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