Council City of La POI:te RE:1991 Annual Zoning Ordinance Review Dear Mayor Malone, The. Planning and Zoning Commission, over the last seve.ral months has conducted a review of Zoning Ordinance. 1501. On October 17, 1991, the Commission held, the required public hearing for the purpose of taking additional citizen input regarding the ordinance amendments and zone changes proposed during the course of the review. After closing the public hearing, the Commission by unanimous vote, recommended . a rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial for the following ,. properties: La Porte outlots 241; 261; 280; Tract 260-A out of Outlot 260. Also included as part of the recommended rezoning are the following properties in the Pine Grove Valley subdivision: Lts 1-5; 34-37; Blk 1: Lts 1-5; 34-37; Blk 2: Lts 1-5; 34-37; Blk 3: Lts 1-5; Blk 4. The attached report discusses these properties in greater detail. The ' Commiss i on also, by a vote of four to one (",i th one abstention) recommended amendments to Zoning Ordinance Articles three, four, five, six, ten and eleven. The amendments proposed for each article are detailed in the attached report. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ .Inge Browder, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission attachments cc: Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Knox Askins, City Attorney ~m\T C e e THE STA'l'E OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF HARRIS ) CITY OF LA PORTE " ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 1501, the city of La Porte zoning Ordinance, notice is hereby given that the La Porte city council will conduct a public hearing at 6:00 P.M. on the 9th day of December, 1991, in the council Chambers of the city Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La porte, Texas. The purpose of the public hearing is ,to receive public input regarding rezoning of properties and amendments proposed for Ordinance 1501 during the 1991 annual review of the city of La porte zoning Ordinance. Amendments to be considered are as follows: I. ARTICLE FOUR - General Provisions: section 4-400 Zoning of Newly Annexed property II. ARTICLE FIVE - Residential District Regulations A. section 5-700, Table B, Residential: Setbacks Adjacent to utility Easements B. section 5-800: Parking Lot screening Residential III. ARTICLE SIX - commercial District Regulations: (Table A) A. S.I.C. 473, Arrangements for Transport of Freight and Cargo as a "Permitted with conditions" G.C. Use B. Dog Grooming as a "Permitted with Conditions" G.C. Use C. S.I.C. 5932. Antique and Used Merchandise stores as a Permitted N.C. Use IV. ARTICLE TEN - Special Regulations A. section 10-200 1. 10-200.5, Accessory Building Setbacks on Large Lot Residential Homesites 2. 10-204.2, Update Code References Pertaining to swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs 3. 10-401, Creation of a New Paragraph Dealing with Allowable Front Yard Encroachments (Car ports) 4. 10-500, Fencing Requirements in Commercial Use Zones 5. section 10-1000, Prohibit Encroachment of signs into utility Easements PROPERTIES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REZONING ARE AS FOLLOWS: From Neighborhood commercial (N . C. ) to General commercial (G.C.): La porte out lots 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A out of Outlot 260 " Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 1; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 2 . pine Grove Valley I Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 3 . pine Grove Valley , Lots 1-5; Block 4; pine Grove Valley rXHIBIT D e e A regular meeting will be held following the public hearing for the purpose of acting upon the public hearing items and conduct other matters pertaining to the city council. I citizens wishing to address the Council pro or con during the -Public Hearing will be required to sign in before the meeting is convened. ,. CITY OF LA PORTE Cherie Black city Secretary ., tiiXHIBIT D , , I. , 1200 Hwy. 146, ' .Suite 180 ,.-.. P.O. Box 1414 e e La Porte; Texas 77571 (713) 471-1234 .. ..to -.' The B ' County of Harris State of Texas Before me, the undersigned authority, on this date . carne and appeared Sandra E. Bumgarner, duly authorized agent of The Bayshore Sun, a semi-weekly new~paper 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 17, 1991 .la"J~,1, t~ff~~~ Sandra E. Bumgarner Office Manager Sworn and subscribed before me this ~ day of 77~~~ A.D. 19~. c----- .i ~~ h,. ~&~~ Notary Public Harris County, Texas FRANCES M. WILLIAMS \ Notlry Public \ STATE OF TEXAS \ M, Comm. Eap. Milch 26. t 994 eXHIBIT E ,- e - -. - -. "." ~"1 . ,<.1", QU't neSI r-atnllolll . Parkway, La' Portd,iexa,.. The purpose . of the publ!<: hearing is to. public Input regarding rezoning of les and amendments proposed for Ordinance. 1501 during the 1991 annual review of the ,'City 0'" La Porte Zoning. Ordinance. . Amendments to'~ collsldered are as follows: ! ~'\')',' V"t..; ~ . ! : I. ARTIc'LE FOUR ~G9rier8i Provisions: . Sectlon,4-400 Zoning of Newly Annexed ':'~r~.err ,,' .,1,. 'f . .:"11. ARTICLE.,FIVE '. Residential Dlslrict , Regulati~.: ...j ., . ..: . -.. .' . "M'~".;, .: :. . ...._.. . .~. . , f " . ' " A. s8Ction .5-700,'Table B, Re.'dentlal; Residential Setbacks Adjacent to Utility Easements. '. ".'. ' ~BLlC ~~t!~ .. ~ THE STATE.9f;'TeXAS . COUTNY OF HARRIS " . CfTY OF LA PORTE l/. NOTICE.:~~.!~~~~~ 'H~\RI~~l: ,: '/ I~ a~~~ .~;~:the ~~sb.~ ~r ' f"d'nance 1501, the City of La POrte Zon- j J: ~ance, notice 18 hereby given that Ofte City CoUncil Will conduct. pUblic hearing at 6;00 P.M. on the 9th da ,,' of December 1991. In the Council Cham~ ' -l. B. Section 5-800: Parking Lot Screenirig ,'. III. 'ARTICLE SIX - Commercial Dlslrict Regulations- (Table A);, .. . . " ;:' \-" " "1~'1 A. S.i.C.473, Arrang~ents for Transport of Freight and Cargo as a .Pennltted with Conditions. G.C.Use. -I. i' '~," "'1,,::.' ~',' ,I "~J ~ :-. B. Dog Grooming as.Permltted with ~t$O~~' ::4!lE'. Mo..! . 'l'and" ~~ p.~. use, ),I\.;."~Tlrl~ TEN ~~,~egUlatiOns i A. Section, 10-200 . . , 1. 10-200.5, Accessory Builcing Setbacks: on, large lot 1lesldent/a1 Homesltes .... .........4o,._.....-.~_'~..o-.~~~........~,.~. '. 2. 1d-204.2.Upc!afe ~'Refere~.: Pertaining t~ Swlmmlng'PciOls;.Spa8 and: HotTubs":~,....,, .",'. ,. .':-: ~ ~., :,.' ~'<'i;.,~;,:',:,_!:"",",'" ,I, ' ~~~ . \..~ 3. 10-401, Creation of a New Paragrapli~ Dealing with Allowable Front Yari:l~ Encroachments (Car Ports) ;I~ l/l( 4. 10-SOO, Fencing Requlnnents In Com:.. merclal Us!e ~ones, i' ,:'_~ ": " <' " ~. :", ',,:"~ · 5. Section 10-1000, Prohibit Encroac~'.,..~ ' ment of SIgn8 Into Utility Easements ': ~i ~.~ PROPERTIES TO BE CONSIDERED': FOR REZONING ARE AS FOlLOWS':': , .. .liJo', , . From Neighborhood Commercial (N.Cp to General Commercial (G.C.): La Porte>; Oullots 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A out oe-; '.. OUdot 26() :.: ,.~'4J( lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 1; Pine Grov~<: ". Valley ,.~ lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 2: Pine GroVel 'I Valley I , ' ;.: lots 1-5;' 34-37; Block 3; Pine Grov,H Valley:.', :.: lots 1-5; Block 4; Pine Grove Valley':- . . . ....i,i . A regular meeting will be held followlng'l the publlo hearing for the purpose of acJ. ~ Ing upon the public hearing llems an4'~ conduct other matters pertaining to the'~ City Council. i CII/zens wishing to address the Council : pro or oon during the Public Hearing wiD : be required to sign In before !he meetingl Is convened. CITY OF LA PORTE Cherie' Black City Secretary E,,~,\a&~ , I I I I I I I I. I ".~~t , ." . >"'~lV-~<.'--'~;lr'" I . --... . --..:t..,.,>~ . ~.i:;~!:<",_. "'. '.~ .. .",. ". - i~~, . ........... . .........L.~... ~ " ...............:............ . -~. i .. .~ . :." - ...>......::..:........ ~,~, . '. ;" '- -~, ~ ,.... ... .~~~, ,/" '. . ..... ......-'::~.~~~ ........:.;..-: I :_ " .... .. '! . -.., ./ 1'\ I. '.. LI ,. h;'::'C~ .'I,~~~ l"~""'! j ;1 ;+.::;;.-:1 a .~." '~11 * ,. .; I r :~ . . .-.. .~-.,:,L.-:-::.: i - ~. ...,,~..~ .... - LLt \ .~ i'. ! ~!l'K'~'~. i 4" ~ I I . ~~: ,-~ J f""'I' t , J . i t' ~:1 t "",Il!n ~ . t I ~~, . ..a;>fH ~:l': _......._"""'.~, " -~ .' : '".." GC :; ~.. ii'" :~1 '". .., : "illl ~I'" .c' it '-:-';~ I' . I .:;~,~:~~- j . . _u-;_. ....R-2: ..:,::. ;1 "" 'I r~,,~:~:; t-!"-;~ ;~r(~. r.~- : ~' . .~~C_ 3<'" ,,'''' .<0..... ~.:" -.t;~ !: i.!..... _'_ '-"- ~ I ....; '~"t. ~.......~ , i'l .. I :1", I tJ i .~. -~1.. ~. ......~- - .iI':$. ;,:'.:i' ,I:. ;,.1 . L.__.........__ -..; >;;1 ; :b, ; ~~ i .i., , >.10. ~ Nt.: .-:,1';' .,...:~ ';t~ L_.._..~.. L, ;: t.. i ~ '.. ''! :NC ...... ..j n ....4t! ft {' i.""':'" .... ~.....~.........:.",:,......,.,._--.:....__.. .~:. . t.~ "1 . .~... . -, :~~i . .... ..............f..;::.. J. .',..~~..o...:~~.:. -_.....,.....~":' -1 :t~ li. ,_2~.::...::__. -.._-....---;~.' ~'"'."7.."- ";c .4 ,.. ...R-I I;l ~" R.;'" :3 ..........-.. , ,.,: ~;"" ':".';.~~ '''.;'''',;.'' ;.., :. ~ '" ....... . e e :..~ .-, " .. 2 If ..j' , \ ~ ,. '~: :~~ . ~ ~'B 1''':1 ;---: ,',: .-.:........ & ...... .' ',:' . :~.' . " l / .1' ; ..- J .' l ,.. :;;. HI i f ., I~.:a.....~*-",.\~~ n .i ~. ... . . ~ , ;:::'::::"::::.:J, ;~ '1 ..... ~ ~ (. .. ~ " I ~ 1 i :, , i PUD " Oi Ii ....~~1 'i! ..,:. _._'.l~,.;...._. " ~ ! ~ ! . ~ :1 . :~: ~j :;1 't .~ ., .,..~r .., ;.~: -.........__ ...-,-J' 81 :. ~ ; ""-;-""'::::- .~~i~:1.<.~~~._~._.. "'-rR 21:., ~... .;: "~ :..... ":"'-~~~r-"'''; ...... ...1:0::::.:: "f','m::::-.;, . , LI r.....'...~...1 ., ;; ~ I'::~ .1 .. ~ ~ ... . :.:'c .~4; .. :~ ,: ~ , l \ ., .;,. ~ ~ l + I .~.. , ~ ~ . I ':-r ~. d~ .;......... ,.i, t ., ...:.,' ! ., . < -1 ., . ~'" \~'",." --; ".~..... -:-;ow-.."..,..... . i. , ~. ~ ~l "'. "!':r; .... ....f,.- '~~ ~ >>'Y G C ~ ; ~~-:~[]:t;:;i ..... l' ,'. . . . I :..1' ~ J 1 .. 1 t. ....1' ...., eXHIBIT F ,- e e ORDINANCE NO. 1501-N AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1501, THE CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III, SECTION 3-100; ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4-400; ARTICLE V, SECTION 5-701, SECTION 5-800; ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6-400 & SECTION 6-600; ARTICLE X, SECTION 10-300, SECTION 10-304, SECTION 10-401, SECTION 10-500 & SECTION 10-1000; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND SHALL UPON CONVICTION BE FINED A SUM OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) FOR EACH VIOLATION; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby finds, determines and declares that heretofore, to-wit, on the 17th day of October, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. a public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte, Texas, pursuant to due notice, to consider the question of the possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance as herein described. There is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "A", and incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof for all purposes, the publisher's affidavit of publication of notice of said hearing. Section 2. Subsequent to such public hearing, the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on October 17, 1991 at 7:00 p.m., to consider the Ordinance amendments which were the subject of such public hearing. The City Council of the City of La Porte is in receipt of the written recommendations of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission, by letter dated October 29, 1991, a true copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and incorporated by reference herein, and made part hereof for all purposes. Section 3. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby finds, determines and declares that on the 09th day of December, 1991, a public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of La Porte, Texas, pursuant to due notice, to consider the recommendation of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission. There is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit 'IC", and incorporated by reference herein and made a part e e Ordinance 1501-N Page 2 hereof for all purposes, the publisher's affidavit of publication of notice of said public hearing for the City Council of the City of La Porte. Section 4. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby finds, determines and declares that all prerequisites of law have been satisfied, and hereby determines and declares that the amendments to the City of La Porte Ordinance No. 1501, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte, are desirable and in furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in the City of La Porte's comprehensive plan. Section 5. Article III, Section 3-100 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by adding a new definition of "Carport", as set out in boldface type on Page 8 of Exhibit "0" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 6. Article IV, Section 4-400 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by striking the word "may", and inserting in its place the word "shall" as set forth in boldface type on Page 27 of Exhibit "0" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 7. Article V, Section 5-701 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by adding language relative to setbacks adjacent to utility easements as set forth in boldface type on Page 37 of Exhibit "0" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. e e Ordinance 1501-N, Page 3 Section 8. Article V, Section 5-800 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by removing language requiring a "solid landscape screen" and replacing said language with the language contained on Page 38 of Exhibit "D" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein, providing for flexible landscape standards. Section 9. Article VI, Section 6-400 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amenged by altering, and/or adding "Antique and Used Merchandise Stores", "Arrangement for Shipping and Transport", and "Dog Grooming" uses in the commercial use table, as more particularly set forth on Pages 44 and 45 of Exhibit "D" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 10. Article VI, Section 6-600 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by adding Conditional Use Standards relating to Dog Grooming and Shipping and Transport, as set forth in boldface type on Page 53 of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 11. Article X, Section 10-300 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by deleting reference to "carport" in said Section 10-300 (1), as more particularly set forth on Page 77 of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. e e Ordinance 1501-N, Page 4 Section 12. Article X, Section 10-300 (5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte relating to "Large Lot Residential accessory buildings" is hereby amended to provide accessory buildings with a floor area in excess of 1000 square feet must be located at least 30' from any property line and 30' behind the rear of the primary structure, as more particularly set forth in boldface type on Page 78 of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 13. Article X, Section 10-304 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by deleting reference to a specific edition of the Southern Building Code Congress International Standard Swimming Pool Code, and replacing it with a general reference to the currently adopted edition of the Standard Swimming Pool Code, as more particularly set forth in boldface type on Page 80 of Exhibit "0" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 14. A new section, Article X, Section 10-401 (4) has been added to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte, entitled "Front and Side-Yard Carports", providing for front and side-yard carports, according to the restrictions placed in said Section 10-401 (4), as more particularly set forth in boldface type on Page 81 of Exhibit "0" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. e e Ordinance 1501-N, Page 5 Section 15. Article X, Section 10-507 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by adding a reference to fences in commercial zones, as indicated in boldface type on Page 83 of Exhibit "D" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 16. Article X, Section 10-1004 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte is hereby amended by adding language restricting the placement of any free-standing public service or advertising signs into any utility easement in residential, commercial, and industrial zones, as indicated in boldface type on Pages 104, 105, 106, 107, and 108 of Exhibit "D" of the "Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations, 1991 Annual Review, Zoning Ordinance No. 1501", which is attached hereto and is fully incorporated by reference herein. Section 17. Any person, as defined in Section 1.02(27) Texas Penal Code, who shall violate any provision of this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Each day a violation of this ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate violation. Section 18. 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, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the passed each section, sentence, phrase, thereof, irrespective of the fact that City Council to have or clause, or part any other section, sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, may be declared invalid. e e Ordinance 1501-N, Page 6 Section 19. The City Council officially finds, determines, 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 20. This Ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days after its passage and approval. The City Secretary shall give notice to the passage of the ordinance by causing the caption to be published in the official newspaper of the City of La Porte at least twice within ten (10) days after the passage of the Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1991. CITY OF LA PORTE By: NORMAN MALONE, Mayor ATTEST: By: CHERIE BLACK, City Secretary APPROVED: By: JOHN D. ARMSTRONG Assistant City Attorney e tit ..... . La Porte; Texas 77571 (713) 471-1234 1200 Hwy. 146 Suite 180 P.O. Box 1414 re Sun 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 semi-weekly n~w~paper published in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who after being duly sworn, says the attached notice was published in The Bayshore Sun of SEPTEMBER 29, 1991 ~~.~ Sandra E. Bumgarner Office Manager Sworn and subscribed before me this ~ day of /1~ A.D. 19!1L. ~ -/~,1' <=---- ~ h. Z~ Notar Public Harris County, Texas FRANCES M. WILLIAMS Notlry Public STATE Of TEXAS M, eo-. bp.1IuclI2U994 ~XH'B'T A EXHIBIT A e e 5, Section 10-1000, Prohibit Encroach- . ~nt .of. Sign..into Udlity Easem~ts . V.'ARi1CLE~LEVEN - .Adm '1n'.I.Sb'~.tion [i .~ Enlorcelflent: Secdon 11-300, Revo- ca~~ ,of .lori~!19 ~nnlts: '. ,\~.:: . . . . ' .,~~: ;:~~'.,.; . I'~"-'i'" 'PROPEFmES''rO BE'CONSIDERED . ~OR .R~ZO~ING.~R~.AS ~O~~W~.' From Neighborhood ComnierclaI'(N,.C.) I . to Generel Commercla1 (G.C.): La Porta Outloll 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A out of . Oullot 260 . . .. ! Lots i 1-5; 34-37; Block 1; Pine GroVe Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Blod< 2; Pine Grove Valley '. . ..... . . lot. 1-5; 34-37; Block 3; Pine Grove .}~ey:',~~<'~:.:::;~'.::->':.:;,',~. , .:' ~I~ :.i~~':..-~~4' ~~. p~~' Gro~.,~el~Y' I . ~ General Commerclel (G.C.)'lo'R-1 I PUBLIC NOTICE: . l~ Deflslty Residendal "'. :" :! . :. .,' I,' ," "', "0 . . '. j' .. t .,' . :..: .' THE STATE OF. TEXAS<. . ,.lA.tl 7-2B, Block 40; TOwn 0' La Porte COUNTY OF HARRIS .' CITY.OF'LA PORTE .':'.':' . lOls 7:~2B, Bl~ 41; TO'!"n 0' La Porte . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.' .,~ ;'.', ';..'.1,'. . : In' !l~R1linCe "Mih'Ihe'prov!slon' 'o( LOti 1-28; 'BlOcI(' 42; ToWn'of La P~e .oroIOBnofil5.Q1,~CltyofLaPortttZon- .....;,:~ ,.:/., " :;' '..' ..' '.'" .lng~~.nollce~~byglverilhat loll 7-2~,'.BlocI.< 43; Town of La POr!e ;~It*.t:8~C}.C1..P'lluv1lng and Zoning Com'::,,: .' ....... ': C,.. '. '. .;I'(II~slOiiWll cone1lct ~ public hearingat,:).loIS 17-26, Block 44; Town 0' La Porta "7:<lp'P.M.-onIhe171hday'otOclOber;t... .' . · . ::: 1991,lnlheCouncll~lo'theClty.;. !-o'1 2~. Block 53; Town 0' La Porte Hal, 604 West Fa/inIont .Parkway, La'.' ". '. ... :-- Porte.. Texas. The purpo.e of the pubUc~..,LoIS 1-9, 24-34,. Block 54; Town of.La hearing Is Iq ~/ve public InpUt regatd-:' ..~orte ";' .. . '.' Ing rez9f\lng Of properdel and amencf::: .(:' .'. .'I,~ :'.: '" . '.- . 'mentsproposed'9f~nanoe1501.'dur;:: lC?I..1-9; 24-34; Blo.ck 55; Town 0'-.1:-& . 109 !he 199t."ann'ua/ review 0' !he CItY of ,,' . Porte . . .,....:' ..;..,..",..:. :. .' " ." ~... . LaPor18ZonlngOrdlnance.Amendments; i:.'. . ':.' '.;..., . .' '.,. ". 10 be considered are 81' loDowa:".': :..~.: lot. 1~9, 24-34, Bkx,:k' 56; Town' ot ,La . . .....,. ,1':'" ....1...:..: Porta .' ..". . . I. ARnqLE FOUR - General Proy/slorls:'. . ".' ....... ',' '". . . . Section 4-400 ~Onlng of Newly Annexad L:ots 1-9, 24-34. B!ock 57; Town ot La P~; '."" .'" i:::';': ,;:,.,<<.{:;Porta..... : ;..' ." ..':. II. ARTICLE. FIVE _ Resldenll~ DiStrict.,.. From General' Commercial (G.C.)"tO R.~uh~d~..~,i':.~; :,;'. i :..;i-i..~:.:;:~~;./.~,,:~r~~h~:.;~m.~~~!(N:C.) .:::. A: SeC1ion 5-700, Table 's."Residentlal.' .::; lots 1~32. B!oCk 37; ToWn of la P~e Resldenllal.SeIbacks Adjacent to. UdUIy' ..:'.,. .> "'. .'..... .... ........: ...,.', ....,. . E~emenll;., .. .. r ;, :-.f.' ..,lOI.)-311.B1~38; Town'of La Porte A','. '-0'," ,t'; '. ~ .. ". ~,. -,' . ....,.~. '.'.\ . ot,o :"' .:.., ~',..' . ~ B'SecilO~5-S~: Pai1d~ L~t ~~;/,:loIS 1-3~,:..~~ 39; Town~f LaPOrte .... _;. ......;. .n" ,,"~j.... ..1'.:.,....'..:.,'.,"'-.. w'o ....~ ......... ........_,. ,". ... ~..'. III. ARTICL7 SIX:- CO":,!'l8rc1a1 !?Is~t ."~:"1~~~.2H3,.BIoCti4o;io~n'~f~ Regulaijon.. (Table A). '. _: '," ,~.I ~ J. '. .. I...'.... . ." :.. :.. .' ". . . ' ..,,1 I . . '... ~ .. .' "_ J..,. . A. S.I.C. 473, Arr8ngmerib io~ T~n;~~:" 'lOls'11-23, .BJock 57; T~n 0' La P~ 0' Freight and Cargo esa 'Permltted with ,. . .'. '. '. '. Condilions- G.Q. UN ' . .: ~:. .,Lots 1-34~B1oc~56; Town 0' La Porte. . '. ". ..... I' .. ", '. J~ ~ . '" ., " .... . . B. Dog. Gro~lnga.a~p~nnllled wl~ .'lotl 1-34, B1ock5~; Town of La porte Conditions. G.C: Use', .' . '. j' .', ."; '. ,'; .r .: . .'. . . '. ..; . . .; ',,:. . >.. . ..' lois 1-33: Block '60; Town of La Porte .' .~ , , . . C. S.I.C. 5932, Anllque and Used.Mer~.:.!" :..' ,: ,., .'; ., .... .... ,.; ". . chandse Sloresall8 Pennltted N C Use.:.lOI~-.1.26,BIock'1B1;.Town of La Porte. iy. 'A~flcii.~.iEN ~ 'SP8cI~"~~9~~'d~~r. ~~!~~'.1~~~(~' ~~8/t~ of:La p~.' . " . ~ . . . . . ~ ; . .'. ' . ....... " :.',. .' ''';' ." .! . ~ . A. Secdon 'lo:.~OO:'.' '.'.'./:.'. :'. . >,'. . ~014~'9;'B~'1~'; TOwn of La Porte' '. -. .... ....,:..-.~'.;;.: :','. ,~,,":, ......::..... :.......:... "':~.:"" ...\- _UO-2OO.5, A~'&o.y BuDdng &lb~ka......' "- regular ni~,tIng will beheld 'ollO~ing' on Large Lot Aes/de{ldal HOme.lte. .' ,! the pubU~ ~~ng for ~ purpose 0' acl- . ...... :. . .. ..... .. . ,. Irvt. u""" !he public hearing lie . d ~."'10~d64:{.tJ~~::~:' iiei~n:;;;';..' ~"..""Other f!1auS'(I .pel1alni';~ a::e Pertaining .10 SWImming Pools, Spas and . ~~Ing . & Zoning. Commission. ..: Hot Tubs .... ..... . .'. . . Cltizens.wlshlng 10 address !he Com- . .. . . '. mls~lon, . pro or con, '.during !he Public 3. 10-401, 'C~ad~ of~'N~w Par~r8ph Hearing wUl be required to sign In before Dealing wllh Allowable Front Yard the meedng is convened. '. fi:ncroacturients (Car Ports) .' . 4. 1(),500, Fencing Requirements In Com m n...,.. i.... , "rn 7~n(.\~ CITY OF LA PORTE Ch@rkl Black ri", ~,..rrP'mv e e CITY OF LA PORTE PHONE (713) 471,:5020 ., P.O Box 111:5 . LA PORTE, TEXAS 7757 I October 29, 1991 Honorable Mayor Malone and City Council City of La Poz::te RE: 1991 Annual Zoning Ordinance Review Dear Mayor Malone, The, Planning and Zoning Commission, over the last seve.ral months has conducted a review of Zoning Ordinance' 1501. On October 17, 1991, the Commission held, the required public hearing for the purpose of taking additional citizen input regarding the ordinance amendments and zone changes proposed during the course of the review. After closing the public hearing, the Commission by unanimous vote, recommended ,a rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial for the following "properties: La Porte out1ots 241; 26l; 280; Tract 260-A out of Outlot 260. Also included as part of the recommended rezoning are the following properties in the Pine Grove Valley subdivision: Lts 1-5; 34-37; B1k 1: Lts 1-5; 34-37; Blk 2: Lts 1-5; 34-37; Blk 3: Lts 1-5; Blk 4. The attached report discusses these properties in greater detail. The ' Commission also, by a vote of four to one abstention) recommended amendments to Zoning Ordinance three, four, five, six, ten and eleven. The amendments for each article are detailed in the attached report. (....ith one Articles proposed Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ,Inge Browder, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission attachments cc: Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Knox Askins, City Attorney EXHIBrr B e e ':1 1991 ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PLANNING & ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW INTRODUCTION The Planning & Zoning Commission has, over the course of several meetings, conducted a review of Zoning Ordinance 1501. This was the annual review mandated by Section ll-504 of the Zoning Ordinance. On October 17, 1991 the Commission h~ld the required Public Hearing for the purpose of taking additional citizen input regarding the ordinance amendments and rezonings proposed during the review. After the close of the public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend that City Council approve these ordinance amendments as well as the rezoning of property located along the west side of 26th Street (Sens Road). The Commission's specific recommendations are contained in the following report. City Council, in this second phase ofl the review process is asked to consider the Commission's recommendations. Council will then schedule a second public hearing to allow citizen comment on the proposals. Following the public hearing, Council will have the opportunity to adopt the Commission's recommendations. This is done by adopting an ordinance which amends Zoning Ordinance 1501. The Council has the option to either approve or reject each of the Commission's recommendations. Should a proposed amendment be rejected, it becomes a dead issue unless the Council refers it back to the Commission for further consideration. 26th Street: There are presently, two Neighborhood Commercial (N.C.) Zones located along the west side of 26th Street (Sens Road,) These zones occupy an area located between North "H" Street and the northern boundary of the Pine Grove Valley Subdivision, The Pecan Villa Mobile Home Park (M. H. Zone) separates the two N. C. zones (See Exhibit A). The Commission is proposing to rezone these areas Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. The descriptions of the tracts being considered are as follows: from legal ~--.. -HBIT B - e ''$ Page 2 From Neighborhood Commercial (N. C.) to General Commercial (G. C.): La Porte Outlots 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A out of Outlot 260 Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block l; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 2; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 3; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; Block 4; Pine Grove Valley This rezoning has been proposed in response to the concern that Neighb~rhood Commercial i~ not the most viable zoning designation for .these tracts. - There are, as illustrated by Exhibit A, relatively large and undeveloped G. C, zones located to both the north and south of the N. C. tracts. Due to the broader ranges of uses allowed i~ G. C. zones, the N. C, property is, by comparison, not as attractive for development. The rezoning is a way to rectify this inequity. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ARTICLE FOUR: PROPOSAL; Section 4-400.1, Zoning of Annexed Property: All territory annexed hereafter to the City of La Porte shall be temporarily classified as R-1 Low Density residential, only until permanently zoned by the La Porte City Council. Immediately after the" annexation of any territory to the City of La Porte, the City Planning and Zoning Commission shall commence any action necessary to recommend to the City Council a permanent zoning classification. The procedure for making permanent such classifications shall be the same as is provided by law for the adoption of the original zoning regulations, and shall take place within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of annexation, COMMENTARY: The above paragraph presently reads "all property annexed hereafter... may be temporarily classified as R-l, Low Density Residential. ..." eXHIBIT B e e 'J, Page 3 The word "may" allows property to be annexed into the City without any zoning classification. This can lead to confusion as well as a variety of complications, legal and otherwise, Substituting the word "shall" will eliminate this problem and satisfy the Zoning Ordinance's intent that newly annexed property be held in the City's most restrictive zoning classification until permanent zoning is assigned. ARTICLE FIVE: PROPOSAL: Section 51700. Table B-Residential (5-701 footnote ~3): The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement located in a rear yard, shall be three feet (3'). No oortion of any buildinq includinq orojections of any nature shall encroach into any utility easement or vertical oroiection of the easement boundary. COMMENTARY: The above footnote presently reads "the minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement shall be three feet (3')." The intent of this footnote is to preserve a minimum setback between structures and the utility easements commonly located in rear yards. There are additionally in the side yards of certain lots, smaller utility easements. Due to the width of the typical lots involved, it has often been necessary for the Board of Adjustment to grant setback relief so that these lots could be developed as homesites. This amendment would allow greater flexibility in developing these lots while still providing protection against encroachments into utility Easements. Section Residential. 5-800 Special Use Performance Standards PROPOSAL: A. Landscape Buffers [Required screening]: 1) A landscape buffer planted with grass or evergreen ground cover and also planted with trees shall be provided. No buildings or refuse containers shall be placed in such areas. r:XHIBIT B e e :J. Page 4 2) Standards a. Minimum width of planting strip - four feet ( 4 I ) . b. A planting plan specifying the location and species of trees to be planted as well as the type of grass or ground cover to be utilized shall be submitted for approval of the Director of Community Development or his duly authorized representative. COMMENTARY: Section 5-800 presently requires a solid landscape screen to completely block parking lots from the view of neighboring r~sidential zones. A solid screen which results in a secluded parking lot would cause obvious safety and security problems. Landscape buffers, as proposed would soften the visual impact of parking lots on adjoining residential zones while still providing a high enough degree of visibility to increase safety for lot users. ARTICLE SIX: PROPOSAL: Uses (SIC Code #) CR ZONE NC GC Antique and Used Merchandise Stores (5932) P P Arrangement for Shipping and Transport (473) * P ( I ) Dog Grooming * P(H) EXHIBIT II e e -:J, Page 5 6-600 Soecial Use Performance Standards: H. There shall be no overnight boarding areas used for holding animals shall be the same building in which grooming place. of animals. All located within activities take I. These facilities shall be limited to office activities only. No warehousing or handling of freight shall take place at these facilities. No trucks, other than light trucks (as defined by this Ordinance) shall be allowed on premises occupied by these facilities. COMMENTARY: Antique and used merchandise stores (SIC 492) are presently "Permitted" General Commercial Uses, This amendment wou~d also cause them to be "Permitted" in Neighborhood Commercial Zones, This amendment was originally put forward in conjunction with the proposed Main Street rezoning. Arrangement for Shipping and Transport (SIC 473) is currently listed as a "Permitted" General Commercial activity, The activities included in this listing are intended (by the City) to be limited to office uses only. In practice however, the brokers and shipping agents who've set up offices in La Porte have often had heavy trucks parking at their facilities. It has been difficult to prosecute this as an ordinance violation because of ambiguity in the present Zoning Ordinance listing. The proposed amendment would change SIC 473 to a "Permitted with Conditions" listing. The Performance Standard which would also be adopted clearly prohibits heavy trucks from parking at office locations, Dog Grooming is proposed as a new listing that would be classified as "Permitted with Conditions," The Performance Standard proposed in conjunction with the listing sets standards to prevent a grooming shop from also functioning as a boarding kennel. EXHIBIT B e e " ':/0 Page 6 ARTICLE TEN: Section 10-300.5 - Accessory Buildinq. Uses and Equioment. PROPOSAL: (Second paragraph) Large Lot Residential Only: Accessory bUildings in Single Family Residential Large Lots may not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. Accessory bUildings with a floor area in excess of one thousand (1.000) square feet must be located at least thirty (30) feet from any property line and thirty (30) feet behind the rear of the primary structure. COMMENTARY: The proposed amendment noted above 1~ intended t~ clarify rather than change present ordinance requirements. Residential accessory bUildings of up to 1,000 square feet must be located at least ,three feet from any side or rear property line, A residential accessory building may only exceed 1,000 square feet if it is located on a homesite of an acre or more in size, The wording change proposed for this paragraph simply states in clearer fashion that only the larger (over 1,000 square feet) accessory buildings are subject to the more stringent setbacks. Section 10-304 Swimminq Pools. spas and hot tubs. PROPOSAL: 2. Fences: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall be enclosed with a fence at least four feet (4') in height. Fences shall comoly with all requirements of the currently adopted edition of the Standard Swimminq Pool Code published by the Southern Buildinq Code Congress International,.. EXHIBIT B e e " ";# Page 7 COMMENTARY: This paragraph deals with swimming pool fencing requirements and references the "requirements of City of La Porte Ordinance '1059, Ordinance '1059 which adopted an earlier edition of the Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect at the time of the Zoning Ordinance's adoption, The City has subsequently adopted a more recent edition of the swimming pool code, As this adopted code will likely be updated again as new codes are developed, adopting the proposed language would eliminate the need for future code related updates of this section. Section 10-401 Yard Reauirements PROPOSAL: Front and detached following 4. Front and Sideyard Caroorts: (New Section) sideyard carports shall be permitted for single family and single family large lot homes subject to the requirements: a. Carports in a required front or sideyard shall not be located closer than five (5) feet from any front or side property line. b. Carports located on corner lots shall not be located closer than twenty five (25) feet from an intersection. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of property lines common with street right-of-way lines. (This in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-605, figure 10-2). c. The maximum width of a carport located in a required front or side yard shall be twenty five (25) feet. [This matches the maximum allowable width of a residential driveway]. COMMENTARY: If the Commission should choose to recommend adoption of this provision there are two other related amendments which should be considered. The first is a new definition which would be located in Section 3-100. t!KHIBlT B e e " ' '''i Page 8 PROPOSAL: Carport: a roofed structure, free-standing or attached to another structure designed to provide covered parking for vehicles. A carport shall have no enclosing walls. A structure shall not be considered to be a carport unless it is located directly over a driveway. COMMENTARY: This definition would simply define the term carport so that carports could be differentiated from other types of structures. The second related amendment would be a wording change to Section 10-301,1. The second paragraph of this section, which deals with detached garages and carports, presently reads: A detached private garage, or carport, as defined, may be permitted in side yards, prov ided : (1) they comply with a 11 the requirements of this section; (2) they shall be five feet (5') or more from side lot lines; and (3) the side yard does not abut a street right-of-way, PROPOSAL: The first sentence of this paragraph should be amended to omit the word carport. This would prevent a conflict with the carport provisions proposed for Section 10-401.4. As amended the sentence would read "A detached private garage, as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided..." PROPOSAL: Section 10-500 General Fencina and Landscaping Reauirements: 10-507.2. Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have areas projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet (7') above the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment. COMMENTARY: Presently, fencing requirements for commercial establishments are not clearly stated. The amendment proposed for the preceding paragraph would help establish clear requirements that are in line with existing fencing requirements for other use zones. EKH1B'T lJ e e '"i Page 9 Section 10-1000. Siqn Requ1ations RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SIGN TABLES B Footnotes: PROPOSAL: No portion of any free standing public service or advertising sign shall encroach into any utility easements. COMMENTARY: This is a new footnote which would be added to all three sign tables in Section 10-1000~ Adopt~ng this amendment would cause signs to .be treated the .same as "any other type of structure in regards to utility easements. Keeping signs out of easements would help maintain the easements as clear corridors for underground and overhead utility lines. r.:XHtBrr B e e ';".., "......--....;;;",.,. { .:";'~tW-~,.-w,....._,_,~ I ::.:.:;..:.:::..~',f::,.. - '~~~.. . '~~,' "...,: .:::3~:.:.::.,',... .-~~ ,~ " . ,-w,..,. ~~ ,.,'.,:. ., " _ I ~bl... ,: "..'"....w.~~'~..,:'.., ,"w. t ~ ( ';. ..,",.,.. "'..f". ' / / ., ',.<.',., ''!-' ..'.., . f".. ~~.. - ...; ~ l '> t -i' . 1 ~l . I ~ "'.. ( Hl" ~ 1 ::1...:~ '...J ~.. , ]. ~~ - r f-- + t '-, ~~~'-'~"'~:"~I' '. 1~., .,. ..~.::.~.~:..:': - ~ f. : '5]. ! r.'~';;'.'E~' i ,~~ i I "' ~j ; r;a r I J : . t I fI, . : i~ .~ ....:Ff\; "':j" "'_-"""~\I .........; . GC' ; ;... ' '... : ,,, 'i ~.. ~I.;. - LJ I : ~ 1. Ii , .. '~, ;~. I 'i: ...81....:;;. .. "1 a j_..... &" .' ~~ :~;~ " .,.i : ",Iii ~ ." .. , .c. ~. / '::...;\ II 1 ..:4.~~:$- , ' ,...R-2: ;j ,,~ 1 ", .,:;~ .:-t~ : \\~':' .!.~.... ~,l= }<'<I ! , -.'--' !. , , l~...... 'i ~ '\~~! . , . ~.......,. I >!-. ~ .I;.Ii' i :....:_~r.. t !~~-r-'~""'" "~Iii'. &iI jj ~ . ,..1: 'I ' ;'11 , '" . , _.......w_~_ 'i:! i ,,~ '11 , ..~.....,....,~...~.\":Iooo. .1', ;,.'::"'1' ."",1'; I \' .t.~~ :r.. b" ,. ;. I' ....~il , ;\i . I ___.. ,_. ."--.. _.. --. i-~- '. ".1 ~ \;''' '.,,:, I :~ '. -.. ,. ~.. .' 'j ~~: i ~ l. ..~~ . .. ----'---:-',,;~~L..__:__,.-",.~- _I '~NC .'1f. ~"t":~. ... ..~ . .~... -;';1 ,IJ-l; 81 ",: ;~ '. -,.~r: '.., !'~: .1--......._ .....J! 'I.t .- '"'~-::7. . .......___1..601,:::-- .. . ~ '~:::'. . ,;;':':J&~~"~"" , i,.. '" ., ..,;::. -.'1 ,i . .'., j .,.1 '-~~",=1,~.., J....l'..Jln:'... J~: _.__.~~......~: 1 ;", '~ l~ .-...:~':';1.~.. ...."'~~i-'......-.i;I~~.....---... .~ .1 ;-.... LI l~'" . ,: ~~ ',4 ,.- ~t; ~ lo'; . + R-I ,~...., '.--"'1 . -..,,'1"'" ".j, ~t ~, ) ':, t~l .... ~ ;g: ..., "': ., i...... .1,;......... ~C' R:~3" l l~'~' ! .: ! ~.. I GC ;.,~ i .~~/n: :-'-:;lii=-....:'~""~D~f""-:;:' --.~1 -yo .. .. . . ,~ ;:J :..1' .,1 .~ ~ ;.:, '....., T' , =., .,. ~L I''! ,~.'!' ~ .. FYHIBIT B ~;~"':.~':"' .....,.11 ...~.""'";.lf .., .."" ;,.i :. if-.... ,~ } 'II .. ,. 'J ;1 9 ,:; ;:i .1 :.' ._~...... HI n' - "~::'l .;! ...' \ ~I"':').':' .....-. ,...... " 2 '. ,'. i ...,:...__. j .;1 I .,.1 f .\. .... PUO ~ " I ~ l ~ --..:..............-, . 'i J ~ ! ~ . \ "1. i .:~ ~ . ... l . ."\ ..; :~'~-~..-.-~ ~!:1:, .. """ , ~ 1 R';J;, ' ._.L~'"'7p. -., . t. ., r( ~ l k l . "," ' I I I ~ I I I ! :~ ."i, ..:., ... ...,,;:i "1 '- # ~ 1200 lfwy. 146 Suite 180 P.O. Box 1414 '. .-- .. .. .~-. e e County of Harris State of Texas La Porte; Texas 77571 (713) 471,1234 ~ Before me, the undersigned authority, on this date , came and appeared Sandra E. Bumgarner, duly authorized agent of The Bayshore Sun, a semi-wee)(ly new~paper published in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who after being duly sworn, says the attached notice was published in The Bayshore Sun of Nov~ 17, 1991 ,~y~~A, ~~~ Sandra E. Bumgarner Office Manager Sworn and subscribed before me this ~ day of 77~~ A. D. 19.!lL. ~ .1- _/- ~~ /J,. A',d.~n-~ Notary Public Harris County, Texas \ EXHIBIT C e e "'\ I bers of !he City Hall, 604 West Falnnont Parkway, La Porte, Texa,. The purpose of !he publ~ hea~n9ls to receive public input regarding rezoning of properties and amendments proposed lor. Ordinance 1501 dUring !he 1991 annual review 01 !he City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance. Amendments to be considered are a. follows: ,..'. " . I. ARTICLE FOUR -' Gener&; Provision.: Secdon 4-400 Zoning 01 Newly Annexed Property , , /I, AATICU~' FIVE - Residendel Distrk:. Reguiedons ',:":, ., ". .' .' t' '..~~: .~. . . A. Section 5-700, Table B, RellidentJal; 'Res/denlial Setbacks Adjacenl 10 Udlity Easements. ' ", .. " l' ' B. Section 5-800: Parking lol Screenirig \' . - ~;, . /lL'ARTICLE SIX - Commercial District Reguladons- (Table Ah'l ' .,' '.,,' ,-, ,.':'-:;' ...;1, , A. S./. C. 473, Arrangements for Transport of Freighl and Cargo .a a 'Permitted with Conditions' G.C, U~ '",';:L:, ' ?,',', ~".. L' ;'..-~.:. ~':-:::~~~~!i;1.f.;..:". _ B, Dog .Grooming as . 'Permilted with . C.Ondi~ns~.D. U ':';'~'" ."! : i."2i~~ An "~.,:;i : i '. 1, ~ 1~i}.:,' i ! ,IV:, ~RTIClE TEN I Reguladon., .~ \;; i~": .~;,....~~ "I'" ','fJ~\ ',i I 'A.' Secdon i 1G-200 .' ( 'l ( i , 1. 1G-200.5, Accessory Sui/clng Setb8ck. : on large ~ Lot .Residential Homeslles .. '~"~~';::f3Tl~t "{fJ'.~":1f.t~t~:-.~~ ;" <.: 2,. 1~204'?r~!~';"~~,.&.Jfm8~i: ' Pertalning!(J ,_, ~il'lg Poo's, ~P81 an~~ . Hot Tubs, q:~~"",t...<'1:"" ,'".'... ...'.,.,.. (..' 't: '\'i:~~ l:"'~~ .~~, :~.I,."nJ,;;~:oJ:.hll\.i t!<t .,'~.:L;r.,rt'.'::H4 ..; ,),l: 3. 10-401, Creation of a New ParagrapttJ Dealing with Allowable Front Yarp~ Encroachments (Car Ports) ;ii ,4.1G-5oo, Fencing Requirmenlsln C~.. ")eR:/sJ Us,~"Zones".,~tj :.~ .~t:.;~ .;;llr,"::;i;~~C; fI.'~ .,:~ ' 5. Secdon ,10:.1000, Prohibil Encroacq~~ 'ment okSlgns Into Utility Easements .:,. \.~ PROPERTIES TO BE CONSIDERED>: FOR REZONING ARE AS FOllOWS-:'; ~~~ . From Neighborhood Commercial (N.C.~~ to General Commercial (G,C.): La Porte'~ OUUots 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A oul ot;~ . .' I.~ OUUoI 260 ;.: ':.~ lols 1-5; 34-37; Block 1; Pine Grove., Valley :.~ lols ,1,5; .34-37; BlocK 2: Pine Grov41f Valley 1,,\ ' ;.: lOls 1-5;'~7; Block 3; Pine GroV;~ Valley ';;::),.. lols 1-5; BlOck 4; Pine GroYa Valley':'; J' '. ..~ , ~ . A regular meeting will be held foliowindj the public hearing for !he purpose of act..l Ing upon !he public hearing Il18ms an({.\ conduct other matters pertaining to !he"" City Council. " . I Cidzens wishing to address !he Council ! pro or con during !he Public Hearing will : be required to sign in before !he meedng i Is convened. : 'PUBUC NOTICE THE STATE Qf;: TEXAS , COUTNY OF HARRIS 9ITYOFLA ~O~T~i'-'ll':; , ::' .I ., ,;~6~~CE'~~', ~~;B~I~ HEA~'~G' 'i 'I' 'In a~d&nce with the provisions or ., Ordinance 1501, the City of La Porte Zon- ing Ordnance notice I. hereby given !hat I the La Porte City Council will conduct. ... pubOc hearing at 6:00 P.M. on Ihf! 9!h day : ., of December 1991, In !he CoullCll Cham- ru.....atT C CllY OF LA PORTE Cherie Black City Secretary e e -8- Bui1dinQ Line: See setback line. Building Permit: An instrument in writing signed by the building inspector authorizing described construction on a particular lot. Refer to the Southern Building Code Congress International (S.B.C.C.I.) for additional information. Business Frontage: The linear measurement of the side of the building which contains the primary entrance of the building. carport: A roofed structure, free-standing or attached to another structure designed to provide covered parking for vehicles. A carport shall have no enclosing walls. A structure shall not be considered to be a carport unless it is located directly over a driveway. City: City of La Porte. City Council: The words "city Council" shall mean the City Council of the City of La Porte, Texas. City Attorney: The City Attorney of the City of La Porte, Texas, or his authorized representative. City Manaqer: That person holding the office of City Manager under the terms of the La Porte Charter, or his authorized representative. City Secretary: That person holding the office of City Secretary under the terms of the La Porte Charter, or his authorized representative. Clinic: An institution, public or private, examination and treatment of patients by an doctors, dentists, or other licensed members profession. or a station for the individual or group of of a human health care controlled Access Hiqhway: Any thoroughfare which is a high volume freeway (without signalization on principal lanes) designed for four (4) to eight (8) main lanes and four (4) service lanes with a right-of-way (R.O.W.) capacity that allows two (2) to four (4) additional lanes. FXH'B\1 D e e -27- Section 4 - 300 Non-Conforming Lots of Record 4 - 301 Continuance of Non-Conforming Lots of Record Subject to all limitations herein set forth, any non-conforming lot may continue without change in boundaries and may be utilized or developed provided that the uses and development are otherwise authorized by these regulations. No new structure shall be placed thereon except in conformity with the applicable controls of the district in which the lot is located. 4 - 302 Discontinuance of Non-Conforminq Lots of Record Any lot which is made conforming by combining with other lots for purpose of sale or development, or by development, or by subdividing, thereafter shall be recognized as a conforming lot and shall comply in full with the provisions of these regulations; provided however, that a non-conforming lot of record that is made conforming shall not thereafter be changed back to a non-conforming lot. 4 - 400 Zoninq of Annexed Property 1. All territory annexed hereafter to the City of La Porte shall be temporarily classified as R-1 Low Density residential, only until permanently zoned by the La Porte City Council. Immediately after the annexation of any territory to the City of La Porte, the City Planning and Zoning Commission shall commence any action necessary to recommend to the City Council a permanent zoning classification. The procedure for making permanent such classification shall be the same as is provided by law for the adoption of the original zoning regulations, and shall take place within one hundred eighty (l80) days from the date of annexaton. 2. In the event a development or subdivision is presented to the City Planning Commission prior to annexation, that specifies a particular land use, the Planning Commission may recommend zoning categories to the City Council, after hearing, so that permanent zoning may be considered simultaneously and in conjunction with the annexation proceedings. 3. In an area temporarily classified as R-l Low Density Residential, a building permit may be issued for the construction of structures or uses permitted by low density residential district regulations, however, other structures or uses, are not permitted unless application for such structures or use is made to the City Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. t=XHIBIT D e e -37- 8* Uses Min. Lot AreajD. U. S.F. Min. Lot width L.F. 2,3,4* 5,6,10 Min. Yard Setbacks L.F. F.R.S. Max. Height 7* Min. site Areaj unit S.F. Min. Deve1. Open Sp.j unit S.F. Max. Lot Coverage Min. Land scaping Req. 9 Freestanding On Premise Signs See Section 10-1000 5-701 Table B Footnotes l. Lot Size Required Developed Open Space/Lot 5000 - 6000 Sq. Ft. 200 Sq. Ft. 4000 - 4999 Sq. Ft. 300 Sq. Ft. 3000 - 3999 Sq. Ft. 400 Sq. Ft. 2000 - 2999 Sq. Ft. 500 Sq. Ft. a. Min. size of developed open space - 1j2 acre for every 80 units or fraction thereof. b. All required developed open spaces must be operated and main- tained by a homeowners association, subject to the conditions established in section 10-102 of this Ordinance, with all documentation required to be submitted for filing in conjunction with the final plat. (See also La Porte Development Ordinance Section 4.04). 2. A minimum landscape setback of twenty feet (20') will be required adjacent to all conservation areas. Buildings, parking areas, and refuse containers will not be allowed in such setback area. These areas are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and ground- cover, with a planting plan required to be submitted and approved by the enforcement officer. 3. The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement located in a rear yard, shall be three feet (3'). No portion of any building including projections of any nature shall encroach into any utility easement or vertical projection of the easement boundary. 4. Where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one(l} adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of only one (1) adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed thirty feet (30'). EXHIBrr D e e -38- 5. All side yards adjacent to public R.O.W. 's must be ten feet (10'). 6. In the case of zero lot line housing, the side setback opposite the zero lot line must be ten feet (10'). 7. D. U .A. is an abbreviation for dwelling units per acre, or the maximum density permitted. 8. All structures except slab on grade, shall be placed on a foundation system described as: An assembly of materials constructed below or partially below grade, not intended to be removed from its installation site, which is designed to support the structure and engineered to resist the imposition of external forces as defined by the Standard Building Code, or in the case of a modular home, the requirements of the TDLS. Such foundation system shall be skirted or enclosed with wood or masonry to give the appearance of a solid foundation, if one is not provided, compatible with the appearance of adjacent housing, and subject to the requirements of the Southern Building Code. 9. See Section 10 - 500 through Section 10 - 508 for additional requirements. 10. No sign shall be located in a sight triangle so as to obstruct traffic visibility at a level between three feet (3') and six feet (61) as measured above adjacent road grade. Section 5 - 800 Special Use Performance Standards-Residential A. Landscape Buffers 1. A landscape buffer planted with grass or evergreen ground cover and also planted with trees shall be provided. No buildings or refuse containers shall be placed in such areas. 2. Standards: a. Minimum width of planting strip - four feet (41). b. A planting plan specifying the location and species of trees to be planted as well as the type of grass or ground cover to be utilized shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development or his duly authorized representative. exHIBIT D Permitted Uses (subject to designated criteria established in section 6-600) Permitted Uses Accessory Uses (subject to requirements of Section 10-300) Conditional Uses (subject to requirements of section 10-200) and designated criteria established in Section 6-600 Not Allowed e e -44- 6 - 303 Density/Intensity Regulations Refer to Table B - Commercial 6 - 304 Special Regulations and Procedures Refer to Article 10: Special Regulations section 6 - 400 Table A - Commercial P (ABC) P A C * USES (SIC Code #) ZONE CR NC P C * * p * * * All uses permitted or/accessory in R-3 zone, except single family detached and special lot All conditional uses in R-3 zone Agricultural service (076-078) Amusements (791-799) Antique & Used Merchandise stores (5932) Arrangements for Passenger Transport (472) Arrangement for Shipping & Transport (473) Apparel and accessory stores (561-569) Automotive dealers and service stations (551,552,553,555-559) * Automotive repair, services (751-754) * Banking (601-605) * Building construction - general contractors (152-161) * Building construction - special trade contractors (171-179) * EXHIBIT D GC P C P p p P P (I) P P p P P P e -45- USES (SIC Code #) Building materials, garden supply (521-523, 526-527) Business services (731,732,736-738) Business services (7359) Commercial amusement - adult, 5,000 feet from all schools, residences, churches, parks, or other public buildings or uses Communications (481-489) Convenience stores (5411) Credit agencies (611-616) Dog Grooming Drug stores (591) Eating & drinking places (5813) Eating places (5812) Electric, gas and sanitary services (491,4923,493,494,4952) Engineering, architectural, accounting services (871-872) Food stores, general (541,542,544,545,549) Freestanding on premise signs Governmental and public utility buildings (91l-922,9631,4311) Grocery, fruit & vegetable stores (542,543) Hardware stores (525) Home furnishing stores (571-573) Hotels and motels (701,701,7032,704) Hospitals, laboratories (806-809) Insurance, real estate, legal, stock & commodity brokers, agents (641-679) f:XHIBIT D e ZONE CR NC GC * p * p * P (A,B,C,D) * P * p p p * p * P (H) P P * p p p p p p p * p See Section 10-1000 * p p p p p * p * p * p p p e e -53- H. Doq Groominq There shall be no overnight boarding of animals. All areas used for holding animals shall be located within the same building in which grooming activities take place. I. Shippinq & Transport These facilities shall be limited to office activities only. No warehousing or handling of freight shall take place at these facilities. No trucks, other than light trucks (as defined by this ordinance) shall be allowed on premises occupied by these facilities. EXH\B\T D e e -77- use permit may be rescinded by the City Council, upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning commission of the City of La Porte, and the previous zoning of the entire tract shall be in full effect on the portion which is undeveloped. 5. Every special conditional use permit granted as provided herein shall be considered as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as applicable to such property. 10 - 202 Conditions for Approval. A Special Conditional Use Permit shall be issued only if all of the fo11owinq conditions have been found. 1. That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. 2. That the conditions placed on such use as specified in each district have been met by the applicant. 3. That the applicant has agreed to meet any additional conditions imposed, based on specific site constraints, and necessary to protect the public interest and welfare of the community. 10 - 203 Amendments The procedure for amendments for a Special Conditional Use Permit shall be the same as for a new application. lO - 300 Accessory Buildinqs, Uses and Equipment 1. No accessory buildings, uses or structures shall be erected or located in any required yard other than the rear yard except: A detached private garage as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided: (1) it complies with all the requirements of this section; (2) it shall be five feet (5') or more from side lot lines; and (3) the side yard does not abut a street right-of-way. Accessory Buildings built on a skid foundation, no larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet and no more than one story in height may be located in utility easements in required rear yards, except that they may not be located closer than three feet (3') from a side or rear property line or closer than six feet (6') from any other structure. EXHIBlT D e e -78- 2. Accessory buildings, uses and structures shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height, shall be three feet (3') or more from all lot lines, shall be six feet (6') or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located upon any utility easement. 3. Private garage structures with vehicular access doors facing public alleys, as defined in the Public Improvement Construction Policy and Standards, shall be twenty feet (20') or more from the alley right-of-way. Detached garages located in rear yards of corner lots shall be set back a minimum ten feet (10') from the property line abutting the side street right-of-way. 4. Detached private garages, as defined, may be twenty feet (20') in height, or the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. 5. No accessory building, or carport garage for single family dwellings shall occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of a rear yard, nor exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. Large Lot Residential Only: Accessory buildings in Single Family Residential Large Lots may not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area in excess of one thousand (1,000) square feet must be located at least thirty feet (30') from any property line and thirty feet (30') behind the rear of the primary structure. 6. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) detached private garage or carport structure for each dwelling, 7. Wind generators, for producing electricity or other forms of energy shall not be located in any yards other than the rear yard and must be set back one hundred fifty feet (150') from all property lines or the height of the structure, whichever is greater. 8. It shall be unlawful for any person to leave, stand, or park a commercial motor vehicle, pole trailer, semi-trailer, shipping container, trailer, truck (other than a light truck as defined herein), or a truck tractor on any property zoned for residential use. Boats or recreational vehicles parked or stored in a rear yard are not subjected to the restrictions imposed by this section. 9. No accessory uses or equipment except for air conditioning structures or condensers may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. EXH1B1T D e e -80- 1. Setbacks Pumps, Filters Spas/ Heating Pools Hot Tubs Decks Equipment Separation from Adjacent Structures 6 ' N/A N/A N/A Side Setback 5' 5' 2 ' 2' Rear Setback 5' 5' 2 ' 2 ' Setback from utility May Not May Not May Not Easement 3 ' Encroach Encroach Encroach Front Setback See Sect. See Sect. See Sect. See Sect. 10-401(2) 10-401(2) 10-404(2) 10-401(2) 2. Fences: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall be enclosed within a fence at least four feet (4') in height. Fences shall comply with all requirements of the currently adopted edition of the Standard Swimming Pool Code published by the Southern Building Code Congress International. In the case of a pool located in a front yard adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, see section 10-502. section 10 - 400 Exceptions lO - 401 Yard Requirements The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements. 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, steps, stoops, and the like, provided they do not project more than four feet (4') into any front or rear yard, and two feet (21) into any side yard. 2. Terraces, decks, patios, or similar features, provided they do not extend more than one foot (1') above the height of the exterior finish grade elevation, or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line, or encroach upon any utility easement. Further, pools shall not be considered as an encroachment on a front yard setback, provided that said pools are located in a front yard adjacent to Galveston Bay, and provided further that said pool does not extend more than one foot (1') above the exterior finish grade elevation, or to a distance less than two feet (21) from any lot line or encroach upon any utility easement. EXH\B\1 D e e -81- 3. Rear Yards Only: An unenclosed, attached patio cover, awning, or canopy, provided that no portion of said patio covers, awnings, or canopies shall encroach into any utility easements, or any vertical projection thereof, and provided further that no portion of said patio covers, awnings, or canopies shall be located at a distance less than five feet (51) from the side property line or three feet (31) from the rear property line, or any vertical projection thereof. 4. Front and Side Yard Carports: Front and side yard carports shall be permitted for single family detached homes subject to the following requirements: a. Carports in a required front or side yard shall not be located closer than five feet (51) from any front or side property line. b. Carports located on corner lots shall not be located closer than twenty-five feet (251) from an intersection. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of property lines common with street right-of-way lines. c. The maximum width of a carport located in a required front or side yard shall be twenty-five feet (251). 10 - 402 Heiqht Requirements The building height limits established in this Ordinance for distances shall not apply to the following except if they are located within an airport height restriction area: 1. Belfries; 2. Chimneys or flues; 3. Church spires, not exceeding twenty feet (201) above roof; 4. Cooling towers; 5. Cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space; 6. Elevator penthouses; 7. Flag poles; 8. Monuments; 9. Parapet walls extending not more than three feet (31) above the limiting height of the building; lO. Water towers; 11. Poles, towers, and other structures for essential services 12. Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances; 13. Television and radio antennas not exceeding twenty feet (201) above roof; 14. Wind electrical generating equipment. EXH\B\T D ~ . e e -83- section 10 - 500 General Fencing and Landscapinq Requirements 10 - 501 No fences, structures, grading, or barrier hedges shall be permitted within any front yard areas except in the case of large lot residential lots, or in the case of lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, as provided below. 10 - 502 In the case of large lot residential lots, six feet (6') perimeter fences are permitted as an accessory use. In the case of lots with a front yard directly adj acent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, four feet (4') front yard fences are permitted parallel and adjacent to the side lot lines. However, said fences shall not be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to Galveston Bay, and shall only be constituted of chain link. These exceptions do not permit structures, grading, or barrier hedges. 10 - 503 within side yards and rear yards, fences of not higher than six feet (6') excluding six inch (6") rot boards and walls forty-two inches (42") high or less shall be permitted. 10 - 504 Fences or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal at the owner's expense if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on utility easements containing overhead wires shall not exceed ten feet (10') in height. 10 - 505 Both sides of the fence must be maintained in good condition by the owner of the fence. 10 - 506 Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted, used or constructed except in industrial districts or to control livestock as hereinafter provided. 10 - 507 Property line fences in any industrial district shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height except that: 1. Fences erected along a property line in common with a residential district shall be subject to the provisions herein described in residential district fences, and 2. Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet (7') above the ground, and such fence EXH1BlT D t e e { -84- shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment. 10 - 508 Landscaping A. Landscaping is required in percentages specified in Sections 5-700, 6-500, and 7-600. site plan and/or separate landscape plans shall be submitted in conjunction with building permit applications. Approval of landscape requirements is a condition of building permit approval. 1. Total area of required landscaping shall be computed by the following method: a. Total developed site area shall be computed. b. Total area of roofed over improvements shall be computed and then deducted from the developed site area. c. The area of required landscaping shall be based on the total remaining developed site area. B. Public right-of-way may be used for landscaping purposes. However, right-of-way used for landscaping will not contribute towards a total required landscaping percentage for parking and open-space areas. Landscaping on public property or easements is at owner's risk and subject to the requirements of Section 10-504. c. Landscaping plans shall be developed using the following criteria: 1. Location a. Required landscaping shall be located in the front and side yard. b. Landscaping located in sight triangles shall be maintained in a manner that maintains an area of clear visibility between three (3) and six (6) feet as measured vertically from the adjacent preva1ing grade. 2. Types of Plants and Materials a. Grass, ground cover, flowering and non-flowering plants, shrubs and trees, wood, timber, stone, fountains, and ponds may be used for required landscaping. EXHIBIT D e e -104- Section 10-1004 Survey & site Plan Requirements Any person desiring to erect or place a freestanding sign on any property, shall submit to the Code Enforcement Office a survey of said property which indicates the proposed sign location. In the case of signs which due to size or height do not require an engineered design, a survey shall not be required. Any person desiring to erect or place a freestanding sign of this type on any property, shall submit to the Code Enforcement Office a site plan of said property on which the proposed sign location is indicated. RESIDENTIAL SIGN TABLE A USES (SIC CODE #) R-l ZONES R-2 R-3 MH Freestanding On Premise Identi- fication Sign; Townhouses, MUlti-Family Developments, Group Care Facilities, SUbdivisions, Education and Religious Facilities P P P P RESIDENTIAL SIGN TABLE B (8 *) Uses (1,2) Min. Yard Setbacks L.F. F. R. S. Max. Heiqht Free- standing On Premise Signs 0-0-0 Equal to Max. Allowable Footnote: 1. No sign shall be located in a sight triangle so as to obstruct traffic visibility at a level between three feet (3') and six feet (6') as measured above adjacent road grade. 2. No portion of any freestanding public service or advertising sign shall encroach into any utility easement. EXHIBIT D e -105- COMMERCIAL SIGN TABLE A USES (SIC CODE #) Freestanding On Premise Signs Freestanding Off Premise Public Service Signs Spaced In Intervals of Not Less Than 500 Feet CR COMMERCIAL SIGN TABLE B Uses Max. Sign Area Freestanding On Premise Signs 150 Sq. Ft. Freestanding On Premise Signs Located In C.A.C. 300 Sq. Ft. Freestanding On Premise Advertising Signs for Multi Tenant Buildings 350 Sq. Ft. Freestanding On Premise Advertising Signs for Multi Tenant Buildings Located in C.A.C. 350 Sq. Ft. Freestanding Off Premise Public Service Sign (whether located within or outside the boundaries of C.A.C. ) 75 Sq. Ft. (1,2) Min. Yard Setbacks F. R. S. 0-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 SEE FOOTNOTE(S) ON NEXT PAGE EXHIBIT D e ZONES NC p * (1,2) Adj. to Res. Min. Yard Setback F. R. S. 0-5-5 0-5-5 0-5-5 0-5-5 0-5-5 GC P p Max. Height 45 Ft. 65 Ft. 45 Ft. 65 Ft. 18 Ft. e e -106- Footnotes: 1. No sign shall be located in a sight triangle so as to obstruct traffic visibility at a level between three feet (3') and six feet (6') as measured above adjacent road grade. 2. No portion of any freestanding public service or advetising sign shall encroach into any utility easement. EXHtB'T D e USES (SIC CODE #) -107- e INDUSTRIAL SIGN TABLE A On Premise Freestanding Signs Off Premise Freestanding Signs Uses On & Off Premise Freestanding Signs Freestanding On Premise Signs Located In C.A.C. Freestanding On Premise Advertising Signs for Multi Tenant Buildings Freestanding On Premise Advertising Signs for Multi Tenant Buildings Located in C.A.C. Freestanding Off Premise Public Service Sign (whether located within or outside the boundaries of C.A.C.) B-1 P * INDUSTRIAL SIGN TABLE B Maximum Sign Area 150 Sq. Ft. 300 Sq. Ft. 350 Sq. Ft. 350 Sq. Ft. 75 Sq. Ft. E){H\B'" D (1,2,3) Minimum Yard Setback F. R. S. 0-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 ZONES L-I P P (1,2,3) Adj. to Resid. Min. Yard Setback F. R. S. 0-5-5 0-5-5 0-5-5 0-5-5 0-5-5 H-I p P Max. Height 45 Ft. 65 Ft. 45Ft. 65 Ft. 18 Ft. ... .. e e .' -108- Footnote: 1. No sign shall be located in a required sight triangle in such a manner as to obstruct traffic visibility at a level between three feet (3') and six feet (6') as measured above adjacent road grade. 2. All off premise freestanding advertising signs shall be spaced in intervals of not less than three hundred (300) feet. 3. No portion of any freestanding public service or advertising sign shall encroach into any utility easement. EXH1BtT D e e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ================================================================= Agenda Date Requested: 12-9-91 Requested By: John Joerns Department: Comm. Develop. XXX Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: 1) Flyer advertising citizen Participation Meeting regarding Community Development Block Grant Proposals. 2) Letter from Harris County Community Development Agency requesting Block Grant Proposals. 3) Block Grant Proposal Guidelines. 4) Outline with Last Year's Proposals. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Harris County Community Development Agency has requested that the City of La Porte submit proposals for projects to be considered for possible Community Development Block Grant funding. These should be proposals for proj ects which address needs relating to such items as housing, social services, capital improvement and economic development. Additionally, under funding guidelines, projects should be designed to meet the need of low to moderate income people and neighborhoods. In La Porte's case this is primarily the Northside neighborhood (unfortunately, the 1990 census information regarding family income will not be available until April 1992, therefore, it would be difficult to examine and then document other parts of the community that might qualify as low to moderate income) . The purpose of this agenda item is to allow Council to take citizen input regarding possible projects and then give staff guidance in determining what type of project(s) to submit for consideration. The deadline for submitting proposals is 3:00 PM, Friday, J~nuary 3, 1992. Action Required by Council: 1) Take citizen and staff input regarding possible block grant funded projects. 2) Discuss proposals and determine which to pursue. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Availability of Funds: N/A General Fund Capital Improvements Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account No.: Funds Available: Yes No ================================================================= Approved for City Council Agenda GW ~ ~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager n",l ~ \~ Date ================================================================= November 14, 1991 November 18, 1991 November 21, 1991 December 9, 1991 January 3, 1992 e e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSED TIMELlNE FOR SUBMISSION OF 1992 HCCD BLOCK GRANT Executive staff review of timeline Post notice of Public Meeting, City Council to receive input. Newspaper, hand bills, etc. Executive staff comments due City Council Public Meeting on CDBG to receive citizen input and rank proposals Deadline for submission of proposal e e 1989 HCCDBG APPLIED FOR: RECEIVED 1) Purchase of former U.S. Post Office for Sr. Citizens Center No 2) Construction of wheelchair ramps and replacement of broken curbing and sidewalks on Main Street between State Hwy. 146 and Broadway. No 3) Conversion improvements of the former U,S. Post Office for Sr. Citizens Ctr. No 4) $30,000.00 awarded in 1988 for the design of a S.P.O,R.T. Center and $247,500.00 for the construction of a S.P.O.R.T. Center awarded in 1989 as part of a 2 year commitment. Yes 1990 HCCDBG APPLIED FOR: RECEIVED 1) Purchase of a facility to be renovated for No Sr. Citizens facility or land acquisition and design for new facility. 2) Expansion of S.P.O.R.T. facility by 1250 sq.ft. No 3) 26 passenger handicap accessible bus for No Sr. CitizensjS.P.O.R.T. Center 4) Construction of wheelchair ramps and replacement No of broken curbing and sidewalks for Main Street between State Hwy. 146 and Broadway 1991 HCCDBG APPLIED FOR: RECEIVED 1) 2) 3) 4) Demolition of unsafe structures No Northside Drainage Study No Swimming Pool Reconstruction No Mainstreet Wheelchair ramps No e e NOTICE OF CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING To DISCUSS AND RECEIVE INPUT ON THE CITY OF LA PORTE'S FY 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT PROPOSAL(S) THE MEETING SHALL BE HELD ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1991 AT 6:00 PM BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THE MEETING SHALL BE HELD AT CITY OF LA PORTE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 604 W. FAIRMONT PARKWAY LA PORTE, TEXAS e e I ( :J ( HARRIS COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3100 Timmons lane. Suite 220, Houston, Texas 77027 · 626-5651 FAX 963,9146 JON lINOSA Y, County Judge ViAL HR L IOt~[S. Oi. c.eto. October 11, 1991 RECEIVEr) The Honorable Norman Malone Mayor of La Porte P. 0, Box 1115 La Porte,Texas 77571 Dear Mayor Malone: f~~@@;ilW~11.T ljlr" ..../U, OCT II 1991 ~. OCT 1 6 1991 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE /;85T. CITY MAi~AGER OfFICE Re: 1992 CDBG Request for Proposals Enclosed is a Request for Proposals for 1992 Harris County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. If you wish to request a 1992 CDBG grant from Harris County, please complete the attached forms, , During 1991, Harris County asked the City of La Porte, as well as other co-operative cities, to identify the community development needs in their respective cities, including capital improvement, housing, social service, and economic development needs. La Porte's July 12, 1991 letter responding to our request identified the following needs in the North La Porte area: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Abandoned Buildings - demolition of abandoned, dilapidated buildings. Housing - rehabilitation of deteriorated homes. Water and Sewer - reconstruction of water and sewer lines. Transportation - development of a transportation system for the , elderly and disabled. Alcohol and Drug Abuse - establishment of an education program aim at curbing alcohol abuse and illegal drug use. Childcare - provision of childcare services, J Db Training - development of job training program. It is expected that if La Porte submits a proposal for 1992 CDBG funds, it will address a need expressed in the above list. Please note that the Harris County Housing Authority rehabilitates owner-occupied homes and that the City may refer homeowners to the Housing Authority for assistance at any time. The City may develop a CDBG proposal for a more comprehensive housing assistance program, mcluding other components such as housing reconstruction, infill housing, or rehabilitation of rental housin~. Also, please note that the Harris County Private Industry Council (PIC) operates job traming programs and you may wish to contact that agency about unemployment problems in North La Porte. The City may also develop a~ CDBG proposal for a job training program operated in conjunction with the PIC. \Ve would be happy to provide technical assistance in the development of a housing or job training proposal. e e { :J " ( Mr. Malone October 11, 1991 Page 2 Completed proposals should be submitted to this office before 3 p.m., Friday, January 3, 1992. If you have any questions or need assistance completing these forms, please plan to attend the Proposers Conference on Thursday, October 31 at 10 a.m. in our office or call Robert K 1. BAA:rk Enclosure lOOlmalo 91,119,05 e e , ( :J Harris County Community Development Agency 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL GUIDELINES I. BACKGROUND A. Overview The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 established the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to meet the needs of low and moderate income people. As a result, Harris County created the Harris County Community Development Agency (HCCDA) to implement its CDBG program, Since 1975, HCCDA has been awarding CDBG funds to local government entities and non-profit organizations to provide basic community improvements and services to residents in its service area. The HCCDA service area includes the unincorporated portion of Harris County and those cities signing cooperative agreements with the County. (See attached map of HCCDA service areas.) Houston, Pasadena and Baytown do not participate in the County's CDBG program.,.-,..-......- B, Funds Expected for FY '92 Harris County receives CDBG funds directly from the U, S, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The allocation varies each year depending on availability of federal funds. Approximately $5 million is expected to be received from HUD in FY '92. The average grant amount awarded to applicants in past years has been $250,000. Proposals significantly greater than this amount should, if possible, be presented in terms of phases that can be implemented over a period of years, FY '92 CDBG funds are expected to be available September 1, 1992, Social service programs will receive funds on a reimbursement basis for a one-year period. II, GENERAL INFORMATION A. 1992 Statement of Objectives The three primary national objec~ves of the CDBG program are: 1) to benefit people with low and moderate incomes, 2) to aid in preventing or eliminating slums and blight; and 3) to meet other urgent community development needs. Based on these objectives, HCCDA has developed local objectives to meet the needs of the residents it serves, The objectives are: 1) To meet the most basic public works and housing needs of low and moderate income people; 2) To encourage economic development and increased job opportunities; 3) To fund social service demonstration programs for children and adolescents that complement community development objectives; e e :J GUIDELINES Page 2 It is the intent of HCCDA to improve the quality of life for low and moderate income service area residents and to make the most effective use of CDBG funds, B, Selected Target Areas and CooJ;lerative Cities Priority will be given to proposals received from or benefitting the residents of the target areas and cooperative cities listed below. Proposals for communities not on this list will be accepted and considered for funding after all selected area proposals have been evaluated. Target Areas Cooperative Cities Aldine- Westfield Barrett Station Bordersville Cedar Grove Channelview Clear Creek Cloverleaf Crosby Kenwood Linus Marwood McNair North Houston Heights Northington Sherwood Place Spring Verde Forest Galena Park Jacinto City Katy-Woodsland Park Area La Porte-Northside Missouri City - 5th Street Area South Houston .. ---..- Tomball-Blackshear Street Area C, Types of Programs to be Funded HCCDA awards a large portion of its CDBG funds for permanent infrastructure improvement projects which meet such basic needs as providing clean water, adequate sewer systems and decent, safe and sanitary housing. Projects which are essential elements of a long-term plan for a comprehensive and coordinated neighborhood revitalization effort are highly encouraged and will receive greater consideration. Community group endorsements for public improvement projects should also be included in proposals. Proposals with matching funds will be given greater consideration, Applicants, are requested to secure matching funds prior to submitting proposals and attach letters of commitment for such funds, For joint projects, letters of support from other agencies involved must accompany proposals at the time they are submitted, A small percent of funds are available for social service programs which provide services to low and moderate income children and youth, HCCDA encourages proposals for early childhood education, child day care programs, and child abuse prevention programs. HCCDA will give high priority to proposals which address the prevention of juvenile delinquency. Social service proposals must include a description of the sources and amounts of matching funds, Also a high priority are joint projects which request CDBG funds to build or rehabilitate a building to be used for a model service facility to be owned by a non profit and for which other agencies provide operating funds. e e ;J GUIDEUNES Page 3 D, Economic Development Proposals HCCDA will consider proposals for economic development projects that create jobs for low and moderate income people, Proposal guides for economic development projects are available by request. Call Kevin Carruth at (713) 626-5651 for information. E, Program Beneficiaries 1. Construction projects must serve principally (51% or more) low and moderate income residents, or elderly or disabled persons. Social service (direct benefit) projects must use CDBG funds only for the benefit of low and moderate income persons. 2. All facilities or improvements must be located in or near low and moderate income areas served by HCCDA. (HCCDA funds cannot be used to serve residents of or fund projects in Houston, Pasadena or Baytown). 3. If the purpose of the proposed project is to create permanent'jobs,for~lo\I.UDd moderate income persons, letters of commitment must be provided for specific jobs to be created or retained for low and moderate income residents. At least 51% of jobs created or retained must benefit low and moderate income residents. (See II.D above) 4. HUD defines low and moderate income persons as those residents of a household whose total annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the median family income for the area. For Harris County, moderate income figures are as follows: Persons in Household Annual Income Limit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $23,050 26,350 29,650 32,950 35,600 38,250 40,850 43,500 UI, Other Important Information A. Land Acquisition Public improvement proposals should have all necessary land acquisitions completed prior to applying for CDBG funds. The acquisition of real property required for a federally-funded project must comply with federal regulations. This requirement is in effect when property is to be acquired after the application for federal funds is made, not merely when funds are awarded, Applicants planning to acquire real property for a CDBG-funded project after applying for CDBG funds are strongly encouraged to contact Marilynn Kindell at (713) 626-5651 prior to initiating the acquisition process. B. Displacement and Demolition The permanent displacement of homeowners, tenants, businesses, non-profit organizations or farms for CDBG-funded projects is discouraged. If permanent displacement is necessary, it must , . e e ;J ( GUIDELINES Page 4 also comply with federal regulations, In addition, certain restrictions apply to the demolition of buildings that could be used to house low and moderate income persons. Applicants anticipating permanent displacement or demolition must include this information in their proposal to HCCDA. C. Project Desi~ and Construction Management Responsibility HCCDA will provide architectural and engineering design services and manage all phases of physical projects from design through completion of construction. If the applicant desires to fund the design of the project using its own qualified staff or an HCCDA-approved consultant, this is acceptable. All CDBG-funded design will be performed by HCCDA, unless unforeseen circumstances occur. D, Limitation on Religious Organizations In keeping with the Constitutional principle of the First Amendment, certain limitations are placed on religious organizations receiving CDBG funds. Federal funds cannot be used for religious purposes; therefore; CD BG funds'. cannot be. used. to renovate, 'rehabilitate.o....c6nvert buildings owned primarily by religious organizations, if the facility will be used for religious purposes. Religious organizations may, however, use CDBG funds for facilities, programs and activities if the facility is not used for religious purPoses and if such programs and activities are carrieej out in a manner free from religious influences. . E, Limitation on Use of CDBG-Funded Facilities Facilities constructed with CDBG funds must be used for their intended purposes as described in the proposal for a period of time to be specified in a contract with Harris County. If the facility is proposed to be used for other purposes prior to the end of the specified period, approval must first be obtained from HCCDA. IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCESS A. Proposal Submittal Enclosed are one, severa~ or all of the following proposal forms: 1) Physical Improvements and Facilities, 2) Social Service Facilities; 3) Social Service Programs; and 4) Housing Programs, Complete and submit the first page of the appropriate proposal form, and answer the questions on the remaining pages, using your own paper, Include all elements contained in the proposal form, Proposals must be complete and self-explanatory and not require oral explanation, Note: Non- profit agencies, Attach Exhibit 1, Proposer Certification and items listed in Exhibit 1. Answer all questions in a clear, concise manner. The Certifying Representative listed on page one of the proposal should be the individual who has legal authority to submit proposals for the agency or jurisdiction and enter into agreements with Harris County, i,e., the Chairman of the Board of a . . e e , ( :J ( GUIDI!:L1NES Page 5 social service agency or the Mayor or City Manager of a co-op city. The Certifying Representative may be different from the contact person listed on that page. SUBMIT ONE ORIGINAL AND THREE COPIES OF THE PROPOSAL. (Please Note: Non- profit agencies submit only ~ copy of Exhibit 1 and the items listed in Exhibit 1.), All proposals are due in the office of the Harris County Community Development Agency at 3100 Timmons Lane, Suite 220, Houston, Texas 77027 by 3 p,m. on Friday. January 3, 1992, Incomplete proposals will not be considered. B, Proposal Review Staff may request additional information, meetings and/or site visits with applicants. A list of projects recommended for funding will be published in late April, 1992. The Housing Authority Board of Commissioners will review staff recommendations in early May, 1992 and will forward its recommendation to the Commissioners' Court for consideration in late May, Applicants will be notified in writing regarding the status of their proposals after Commissioners' Court action. ....._~ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Contact the appropriate Planning and Program Develop~ent Division staff person listed below at (713) 626-5651. Physical Improvements and Facilities: Robert Kesl Economic Development, Social Service Programs and Facilities: Kevin Carruth Housing Programs: Carol Borrego Division Manager: Cinda Calderon lOgd1nl(fonns) 91-119,05 . . e e -.. ~ 4 NORT, H 3 BEAR CREEK . - -@- LEGEND rmllllllllllll COOPERATIVE CITIES" " - -- UNINCORPORATED SERVICE AREAS ~ INIV, f . COMMUNITY CENTERS ~ PRECINCT BOUNDARIES 14 PRECINCTSI STA' ,EAR ( JI HARRIS COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COOPERATIVE CITIES AND UNINCORPORATED SERVICE, AREAS *expected to become Cooperative City as of June 1 1992 ~EST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGEN~ITEM Agenda Date Requested: December 9, 1991 Requested By: Louis Riqby Department: Human Resources Report Resolution x Ordinance Exhibits: Ordinance No. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION The City's Personnel Policy Manual has been revised to reflect the new Worker's Compensation Act, the Americans With DisabiliLie~ Act, and to retain, to the extent possible, the "at will" employment relationship. The document has been reviewed by staff, the City Attorney, an outside labor law specialist, and City Council during a workshop session. All recommendations have been incorporated into the final document. Action Required by Council: Approval of Ordinance No, which adopts the City's new personnel policy manual to be effective January 1, 1992. Availability of Funds: General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: Funds Available: Yes No Approved for City Council Aqenda \'t,\ ~ \ ~\ Robert T. Herrera City Manager G?~ T. ~ Date e e CITY OF LA PORTE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM November 27, 1991 TO: FROM: Mayor and Council Robert T. Herrera, City Manager~ ~',~ Personnel Policy Changes ~ ~ SUBJECT: I have attached a revised Personnel Policy Manual with changes recommended at the Workshop Meeting of November 18, 1991. I call your attention to those changes: 1) Page 1 - Chapter 1, Section 1 - The effective date of the manual shall be January 1, 1992. 2) Page 13 - Chapter 5, Section 3 - 1. ... The City Manager may approve the hiring of an employee above the minimum recommended salary for that job classification, provided that, the employee e"Xceeds the qualifications for the position. And, 2. ... An employee being laterally transferred shall continue to receive the same salary and retain the same eligibility date for pay increases. \ 3) Page 20 - Chapter 6, Section 4 - Unexcused absences in items 1, 2, and 3 were changed to one (1) unexcused absence in item 1, two (2) unexcused absences in item 2, and three (3 ) unexcused absences in item 3. 4) Page 20 - Chapter 6, Section 5 - President's Day was removed from the holiday list and an Employee Discretionary Day was added. 5) Page 22 - Chapter 6, Section 6 - Under 4C, there was a typographical error and should read: Employees whose regularly scheduled work day is twenty-four (24) .... 6) Page 23 - Chapter 6, Section 7 - Changed to reflect that any employee hired on or after November 19, 1991, will accrue unlimited sick leave but will not be paid for any unused sick leave, upon termination, and with the same stipulations as current employees, until they have worked for the City for at least ten (10) years. 7) Page 32 - Chapter 8, Section 7 - The provisions of the Texas Whistle Blowers Act were added. I trust these changes reflect your direction and look forward to the policy's adoption on December 9, 1991. xc: Knox Askins e e ORDINANCE NO. 11 q g AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CITY OF LA PORTE PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL DATED JANUARY 1, 1992, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE, FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby adopts the "City of La Porte Personnel POlicy Manual" dated January 1, 1992, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "An, incorporated by reference herein, and made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 2. The City of La Porte Personnel Policy Manual hereby adopted, shall supercede all previous City of La Porte Personnel Policy Manuals heretofore adopted by the City Council of the City of La Porte, on its effective date of January 1, 1992. Section 3. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause, or any part of any section, sentence, phrase, or clause, of this ordinance or the City of La Porte Personnel Policy Manual hereby adopted, shall for any reason, be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or said Personnel Policy Manual, and it is hereby declared to be the intention of this 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 part thereof, may be declared invalid. Section 4. The City Council officially finds, determines, 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. . . e e ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 Section 5. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and approval, and it is so ordered. The City of La Porte Personnel policy Manual adopted by this Ordinance, shall be effective from and after January 1, 1992. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 9th day of December, 1991. CITY OF LA PORTE BY Norman L. Malone, Mayor ATTEST: Cherie Black City Secretary APPtZ:<~ Knox W. Asklns City Attorney REQUE~FOR CITY COUNCIL AGE~ , Agenda Date Requested: nFr.FMRFR q. 1 qq1 Report W Department: FTRF / Resolution X Ordinance Requested By: ," SFASF Exhibits: NEW RATE ORDINANCE ATTACHED SUMMARY & REGQMMENDATION THE PRESENT RATE STRUCTURE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE IS A FLAT RATE OF $100,00 PER CALL WITH AN ADDiTIONAL CHARGE OF $25.00 FOR TRANSPORT TO HOSPITAL OVER FIFTEEN MILES FROM LA PORTE. UNDER CURRENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES WE CANNOT COLLECT THE TOTAL AMOUNT FROM MEDICARE OR MEDICADE, THE PROPOSED NEW RATE STRUCTURE WILL USE CHARGES BY ITEMIZATION FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED. THIS WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO RECOVER A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE COSTS FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES AND MEDICARE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW ORDINANC~ WE WILL START BILLING INSURANCE COMPANIES DIRECTLY, WHICH WILL RELIEVE THE BURDEN FROM THE INJURED PARTY, AND ALSO SHOULD MAKE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS PAYMENTS FASTER, I RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY ADOPT THE NEW RATE STRUCTURE ORDINANCE #1799 (SEE ATTACHED) .' . Action Required by Council: APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE ORDINANCE Availability of Funds: General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: N/A . Funds Available: Y,ES NO ounci1 Agenda DA~t'ffl rt T. Herrera' ',' y Manager e e ORDINANCE NO. 1799 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR THE CITY OF LA CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE RATE PORTE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. The following rate structure is hereby established for the provision of emergency medical services by the City of La Porte Emergency Medical Service. 1. Transportation: $150.00 + $2.50 per loaded mile 2. Emergency handling: (extrication and Code 2 emergency traffic) 25.00 3. Life flight/alternate transport: 150.00 + cost of supplies 4. Infection control: (if mask and/or aprons are needed for cleanup after infectious patient) 15.00 5. Spinal immobilization: 25.00 6. ECG monitor: 15.00 7. Medicine: 10.00 per prescription 8. Oxygen set up: 15.00 9. Splinting package: 10.00 10.00 10. Mast pants: (military anti shock trouser application) 11. Thumper: 12. CPR 15.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 per site 20.00 15.00 50.00 25.00 40.00 25.00 15.00 13. Blood draw: 14. LV. set up 15. Bandage (includes hot packs, cold packs, etc.) 16. E.T. package: (endotracheal intubation) 17. EOA or EGTA package: (esophageal gastric tube airway) 18. O.B. kit: 19. Intraosseous package: 20 Bag Valve Mask: 21 Suction Package: Section 2. The rates established hereunder shall be effective the 1st day of January, 1992. . e ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 Section 3. 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, sentences, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, irrespective of the fact that any other section, sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, may be declared invalid. Section 4. The City Council officially finds, determines, 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 5. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and approval, and it is so ordered. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 9th day of December, 1991. CITY OF LA PORTE BY Norman L. Malone, Mayor ATTEST: Cherie Black City Secretary A~:J Knox W. Askins City Attorney e e '.-..,:" Houston-Galveston Area Council Office of the Executive Director PO Box 22777 · 3555 Timmons · Houston, Texas 77227,2777 . 713/627,3200 November 4, 1991 The Honorable Norman Malone Mayor, City of La Porte P. O. Box 1115 La Porte, TX 77572-1115 Dear Mayor Malone: I am writing regarding designation, of, your_ city's .representatives to H-GAC's 1992 General Assembly and Board of Directors. H-GAC's By1 aws authorize each member city with a popu1 ati on of at least 25,000 but not in excess of 99,999 according to the last preceding Federal Census (1990) to select one member of its governing body as its representative and one member of its governing body as an alternate to the Houston-Galveston Area Council General Assembly. H-GAC's Bylaws also stipulate that your Board of Directors representative shall be the General Assembly delegate. Therefore, the official chosen to serve as the General Assembly representative will also be designated to serve on H-GAC's Board of Directors. I have enclosed the appropriate form for your convenience. The 1992 desi gnated representatives begin their terms of offi ce at the Annual Meeting. If more information concerning General Assembly and Board of Directors memberShip would be useful, please contact me or Cynthia Marquez of the staff. Thanks for your help in selecting H-GAC's 1992 General Assembly and Board of Directors. Sincerely, J S: cm Enclosure xc: City Secretary e e DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS **************************** BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of La Porte, Texas that the fall owing be, and they are hereby, designated as the representative and alternate of the General Assembly of the Houston-Galveston Area Council for the year 1992: REPRESENTATIVE S \1....~ \ ~N ALTERNATE ~ ~~ FURTHER THAT, they are hereby, designated as the representative and alternate to the Board of Directors of the Houston-Galveston Area Council for the year 1 992. THAT, the Executive Director of the Houston-Galveston Area Council be notified of the designation of the hereinabove named delegate and alternate. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this the day of , 1 991 . APPROVED : Mayor ATTEST: e e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ================================================================= Agenda Date Requested: December 9. 1991 Requested By: John Joerns Department: Comm. Develop. xxx Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: 1) Memo from Reagan McPhail and John Dunham ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting approval of Change Order #2 which was presented and discussed during the Administrative Reports section of the November 18, 1991 city Council meeting. The Change Order provides additional reinforcement steel in the ceilings of the Single and Multi-story Burn Buildings at the Fire Training Facility. Additional reinforcement steel will allow for 4 inches of concrete between the hot face and the steel instead of the current design of 2 inches. Staff recommends the revision on the basis that the additional 2 inches of separation will help minimize spa11ing caused by thermal cycling. This change will help reduce future maintenance costs and prolong the life of the buildings. Action Required by Council: Approval for additional reinforcement steel in the ceilings of the Single and Multi-Story Burn Buildings at the Fire Training Facility, as stated in change Order #2 in the amount of $7,461.00. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Availability of Funds: xx General Fund capital Improvements Other 029-500-200-910 water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Funds Available: -X- Yes No Account No.: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Approved for City Council Agenda G<~ \, ~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager \".. ~-'\\ Date ================================================================= e e CITY OF LA PORTE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 15, 1991 FROM: John Joerns, Assistant City Manager . ~ Reagan McPhail, Survey Party supervisory John Dunham, Assistant Fire Chief TO: SUBJECT: Fire Training Facility Recent information has become available concerning concrete coverage of reinforcing steel in the Burn Buildings. Members of the Fire Department staff attended a Burn Building Symposium where several key areas of concern were brought out by owners and operators of live burn training buildings. The major concern is the concrete thickness between the hot face and the reinforcing steel in the ceilings of the burn buildings. The recommended thickness for this application is 4 inches, however, our design specified 2 inches. City staff met with our contractor and construction management firm to provide structural analysis and costs associated with providing an additional 2 inches of cover. Attached you will find a cost breakdown of each burn building, which we feel is within reason to accomplish this need. The additional steel is necessary to allow for the additional 2 inches of concrete cover, to help prevent spalling caused by thermal cycling of the concrete and steel. This should help minimize future maintenance costs. In summary, we are asking approval for the expenditure of $7,461,00 from available funds in the Fire Training Facility Contingency Fund, account #029-500-200-910 to provide the change we feel is necessary to help prolong the life of the buildings. ~T FOR CITY COUNCIL AGEND~ Agenda Date Requested: ecember 9 1991 ,4u~ ~- Requested By: Buddv 1~obs Department: Public Works xxx Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: 1. Proposal for Engineering Services from Manning Engineering Corporation SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION The Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Water Commission have mandated a dechlorination process be designed and installed at the Wastewater Treatment Plant prior to renewal of the discharge permit in 1992. Chlorination is required to disinfect the plant effluent prior to discharge into the receiving waters, Little Cedar Bayou and Galveston Bay. Chlorine is toxic to wildlife. The EPA and TWC have implemented regulations requiring all discharges be dechlorinated prior to entering the receiving waters. The City of La Porte contacted the Manning Engineering Corporation for a proposal to perform the various engineering services required to design, assist in bidding the project, and perform construction administration through final startup. Mr. Manning proposes to provide services as follows for the project: ITEM LUMP SUM AMOUNT Preliminary Engineering Pinal Design Bid and Contract Phase Construction Administration and Inspection Start Up Consultation $ 2,000.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 NO CHARGE Total $10,000.00 Staff recommends acceptance of the proposal from Manning Engineering Corporation for engineering services as outlined above. Funds in the amount of $135,000.00 were budgeted in the 1984 General Obligation Bond Funds for the engineering and construction of these facilities. Action Required by Council: Authorize City Manager to execute an engineering contract with Manning Engineering Corporation for a lump sum cost of $10,000.00 for engineering services necessary to design and construct a dechlorination facility at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Availability of Funds: xxx General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 018-806-720-510 Funds Available: XX YES NO Approved for City Council Agenda Q~. T~ l~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager 11..- '\ - 0\ l DATE e e ~ 1425 26TH STREET LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 713/471-7590 l., October 30, 1991 CITY OF LA PORTE P.O. Bo:.: 1115 LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115 ATTN: Steve Gillett Director of Public Works RE: Technical Services Proposal/Agreement City of LaPorte Wastewater Treatment Plant Dechlorination Facilities LaPorte, Texas Dear Mr. Gillett, This letter is Manning Engineering Corporation~s Technical Services Proposal and if approved by signature it shall become our Technical Services Agreement. Manning Engineering Corporation agrees to perform the various services as outlined in Attachment A, Scope of Services, and in consideration for those services the City of LaPorte shall pay Manning Engineering Corporation according to Attachment 8, Payment Schedu12. Work authorized outside of the initial Scope of Services shall be paid on a negotiated basis. This constitutes the proposal. If acceptable, please sign as indicat2d below and return one copy for my fils. ~s ~ruly, ~ Wi~~~~ . President :dr Attachments SIGNATURE: NAME: Date TITLE: e e lit_ ~,,,,,-..::'""-'4~""':!~.~. IL\., ATTACHMENT A CITY OF LA PORTE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DECHLORINATION FACILITIES SCOPE OF WORK I. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING A. Discuss Design Concepts with City. 1. Flowrate proportional to rate of flow. 2. Flow set by feedback loop from residual analyzer. 3. Building heated ys. heat tracing. 4. Gas ys. liquid chemicals. B. Develop Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for two Dechlorination Methods. 1. Gas feed. 2. Liquid feed. C. Compare Chemical Costs. D. Recommend System in a Letter Report. E. Work shall include meetings in LaPorte and five copies of Final Report. II. FINAL DESIGN A. Prepare Design Report. B. Prepare Construction Plans 1. Site plan. 2. Equipment layouts and details. 3. P&I Diagram (s). 4. Building and structural details. 5. Electrical plans and control schematics. C. Contract Documents and Technical Specifications. D. PrOCESS Planning Material through Texas Water Commission. E. Conduct of Prebid Meeting and assistance with Bidding. 1 ,..... I":' , l . f e e ATTACHMENT A Continued III. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION A. Preparation of Contract Documents and attendance at Bid Opening. B. Prepare Bid Tabulation ,and attendance at Council Meeting for Award. C. Review of Shop Drawing, Equipment and Material Submittals. D. Field Inspection of on-going Construction. E. Review of Pay Requests. F. Monthly Progress Meetings if required. G. Final Inspection Field Visit. IV. START-UP AND TESTING A. Prepare 0 & M Instructions. B. Consult with City of La Porte Operations during Start-Up. 2/2 . I , '" e e ,JI.I~ ATTACHMENT B CITY OF LA PORTE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DECHLORINATION FACILITIES PAYMENT SCHEDULE ITEM LUMP SUM AMOUNT I. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING $ 2,000 II. FINAL DESIGN Plans, Specifications, Design Report, and Contract Documents $ 5,000 III. BID AND CONTRACT PHASE $ 1,000 IV. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION $ 2,000 V. START-UP CONSULTATION NO CHARGE TOTAL $10.000 Reproduction and Mailings to be handled by City of La Porte. REQUE~FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA rflt ,. Agenda Date R~quested: nFr.FMRER 9, 1991 Requested By: .1 1 SEASE CHRIS OSTEN X Report Exhibits: Department: FIRE/EMS Resolution Ordinance SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION REQUEST THAT COUNCIL APPROVE PHYSIO CONTROL AS A SINGLE SOURCE VENDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MONITOR/DEFIBRILLATOR LIFE PAK 10. EMS HAS TRIED TO ACHIEVE STANDARDIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FOR ALL THREE UNITS, TWO OF OUR UNITS ALREADY HAVE A PHYSIO CONTROL LIFE PAK 10. PLUS WE HAVE A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH PHYSIO' CONTROL FOR OUR MONITORS. MONIES FOR THIS PURCHASE HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED AND THE QUOTE FOR A NEW LIFE PAK 10 IS WITHIN BUDGET. . '"." ~ . .. LIFE PAK 10 MONITOR/DEFIBRILLATOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,471,25 1 YEAR WARRANTY INCLUDED. Action Required by Council: APPROVE OR REJECT PURCHASE THROUGH SINGLE SOURCE VENDER Availability of Funds: X General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 001-500 517 R?1 Funds Available: L Y,ES NO Approved for Citv Council Agenda Q~ ,-. \~ Robert T. Her rera ' ,,;. City Manager I l.--"b-'\ \ DATE ~T FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA~ Agenda Date Re~ted: December 9, 1991 Requested By: B~~~ Department: Public Works xxx Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION An Interlocal Agreement with the City of Bay town for the purchase of mosquito control chemicals was approved by Council in October, 1991. The city of La Porte purchased the amount of Scourge necessary to spray for the current mosquito season. The supplier of Scourge, B & G Chemicals has notified the City of Bay town of a 10% price increase effective January 1, 1992. Mosquito control activities for 1992 will require approximately 55 gallons of Scourge. The prlce lncrease will raise the cost of chemicals approximately $1,145.00. staff recommends purchase of the necessary mosquito control chemical, Scourge, required to spray during the 1992 season in order to take advantage of the current lower price. It is recommended the City purchase 55 gallons of Scourge at the current price of $208.07 per gallon at a total cost of $11,443.85. This purchase will be through the interlocal agreement with the City of Bay town. Action Required by Council: Authorize purchase of 55 gallons of Scourge through the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Bay town at a total price of $11,443.85 from B & G Chemicals. Availability of Funds: xxx General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 001-700-701-207 Funds Available: ~YES NO Approved for City Council Agenda Q~ r-~ ~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager l","~-~\ DATE . ~T FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA~ Agenda Date R:f~ted~~~mber 9, 1991 Requested By: BU~ Department: Public Works xxxx Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: Bid Tabulation and Recommendation SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Sealed bids for Plastic Garbage Bags were opened on November 11, 1991. Five bids were mailed, with four returning bids. Low bid was submitted by Bemis Inc., Films Division in the amount of $0.3785 per pound, for an estimated cost of $54,882.50. This is a 2% increase over the last purchase. H-GAC current price is $0.384 per pound, plus 3% administrative fee. Funds are budgeted in the amount of $144,000 in the Residential Solid Waste Division for the semi-annual purchase of bags. Action Required by Council: Award bid for purchase of plastic garbage bags to Bemis Inc., Films Division in the amount of $0.3785 per pound, for an estimated total purchase of $54,882.50. Availability of Funds: XX~~General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 001-700-702-215 Funds Available: XX YES NO &Eproved for City Council Aqenda ~\l~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager ~t.r '~'\ l DATE e e CITY OF LA PORTE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 2, 1991 TO: STEVE GILLETT ~ FROM: SUSAN KELLEY, BUYER SUBJECT: SEALED BID #0457 Advertised, sealed bids #0457 for Plastic Garbage Bags were opened and read on November 11, 1991, Bid requests were mailed to five (5) suppliers with four (4) returning bids. Low bid of $54,882,50 was submitted by Bemis Inc. Film Division. HGAC's bid for the same bid is $0,384 per pound. Including the 3% administrative fee, the total price would be $57,350.40. The low bid from Bemis Inc. is a 2% increase over the last purchase. Please submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting, If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before council, please notify me. Attachment: Bid Tabulation xc: Buddy Jacobs wI attachment Bill Fitzsimmons wI attachment e e PL.'..STIC-GARBAGE BAGS SEALED BID 110457 BEMIS ARROW SUNBELT DYNA PAK COMPANY INDUSTRIE PLASTICS ----- 145.000 lbs Garbage Bags - Per Unit ,3785 .38 .439 .4631 I (?arbage Bags - Total Price $54.882.50 $55.100.00 $63.655.00 $67.149.5 ,- ---- -- -- ---- - - . _u _ , - - ---- -- ---- -, T FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA~ Agenda 1991 Department: Public Works xxx Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: 1. Bid recap Sealed Bids #0458 - Lime Slurry SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Advertised, sealed bids #0458 for Lime Slurry were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Bid requests were mailed to three (3) suppliers with two (2) returning bids. Low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Chemlime Division of Chemical Lime SW, Inc., our current supplier, at a cost of seventy-six dollars and fifty cents ($76.50) per ton. Using estimated yearly quantities, the cost of this contract would be fifteen thousand, three hundred dollars ($15,300.00). Staff recommends award of the bid for the supply of Lime Slurry to Chemlime, low bidder meeting specifications. Funds for this contract are budgeted in the FY 91-92 Street Maintenance Division Operating Budget. Action Required by Council: Award bid for the supply of lime slurry to Chemlime, low bidder meeting specifications, in the amount of $76.50 per ton. Availability of Funds: xxx General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 001-700-701-415 NO Funds Available: XX YES Approved for City Council Agenda ~~\I~ Robert T. Herrera 11'~-~\ DATE e e CITY OF LA PORTE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 22, 1991 TO: Steve Gillett, Director of Public Works Susan Kelley, BUyer)!.--- FROM: SUBJECT: Lime Slurry Advertised, sealed bids #0458 for Lime Slurry were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Bid requests were mailed to three suppliers with two returning bids, Low bid was submitted by Chemlime Division of Chemical S~l Inc. Using estimated yearly quantities, the cost of contract would be $15,300.00 at $76.50 per ton. Lime the This is a 9% increase over last year's price. Please submit your recommendat ion "lith an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting. If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before council, please notify me. SKjjm Attachment: Bid Tabulation xc: Buddy Jacobs Orville Burgess UNIT PRICE TOTAL e BID TABULATION LIME SLURRY - BID #0458 CHEMLIME DIVISION OF CHEMICAL LIME SW INC. $76.50 $15,300.00 e LIMECO, INC. $78.50 $15,700.00 RE~ST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGEN~ Agenda Date ReqUest~: ~December 4J 'H,A.c.-- Requested By: Buddy a s xxx x Report 9, 1991 Department: Public Works Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: Bid Tabulation and Recommendation SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Sealed bids for purchase of Flexible Base Crushed Limestone were opened on November 18, 1991. Five bids were mailed with three returning bids. Low bid was submitted by Gulf Coast Limestone in the amount of $10.47 per ton delivered and $8.50 per ton picked up. Using estimated quantities, total cost is $56,600. This represents a 7% decrease from the last contract price. Funds are budgeted in the amount of $150,000 in the Street Maintenance Division for the purchase of flexible base. Action Required by Council: Award bid for the purchase of Crushed Limestone to Gulf Coast Limestone in the amount of $10.47 per ton delivered and $$8.50 per ton picked up, for a total estimated purchase of $56,600. Availability of Funds: xxxx General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 001-700-701-415 Funds Available: XX YES NO Approved for City Council Agenda {j~ r. \~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager \"l.' '\- 'H DATE e e CITY OF LA PORTE INNER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 2, 1991 TO: FROM: STEVE GILLETT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUSAN KELLEY, BUYER It- SUBJECT: SEALED BID #0459 - FLEXIBLE BASE CRUSHED LIMESTONE Advertised, sealed bids #0459 for Flexible Base Crushen Limestone were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Bid requests were mailed to five (5) suppliers with three (3) returning bids, Low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Gulf Coast Limestone. Using estimated yearly quantities, the cost of the contract would be $56,600.00. This is a 7% decrease under last bid's price. Please submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting, If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before council, please notify me, SK/jm Attachment: Bid Tabulation XC: Buddy Jacobs Orville Burgess e e ., FLEXIBLE BASE CRUSHED LIMESTONE SEALED BID 110459 GULF COAST PARKER GULF STATE LIMESTONE LAFARGE MATERIALS INC. CRUSHED LIMESTONE - DELIVERED / TON $10.47 $11.78 NO BID CRUSHED LIMESTONE - PICKED UP / TON $8.50 $9.19 NO BID ., t I TOTAL $56,600.00 $63,495.0C ALTERNATE GS-100S - DELIVERED / TON $10.60 GS-100S - PICKED UP / TON $8.00 TOTAL $57,000.00 . - . e e REOUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Agenda Date Requested: December 9. 1991 Requested By: stan Sherwood Department: Parks & Recreation x Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: Memo from the buyer and letter from Pfeiffer & Son, Inc. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Sealed bids #0460 for a lighting system (baseball field) were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Low bid was submitted by Pfeiffer and Son, Inc. in the amount of $22,830.00. However, because $18,500.00 was budgeted for the project, we asked Pfeiffer and Son for an optional package. The optional bid is $19,069.00 and specifies several revisions regarding construction. 1. Direct buried cable with warning tape instead of conduit and cable. 2. 35 ft. steel poles instead of 40 ft. (increase concrete foundation elevation finished grade). steel 5 ft. poles above 3. City will provide cross arm brackets. The additional monies ($569.00) for the project are available due to the savings realized on expansion of dugouts for the Fairmont Little League Complex. Action Required by Council: Approve optional bid submitted by Pfeiffer & Son, Inc. in the amount of $19,069.00. Availability of Funds: x General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number:001-800-800-802 Funds Available: -X- YES NO Approved for City Council Aqenda ~~~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager t1.~'l-'\\ Date e e PFEIFFER & SON, INC. EtuIriut ~ee.u PHONE 471.4222 lieN, 18TH ST. . P,O,Boxllte LA PORTE. TEXAS 77871 November 25, 1991 Hr. Louis Rigby The City of La Porte P. O. Box 1115 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Subject: Fairmont Park Baseball Field Dear Sir: Due to the budget limitations on to offer an optional package. baseball field lighting per following modifications: the above project, we wish We propose to install the specifications with the 1, Direct buried cable with warning tape instead of conduit and cable. 2, Use of surplus 35 ft. galvanized steel poles. 3. Increase the concrete foundation elevation approximately five feet aboved finished grade. 'f. City to provide galvanized crossarm brackets. With these modifications, we can reduce our original estimate of $22,830.00 by $3,761.00 for a total cost to the City of $19,069.00. Please note, the installation time will be 30 days, provided the weather permits access to the area. Very truly yours, Pfeiffer & Son, Inc. 1.~..C?+~( f~ L. R, Pfeia~ President LRP/sI L RP 2 81 ~ ~ !}~fJ ~ ~~ ~ {}t..1'~}' ~. ,4f' CITY OF LA PORTE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 22, 1991 TO: Stan Sherwood, Director of Parks & Recreation FROM:. Susan Kelley, Buyer ~ SUBJECT: Lighting System for Baseball Field Advertised, sealed bids #0460 for Lighting System were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Bid requests were mailed to five suppliers with two returning bids, Low bid was submitted by Pfeiffer & Sons for $22,830,00 with a 70 day completion time. Moser Electric.s bid for $24,100.00 has a 21 day completion time. . Please submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting, If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before council, please notify me. SK/jm Attachment: Bid Tabulation xc: Bert Clark TOTAL PRICE COMPLETION TIME e 3ID TABULATION LIGHTING SYSTEM - BID #0460 PFEIFFER & SONS $22,830.00 70 DAYS e MOSER ELECTRIC $24,100.00 21 DAYS e e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Agenda Date Requested: 12-9-91 Requested By: Stan Sherwood Department: Parks & Rec. x Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: Memorandum from buyer SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Sealed bids #0461 for a 5 gang reel mower were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Bid invitations were mailed to four (4) vendors with two returning bids. Low bid was submitted by Brookside Equipment in the amount of $28,970.00. Action Required by Council: Approve Brookside Equipment's bid in the amount of $28,970.00. Availability of Funds: x General Fund Capital Improvement Other Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number:001-800-800-850 Funds Available: -X- YES NO Approved for city Council Aaenda ~r.~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager \''-'~ '\ -'tl Date e e CITY OF LA PORTE INNER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DECEMBER ? 1001 -, ---- TO: Stan Sherwood, Director of Parks & Recreation FROM: Susan Kelley, Buyer ~ SUBJECT: Sealed Bid #0461 - 5 Gang Reel Mower Advertised, sealed bids #0461 for a 5 Gang Reel Mower were opened and read on November 18, 1991. Bid requests were mailed to four (4) dealers with two (2) returning bids, and one (1) no-bid. Lm., bid meeting specifications was submitted by Brookside Equipment for $28,970.00. Please submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting. If there is a need to delay br inging this bid before counc 11, please notify me. SK/jm Attachments XC: Bert Clark e e 5 GANG REEL MOWER SEALED BID 110461 BROOKSIDE WATSON LANSDOWNE EQUIPMENT DIST. MOODY MOWER $28,970.00 $35,900.00 I NO BID I I I - - - ---- - ~, -, - -, n ,- - -, - . - ---- - - -- -- -,- ~ FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA~ Agenda Date Re~~~~~~~~mber 9, 1991 Requested By: Buddy/~c~bs Department: Public Works xxxx Report Resolution Ordinance Exhibits: Bid Tabulation and Recommendation Detailed Test Descriptions SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Sealed bid for the furnishing of Wastewater Lab Testing Services were opened on November 25, 1991. Six bids were mailed with five returning bids. Low bid was submitted by EFEH and Associates, for a total estimated cost of $19,128.50. The tests are described on the attached Specifications. These tests are mandated by the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Water Commission, and will be performed as required throughout the year. Action Required by Council: Award bid for the furnishing of Wastewater Lab Testing Services to EFEH & Associates for an estimated yearly cost of $19,128.50. Availability of Funds: General Fund Capital Improvement Other xxxx Water/Wastewater General Revenue Sharing Account Number: 002-806-807-507 Funds Available: ~YES NO Approved for City Council Agenda -6?~ ~ Robert T. Herrera City Manager \ 1.... 1- ~ \ DATE e e CITY OF LA PORTE INNER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 2, 1991 TO: STEVE GILLETT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: SUSAN KELLEY, BUYER~. SUBJECT: SEALED BID #0462 - WASTEWATER LAB TESTING Advertised, sealed bids #0462 for Wastewater Lab Testing were opened and read on November 25, 1991, Bid requests were mailed to six (6) suppliers with five.(5) returning bids. Low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Associates, Using estimated yearly quantities, the cost contract would be $19,128,50, EFEH & of the Please submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting, If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before council, please notify me. SKjjm Attachment: Bid Tabulation XC: Buddy Jacobs Curtis Herrod e e , , ~ , WASTEWATER LAB TESTING EFEH & EASTEX PROFESSIONA CORE SPL SEALED BID 1/0462 ASSOCIATES ENVIRON- , SERVICE LAB MENTAL INDUSTRIES LAB, INC. INC. TEST IH $31. 00 $37.00 $41. 00 $72.00 $86.00 TEST 1/2 $42.00 $52.00 $54.00 $92.00 $106.00 TEST 113 $216.50 $242.00 $202.00 $266.00 $408.00 TEST 114 $261. 50 $372.00 $323.00 $541. 00 $808.00 TEST 115 $276.50 $380.00 $335.00 $548.00 $822.00 TEST 116 $436.50 $382.00 $911.00 $1,198.00 $822.00 TEST 117 $626.50 $1,482.00 $1,454.00 $2,050.00 $1,822.00 TEST 118 $93.75 $102.00 $94.00 $167.00 $202.00 TEST 119 $128.75 $132. OO~ $356.00 $347.00 $327.00 TEST 1110 $87.50 $112 . 00 $79.00 $170.00 $194.00 TEST 1111 $735.00 $3,365.00 $1,582.00 $4,079.00 $3,006.00 TOTAL $19,128.50 $25,225.00 $28,547.00 $44,385.00 $46,892.00 e e Specifications Wastewater Lab Testing - Bid #0462 Descriotion: The City of La Porte is seeking competitive bids on various lab tests required by the Wastewater Treatment Plant. These tests shall run in accordance with EPA guidelines using analytical methods specified by 40 CFR 136 and must be of such quality as to be legally defensible. Requirements: The successful bidder must comply with the following requirements: 1. Supply all bottles with acid preservation where appl icable. 2. Know volume of sample needed to perform tests. 3. Give estimated time frame for results. 4. Provide chain of custody sheets. 5. Submit quality assurance and quality control sheets following EPA procedures. 6. Pick up samples or arrange for delivery. Quantities: Quantities are estimated and may be increased or decreased at the City of La Porte's discretion. Contact: All questions should be addressed to: Pamela Kroupa City of La Porte PO Box 1115 La Porte, TX 77572-1115 471-5020 #327 FAX: 471-0578 We run monitoring samples on various businesses year round along with some storm water testing of our own. These tests include the following: Test IJ 1 WASTE WATER MONITORING (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 5 DAY BOD 20 C SUSPENDED SOLIDS ph TEMPERA't'URE GREASE CONTENT 250 300 5.5-9.5 150 F 200 e e Test /I 2 (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (c) ph 5.5-9.5 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 ( f ) COD 1000 Test # 3 (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (c) ph 5,5-9.5 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 ( f) COD 1000 (g) ARSENIC 0.1 (h) BARIUM 1.0 ( i ) BORON 4.0 ( j ) CADMIUM 0,005 ( k ) CHROMIUM 0.5 (1) COPPER 0.5 ( m ) LEAD 0.5 (n) CYANIDE 1.0 ( 0 ) MANGANESE 1.0 (p) MERCURY 0.005 (q) NICKEL 1.0 ( r ) SELENIUM 0.05 ( s ) SILVER 0.05 ( t ) ZINC 1.0 (u) PHENOLS 2.00 Test /I 4 (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (c) ph 5.5-9.5 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 (f) COD 1000 (g) ARSENIC 0.1 (h) BARIUM 1.0 ( i ) BORON 4.0 ( j ) CADMIUM 0,005 (k) CHROMIUM 0.5 (1) COPPER 0.5 ( m ) LEAD 0.5 (n) CYANIDE 1.0 (0 ) MANGANESE 1.0 ( p) MERCURY 0.005 (q) NICKEL 1.0 ( r ) SELENIUM 0.05 (s) SILVER 0.05 ( t) ZINC 1.0 (u) PHENOLS 2.00 (v) PESTICIDES .10uq/l (w) HERBICIDES .10uQ/l e e Test It 5 (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (c) ph 5.5-9.5 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 ( f ) COD 1000 (g) ARSENIC 0.1 (h) BARIUM 1.0 ( i ) BORON 4.0 ( j ) CADMIUM 0.005 (k) CHROMIUM 0.5 ( 1 ) COPPER 0.5 ( m ) LEAD 0.5 (n) CYANIDE 1.0 ( 0 ) MANGANESE 1.0 (p) MERCURY 0.005 (q) NICKEL 1.0 ( r ) SELENIUM 0.05 (s) SILVER 0.05 ( t ) ZINC 1.0 ( u ) PHENOLS 2.00 (v) PESTICIDES .10ug/l (w) HERBICIDES .lOuq/l ( x) ANTIMONY 4.0 Test It 6 - On Wastewater influent andeffluent (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (c) ph 5,5-9,5 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 ( f) COD 1000 (g) ARSENIC 0.1 (h) BARIUM 1.0 ( i ) BORON 4.0 ( j ) CADMIUM 0.005 (k) CHROMIUM 0.5 ( 1 ) COPPER 0.5 (m) LEAD 0.5 (n) CYANIDE 1.0 ( 0) MANGANESE 1.0 (p) MERCURY 0.005 (q) NICKEL 1.0 ( r ) SELE~IUM 0.05 (s) SILVER 0.05 ( t ) ZINC 1.0 (u) PHENOLS 2.00 (v) PESTICIDES .10uq/l (w) HERBICIDES .10uq/l ( x) ANTIMONY 4.0 (PLUS ANY POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN RECOGNIZED FROM THE PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCAN) e Test >> 7 e SLUDGE (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( c) ph (d) TEMPERATURE (e) GREASE CONTENT (f) COD (g) ARSENIC (h) BARIUM (i) BORON (j) CADMIUM (k) CHROMIUM (1) COPPER (m) LEAD (n) CYANIDE (0) MANGANESE (p) MERCURY (q) NICKEL (r) SELENIUM (s) SILVER (t) ZINC (u) PHENOLS (v) PESTICIDES (w) HERBICIDES (x) ANTIMONY (cc) TCLP (PLUS ANY POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN RECOGNIZED FROM THE PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCAN) 250 300 5.5-9.5 150 F 200 1000 0.1 1.0 4.0 0.005 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.005 1.0 0.05 0.05 1.0 2.00 .10uq/l .10uQ/l 4.0 Test >> 8 STORM WATER TESTING - ANNUAL (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS (c) ph 5.5-9.5 (d) TEMPERATURE (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 (u) PHENOLS (y) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (aa)Total Phosphorous (bb) Nitrate Plus Nitrite Nitrogen (cc) COD Test ,. 9 (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C ( c) ph (e) GREASE CONTENT (x) Malathion (aa)Total Phosphorous (cc) COD 250 5.5-9.5 200 Test >> 10 300 l~O.1. 2.00 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (u) PHENOLS 2.00 (y) Total Kjeldah1 Nitrogen (bb) Nitrate Plus Nitrite Nitrogen (a) 5 DAY BOD 20 C 250 (b) SUSPENDED SOLIDS 300 (c) ph 5.5-9.5 (d) TEMPERATURE 150 F (e) GREASE CONTENT 200 (z) Fecal Coliform (y) Total Kje1dahl Nitrogen (aa)Tota1 Phosphorous (bb) Nitrate Plus Nitrite Nitrogen (cc) COD e e Test I 11 - PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCAN TO INCLUDE ALL POLLUTANTS LISTED FROM EPA AND TWC LISTS - (to be run on wastewater influent) We need a one time pollutant scan run on our influent to the POTW, to include all of the pollutants below. We will pull one 24 hour composite sample, plus four grabs for the following: pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile organics for the test. EPA listed Priority Pollutants: 114 117 119 122 124 126 128 002 006 019 010 038 015 011 088 047 016 013 033 044 030 024 059 064 031 057 065 001 072 075 017 067 082 028 035 039 012 056 081 005 079 Antimony Beryllium Chromium Lead Nickel Silver Zinc METALS AND CYANIDE 115 118 120 123 125 127 121 Volatile Compounds Acrolein Carbon Tetrachloride 2-Ch10roethy1viny1 Ether 1,2,-Dichloroethane Ethylbenzene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Vinyl Chloride Bromoform Chloromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,3-Dichloropropylene Methylene Chloride 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene Acid Compounds Chlorophenol (2) 2,4-Dinitropheno1 Pentachlorophenol 2,4-Dich10rophenol 2-Nitrophenol Phenol Base/Neutral Acenaphthene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Bis(chloromethyl)Ether Butyl Benzyl Phthalate Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 2,4-Dinithrotoluene F1uoranthene Hexachloroethane Nitrobenzene Phenanthrene Benzidine Benzo(ghi)Perylene Arsenic Cadmium Copper Mercury Selenium Thallium Cyanide 004 051 048 032 045 086 087 003 007 023 029 046 085 014 034 058 021 060 022 Benzene Ch10rodibromomethane Dich1orobromomethane 1,2,-Dichloropropane Methyl Chloride Toluene Trichloroethylene Acrylonitrile Chlorobenzene Chloroform 1,1-Dich10roethylene Methyl Bromide Tetrachloroethylene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2,4-Dimethylphenol 4-Nitrophenol 2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol 4,6,-Dinitro-0-Cresol P-Ch10to-M-Creso1 Compounds 078 Anthracne 074 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 018 Bis(2-Ch10roethy1)Ether 066 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 040 4-Ch10ropheny1 Phenyl Ether 026 1,3-Dich10robenzene 071 Dimethyl Phthalate 069 Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 080 Fluorene 054 Isophorone 063 N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine 077 Acenaphtylene 073 Benzo(a)Pyrene 043 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane .. e e . Base/Neutral compounds continued.... 042 Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) 041 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether Ether 020 2-Chloronaphtha1ene 076 Chrysene 025 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 027 1,4-Dich10robenzene 070 Diethyl Phthalate 068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 036 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 037 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine(as Azobenzene) 009 Hexachlorobenzene 053 Hexachlorocyclopentadien 083 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 055 Naphthalene 061 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 062 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 084 pyrene 008 1,2,4-TrichIorobenzene 052 Hexachloroethane Texas Water Commission Pollutants (Toxics) of Concern: ALDRIN ALPHA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BENZENE BETA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE BIS(CHLOROMETHLY)ETHER CADMIUM CARBARYL CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLORPYRIFOS CHROME(TRI) CHROME(HEX) CHROMIUM COPPER CRESOLS CYANIDE DDD DDE DDT 2-4-D DANITROL DEMETON DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1-2-DIBROMOMETHANE DIELDRIN P-DICHLOROBENZENE 1-2-DICHLOROETHANE 1-1-DICHLOROETHYLENE DICOFOL DIOXINS-FURANS (PICOGRAMS/LITER) ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN FLUORIDE GAMMA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE MINIMUM ANALYTICAL LIMIT (ug/I) 0.04 0.30 100.00 10.00 100.00 10.00 0.60 0.00 1. 00 0.00 1. 00 0.14 50.00 10.00 0.60 0.60 10.00 10.00 10.00 30.00 20.00 0.10 0.04 0.12 10.00 10.00 5.00 40.00 10.00 0.02 15.00 10.00 10,00 20.00 10.00 0.20 0.06 500.00 0.03 . " e e .. ! TWC list continued: GUTHION HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIOE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROETHANE HEXACHLOROPHENE HEXACHOLROCYCLOHEXANE LEAD MALATHION MERCURY METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHOXYCHLOR MIREX NICKEL NITRATE-N NITROBENZENE N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE N-NITROSO-DI-N-BUTYLAMINE PCB (TOTAL) PARATHION PENTACHLOROBENZENE PHENANTHRENE PENTACHLOROPHENOL PYRIDINE SELENIUM SILVER(FREE ION) SILVEX 1-2-4-5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE TETRACHLOROETHLENE TOXAPHENE TRIBUTYLTIN 2-4-5-TRICHLOROPHENOL TRICHLOROETHYLENE 1-1-1-TRICHLOROETHANE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES VINYL CHLORIDE ZINC 5.00 0.03 0.80 10.00 20.00 30.00 0.03 10.00 0.40 2.00 50.00 0.50 0.50 10.00 %1000 10.00 20.00 20.00 0.65 0.25 10,00 10.00 5.90 50.00 20.00 2.00 4.00 10.00 30.00 2.40 0.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 40.00 10.00 5,00 .. e e > . BID PROPOSAL TO CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL CITY OF LA PORTE FROM: COMPANY ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1115 CITY LA PORTE, TEXAS 77572-1115 STATE COUNTY PHONE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION NO. OF UNITS UNIT PRICE . TOTAL PRICE WASTEWATER MAINTENANCE TEST #1 TEST #2 TEST #3 TEST #4 TEST #5 TEST #6 46 7 12 18 1 12 SLUDGE TEST #7 1 STORM WATER TEST #8 TEST #9 TEST #10 14 4 16 POLLUTENT SCAN TEST #11 1 IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ITEM, MATERIAL AND/OR EQUIPMENT SHALL CARRY THE STANDARD WARRANTY OF THE MANUFACTURER AND BE DELIVERED ON SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED SPECIFICATIONS AS NEEDED. THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT THE BID PRICE CONTAINED IN THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CHECKED AND IS SUBMITTED IN DUPLICATE AS CORRECT AND FINAL THIS DAY OF ~ 19___ COMPANY OFFICER