HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-16 Special Called Workshop Meeting
.
e
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED WORKSHOP MEETING
OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 16, 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Norman Malone at 6:30 p.m.
Members of City Council Present: Councilpersons Guy Sutherland, Chuck Engelken,
Peter Griffiths, Alton Porter, Deotis Gay, Charlie Young, and Norman Malone.
Members of Council Absent: Jerry Clarke and Howard Ebow.
Members of City Executive Staff and City Emolovees Present: City Manager Robert T.
Herrera, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Finance
Director Cynthia Alexander, Director of Administrative Services Louis Rigby, Parks and
Recreation Director Stephen Barr, Public Works Director Steve Gillett, Emergency
Services Director Joe Sease, Planning Director Doug Kneupper, Police Chief Richard
Reff, and Planning Coordinator Masood Malik.
Others Present: Bill Scott, Mrs. Scott, Leon Waters, Chester Pool, Bret Keast, Betty
Waters, Pat Muston, Jean Young, Greg Josey, Clarence Morgan, Ben Ritchie, Albert
Pennison, Cher and Lee Barron, Irene and Denny McGraw and a number of citizens.
2. Mayor Norman Malone delivered the invocation.
3. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND
T AXP AYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL.
The following citizens addressed City Council:
Al Pennison - 1727 South Broadway, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Requested City Council to
change the zoning of City Block 1445 back to commercial.
Greg Josey - 2022 Lomax School Road, La Porte, Texas 77571- Addressed City
Council Council and informed them he is opposed to the Farrington Blvd. Extension.
Clarence Morgan -10415 N. Ave. H, La Porte, Texas 77571- Addressed City Council
and informed them he is opposed to the Farrington Blvd. Extension and passed out a
petition.
Bill Scott - 1802 Lomax School Road, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Addressed City Council
and informed them he is opposed to the Farrington Blvd. Extension and provided a
handout.
Ben Ritchie - 435 S. Shady Lane, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Requested City Council to
change the zoning of City Block 1445 back to commercial.
Council member Porter arrived at 6:50 P.M.
e
e
Council Minutes - 10-16..00 - Page 2
4. The special called workshop meeting was called to order by Mayor Malone at 6:55 P.M.
Discuss comprehensive plan update
Planning Director Doug Kneupper provided Council with a sunmuuy of the
Comprehensive Plan Review process. Bret Keast with Wilbur Smith Associates provided
Council with further summary and details of the review process. The first six (6)
chapters of the plan were discussed.
s. Workshop adjourned and the regular meeting re-convened at 8:03 P.M.
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
City Manager Robert T. Herrera reminded Council of the following events:
SALUfE TO INDUSTRY BANQUET - OCTOBER 19, 2000
7. COUNCIL ACTION
Councilpersons Engelken, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Young, and Malone brought items to
Council's attention.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076, AND 551.084, TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODE, - (CONSULTATION WITH A'ITORNEY,
DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, DELmERATION
REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION, PERSONNEL MATTERS,
CONFERENCE WITH EMPLOYEES DELmERATION REGARDING
SECURITY DEVICES, OR EXCLUDING A WITNESS DURING
EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER WITNESS IN AN INVESTIGATION)
9. CONSIDERATION AND POSSmLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Due to no Executive Session there was no action taken.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting was duly
adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
vffl adi~)lflku
Martha Gillett
City Secretary
P}1 and approved on this 23 day of October 2000.
/U1f!d~
e e
PLEASE NOTE THE
TIME FOR THIS
MEETING IS 6:30 PM
PLEASE BRING YOUR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BINDER
I HA VE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BINDER AT MY DESK, I DO NOT KNOW
WHO IT BELONGS TO.
e
e
CITY OF LA PORTE
I N T E R 0 F F I C-E M E M 0 RAN DUM
October 12, 2000
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Robert T. Herre , City Manager
FROM:
John Joem,
SUBJECT:
City Council rkshop October 16, 2000
Re: Review 0 Comprehensive Plan Update
At the October 16 workshop, Council will begin review of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
We hope to cover Chapters 1-6. We can also discuss future dates for continued review and
eventual adoption of the update.
Attached is a report that summarizes the process and chronicles the Planning and Zoning
Commission's review and recommendations to City Council. Also attached is a memo from
Doug Kneupper that outlines recommendations made by the Planning & Zoning Commission
on the Thoroughfare Plan. The memo also transmits a revised Thoroughfare Plan reflecting
these recommendations.
Please remember to bring your copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan Update 2000-2020
(large 3-ring binder).
JJ/cns
e
e
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
EXHmITS
1. STAFF REPORT
2. MINUTES FROM P&Z MEETINGS (3..9..00,3..16-
00, 4--13-00, 5-24-00, AND 9-21-..00 draft)
e
e
Staff Report
October 16,2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATION FROM
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Iatroduetion:
The 2000 - 2020 La Porte Comprehensive Plan is nearing adoption.
Citizens, staff, planning consultants, the Steering Committee, and Planning
and Zoning Commission have all played a part in developing this document.
At this and future Council meetings, the planning consultants, staff, and
P & Z will present the draft document for your consideration.
Baelmround:
The Comprehensive Plan Update was initiated with the Community Forum
that was held at the Sylvan Beach Pavilion in October 1998. Citizens
attending the Forum were asked to provide their thoughts and comments
about La Porte.
A Steering Committee was appointed by City Council that reviewed the list
of comments generated from the Forum. With the help of a facilitator, the
comments were divided into cotnmon themes. Staying with these themes or
chapters, the Steering Committee prepared Goals and Objectives that
addressed different areas of concern within the community.
The city's planning consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates., took the goals and
objectives prepared by the Steering Committee and began fonnulating the
different chapters that make up the Comprehensive Plan. Each chapter
contains Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions.
As the planning consultant prepared chapters of the Plan, the Steering
Committee would review the documents and make comments. Additionally,
the City's Executive Staff would review the chapters as they became
available. The task of reviewing the chapters was completed by December,
1999. The consultant incorporated comments from the Steering Committee
and city staff and submitted a second draft of the Plan by the end of
February, 2000.
The Planning and Zoning Commission began their formal review of the
document on March 9, 2000. Members of the Steering Committee were
present and provided comments to the Commission. Staff and the consultant
were on-hand to present the following Chapters to the Commission.
1. Introduction
2. Community Vision
3. Community Profile
4. Land Use
After review of these chapters the Commission recommended an additional
Objective under Chapter 4, Land Use. The new Objective would be to
e
e
Comprehensive Plan Update
2000-2020
October 16,2000 City Council
Page 2 of2
consider creating a large lot residential zoning district and provide the
associated regulations.
On March 16, 2000 the Commission reviewed two more Chapters:
5. Transportation
6. Utility Systems
During review of Chapter 5, Transportation, the Commission heard
testimony from City staff members Joe Sease, Richard Refl: Steve Gillett,
and LPISD staff member Mike Clausen. After discussion, the Commission
recommended to include as part of Figure 5.3, La Porte Thoroughfare Plan,
the extension of Fanington to North "R" Street. The Commission did not
recommend the extension of Fanington beyond "H" Street. In addition, the
Commission discussed the extension of V alleyview between "H" and "V'
Streets as another north to south connector.
The Commission did not recommend any changes or additions to Chapter 6,
Utility Infrastructure System.
On April 13, 2000 the Commission reviewed:
7. Parks and Recreation
8. Community Facilities and Services
9. Residential Development
10. Beautification and Conservation
The Commission did not recommend any changes or additions to Chapter 7,
Parks and Recreation.
For Chapter 8, Community Facilities and Services, the Commission
recommended the Unified Crime Report prepared by the Police Dept. be
included.
The Commission did not recommend any changes or additions to Chapter 9,
Residential Development or Chapter 10, Beautification and Conservation.
On May 24, 2000 the Commission finalized their review of the
Comprehensive Plan by reviewing Chapters
11. Public Safety
12. Redevelopment Strategy
13. Implementation The Commission did not recommend any changes or additions to Chapter
111 Public safety, Chapter 12, Redevelopment Strategy, or Chapter 13,
Implementation. The Commission did however request that staff prepare a
report that would identify projects from the 1984 Comprehensive Plan that
had been completed as well as projects that carried over from the 1984 Plan.
e
e
Comprehensive Plan Update
2000-2020
October 16,2000 City Council
Page 3 of3
On the evening of June 20, 2000 the City hosted an Open House at the
Sylvan Beach Pavilion. The purpose of the event was to informally present
the Comprehensive Plan to the citizens and stakeholders of the community.
Attendees were asked to provide specific written comments regarding any
and all chapters of the Plan. The planning consultants have assembled the
comments into a report that has previously been fOlwarded to you for your
information.
On Septmber 21, 2000 the Commission held a Public Hearing to receive
citizen comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Although the
Commission had reviewed and commented on all chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan, the City's past practice has been to have the
Commission host a Public Hearing regarding the Plan and then forward a
recommendation to City Council.
After hearing testimony from several citizens the Commission recommended
deleting the "H" Street Bridge over Big Island Slough and deleting the
connection of "H" Street with Barbours Cut Blvd between Sens Road and
16th Street. Both these items were part of the Thoroughfare Plan
recommended by the Steering Committee.
e
-e
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2000
Members Present Betty Waters, Melton Wolters, Dottie Kaminski, and Hal Lawler
Members Absent Sandie George
Ci~ S.-aft" Present Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Planning Director Doug Kneupper, City
Planner Brad Ellis, Planning Coordinator Masood Malik, Planning Secretary
Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL CALLED REGULAR MEETING.
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Waters at 6:05 PM.
II.
RECEIVE STATEMENT FROM . CHAIRPERSON
RESIGNATION OF JIM ZO~R.
REGARDING
Chairperson Waters announced the resignation of Jim Zoller. She stated that Mr. Zoller was
an asset to the Commission and his absence will be sincerely regretted.
III. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO ROSS MORRIS, NEWLY APPOINTED
FROM DISTRIC1' 3.
Peggy Lee administered the Oath of Office to Ross Moms.
IV. CALL TO ORDER WORKSHOP MEETING.
Chairperson Waters called to order the workshop at 6:08 PM.
A. RECEIVE OPENING STATEMENT FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STEERING COMMITI'EE CHAIRMAN.
The Steering Conunittee Chaianan was unable to attend the meeting, therefore,
Committee Member Pat Muston addressed the Commission. Mrs. Muston said a lot
of long-hours and hard work went into the draft Comprehensive Plan the
Commission is now reviewing. While preparing the plan, they took into
consideration everyone's comments from the Town Meeting held at the Sylvan
Beach Pavilion on October 27,1998. The Committee's best efforts were given to
this project and they are very pleased with their accomplishment
B. RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING
COMMITI'EE MEMBERS.
Committee Members present were. Pat Muston, Imogene Pulleine, John Tomerlin,
Nfartha Love, and Peter Griffiths.
e
.e
Phlnning and Zoning Commission
Minutes ofMa1ch 9,2000
Page 2 of2
Committee Member Imogene Pulleine reminded the Commission that this is not a
shott-term pIan, but rather a plan to last for twenty years. Committee Member John
Tomerlin added he would like City CoWlci1 to consider the comments made by the
citizens at the Town Meeting and start by first providing the basic services our city
needs and. expand from there.
C. BEGIN REVIEW OF THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
Chris Bryce, of Wilbur Smith Associates, reviewed Chapters 1 through 4 with the
Commission.
1. CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
2. CHAPTER2-CO~~ION
3. CHAPTER 3 - CO~, PROFILE
'4. CHAPTER 4:"" LAND USE
The only change the Commission recommended Was a new objective for Goal 4.5 in
Chapter 4; to consider creating a large lot residential zoning district and provide the
associated regulations for that type of zone.
V. ADJOURN WORKSHOP MEETING AND RE-CONVENE SPECIAL aT.T .Im
REGULAR MEETING.
Chairperson Waters adjourned the workshop meeting and re-convened the special called
regular meeting at 6:40 PM.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
The Commission agreed to begin review of Chapters 5 and 6 at the next meeting.
VII. ADJOURN SPECIAL aT.T .Rn REGULAR MEETING.
Chairperson Waters adjourned the meeting at 6:45 PM.
RaEi~
Pepgy ~
Planning and Zoning C~mmission Secretary
Approved on this ;1-.1' day'~f April, 2000.
~~~..)
Betty W ers '
Planning and Zoning' Commission Chairperson
e
.e
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 16,2000
Members Present Betty Waters, Melton Wolters, Dottie Kaminski, Hal Lawler, Sandie George,
and Ross Moms
Members Absent
Ci~ St~lIil" Present Planning. Director Doug Kneupper, City Planner Brad Ellis, Planning
Coordinator Masood Malik, Police Chief Richard Reff, Fire QUef Joe Sease,
Director of Public Works Steve Gillett, City Attomey Knox Askins, Planning
Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Meeting ca.lled to order by Chattpqson Waters at 6:00 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2000, REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBliC HEARING.
Motion by Melton Wolters to approve the minutes of February 17, 2000. Second by Dottie
Kaminski. All were in favor and the motion passed.
In. ELECT VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Motion by Dottie Kaminski to elect Melton Wolters as Vice-Chairperson. Second by Hal
Lawler. All were in favor and the motion passed. _
IV. OPEN PUBUC HEARINGS.
Chairperson Waters opened the public hearing at 6:02 PM.
A. CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE REQUEST #R99-005 FORA 5.0809 ACRE
TRACT, BEING PART OF TRACTS SA, SC, AND BE, W.J. PAYNE
SUBDIVISION; BLOCK2 OF TIlE W.]ONES SURVEY, A-482, IN THE
10000 BLOCK OF SPENCER HIGHWAY, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY,
TEXAS. THE APPUCANT IS SEEKING A ZONE CHANGE FROM
HIGH DENSI'lY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
(GC) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE BUILDING WITH
AN ADDmONAL PARKING AREA FOR THE BUSINESS KNOWN AS
TWO CAJUNS' CAFE.
City Planner Brad Ellis presented staffs report for Rezone Request #R99-005.
Zelda Wright, applicant and owner of Two Cajuns Cafe, and co-applicant Eddie .
Gray, have requested a zone change from High Density Residential to General
Commercial for 5.08 acres, which includes La Petite Academy, Two Cajuns Cafe,
.
e
e
Planning and 7.nning. Commission
Minutes ofMas:ch 16,. 2000
Page 2 ofS
and an undeveloped parcel. A res1:a1.ttant is not an allowable use in a High Density
Residential zone and Two Cajuns Cafe is a non-conforming use. Ms. Wright intends
to construct a new building to the north with additional parking to the east of the
existing building.
Staff recommended approval of the zone change.
L PROPONENTS
There were none that spoke in favor of the request.
2. OPPONENTS
There were none that spoke in opposition to the request
B. CONSIDER ZONE C~GE REQUEST #ROO-OO1 FOR LOTS 1
TIlROUGH 32, BLOCK 329 OF LA. PORTE OUTLOTS LOCATED
BEIW):!;EN NORTH ~ AND 3BD STREETS ALONG BARBOURS CUT
BOULEVARD. BLOCKS 328, 330 & 331 WILL BE LOOKED AT.AS A
COMPREHENSIVE REZONING OF THE AREA. THE APPUCANT IS
SEEKING A ZONE CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCAL (GC) TO
BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL (BI) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCI'ION OF A
TRUCK SALES CENTER.
City Planner Brad Ellis presented staffs report for Rezone Request #ROO-001. The
applican~ Amyn Nars~ requested a zone change from General Commercial to
Business Industrial in order to open a used truck sales center in the 300 Block. of
Barbour's Cut Blvd. . Truck. sales are not an allowable use in a General Commercial
zone. In addition to the applicant's request to rezone Block. 329, the City requested
that Blocks 328, 330. and 331 be considered as part of the rezone request in order to
provide a more unifonn zoning district along Barbour's Cut Blvd.
I
L PROPONENTS
Davis Wilson, an Architect with W1lson Zetty Associates, stated that
in addition to used truck. sales, the proposed business would also sell
new trucks. There will be an indoor showroom, as well as an
outdoor showroom.
2. OPPONENTS
There were none that spoke in opposition to the request.
V. CLOSE PUBUC HEARINGS.
Chairperson Waters closed the public hearings at 6:16 PM.
e
.e
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of March 16,2000
Page 3 of 5
VI. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO cm COUNCIL FOR ZONE CHANGE
#R99-005.
Motion by Melton Wolters to recommend City Council approval of R99-00S. Second by
Sandie George. .All were in favor and the motion passed.
VII. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO cm COUNCIL FOR ZONE CHANGE
#ROO-OOL
Motion by Dottie Kaminski to recommend City Council approval ofROO-001. Second by
Melton Wolters. All were in favor and the motion passed.
VIII. REVIEW DRAFT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
Chapter 5 - Transportation Thoro~fure System
. Bret Keast led discussions regardingtranspom.tion planning. Mr. Keast noted that the
proposed Farrington Road extension has been a significant issue for numerous residents in
the Lomax area. Residents from the area attended a steering committee meeting and stated
their objection to the road extension. Wllbur Smith Associates, addressing the technical
aspects of extending Farrington Blvd., prepared a technical memorandum for city staff. Mr.
Keast reviewed with the Commission, the advantages and disadvantages that were listed in
the memorandum..
Fire Chief] oe Sease addressed the Commission. Chief Sease described a need for north to
south connector roads within La Porte. Cross stteets are not present in the subject area
possibly due to the fact that the Lomax area originally was a city unto itself. The location for
the proposed Fire Station 3 remains undecided until such time that a decision is made
regarding Farrington Blvd. Other streets to consider as north to south connectors might be
Airport Blvd., on the east side of the airport, and Valleyview, between "P and "L" Streets. A
major incident occurred during the last year at the railroad. overpass on Spencer Hwy. Sens
Rd. was shut down and the only way to move ambulances out of the area, because they were
located down wind of the spill, was via Underwood ReI. Chief Sease also noted that a unit
responding from Fire Station 2 to North "H" Street at Lomax School Road currently travels .
31/2 miles. The distance would be reduced to 0/4 mile if Farrington were extended. Extra
starts and stops for fire trucks mean longer response times.
Police Chief Richard Reff addressed the Commission. Chief R.eff stated that a crime study
was recently conducted to determine where activities were occurring within the City. With
this information, the Police Dept is better able to deploy officers with quicker response
tUnes. The subject area had the second highest number of activities reported in 1999. When
comparing response times, this area had a considerable delay due to the fact there are only
two ways to gain access. The connection to Lomax School Road would allow easier access
with lower response times. Chief Reff agreed with Chief Sease that additional north to south
e
-
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of Match 16, 2000
Page 4 ofS
connections, such as Airport Blvd. and Valleyview, would also help facilitate the demand for
easier access with. quicker response times.
Mike Claussen, Director of Operations for the La Porte School District, addressed the
Commission. Mr.. Claussen stated he lives one block off Farrington and travels Farrington
to go home. There is a problem routing school buses in northwest La Porte-because of the
limited north to south. routes. Mr. Claussen favors the extension of Farrington to help
alleviate the district's transportation problem. There is a safety concern for buses and
parents that must travel the busy roads of Underwood and Spencer in order to transport
children to and from schooL As a member of the LEPC, quick evacuation of a school might
be necessary and this roadway would help in that situation. The district could realize a
savings since shorter bus routes cost less money.
. .
Director of Public Works Steve Gillett addressed the Commission. Mr. Gillett is
sympathetic to the need for north to south roadways. Responding to comments made
previously about utilizing Airport ~lvd. for a north to south route, Mr. Gillett informed the
Commission that Airport Blvd. is located on airport property, therefore can not be
considered. He added that airport activities have slowed down considerably since the
departure of the flight school that opera.ted from there. In order to attract a new tenant to
that location, approximately six acres in the center of the airport, previously leased by the
Texas Air National Guard, will soon have a looped road with utilities consttucted up to the
paved ramp. When asked about the possibility of future airport expansion, Mr. Gillett. .
answered that the surrounding residential development has limited the chances for runway
expanslon.
Mr. Keast noted that at the time the last Comprehensive Plan was prepared, it was
anticipated that the Lomax area would develop with a higher density. Since this is not the
case, the City may wish to consider establishing a rural residential designation for the area,
which would limit density to large residenriallots. If a collector roadway is constructed then
the city should conduct a review of the future land use plan in order to control and manage
growth in that area.
Chairperson Waters stated that the steering committee, as well as the Planning and Zoning
Commission, during previous meetings, discussed and were in favor of designating a large lot
rural residenrial designation for the northwest area of La Porte.
The consultant and staff will work on creating a new zoning district for large rural residenriaI
lots for the Commission to consider at a future meeting.
The Commission recommended the extension of Farrington Blvd. to North "H" St. be
included in the Thoroughfare Plan. Neither the Commission, nor the consultant
recommended the extension of Farrington Blvd. from North "H" Street to SH225 be
included.
e
.e
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of March 16,2000
Page 5 of 5
The Commission discussed. the extension ofValleyview between "H" and eeL" Streets as
another north to south connector. It was noted there is a pipeline comdor that runs
somewhere along that route.
The Commission recommended Canada Rd., between Fairmont Pkwy. and Spencer Hwy.,
also be included in the Thoroughfare PIan.
Chapter 6 - Utility Infrastructure System
Bret Keast led discussions regarding the Utility Infrastructure System. Mr. Gillett described.
the existing condition of the City's utility infrastructure system. The Commission was
pleased with the contents of this chapter and did not recommend any changes or additions.
IX. STAFF REPORTS
The Commission agreed to review ,Chapters 7 through 10 at the April13lh meeting.
X. ADJOURN
Chairperson Waters adjoumed the meeting at 7:40 P~L
Respectfully submitted,
!1~
Planning and Zoning Commission Secretaty
Approved on this ;L 1 day of April, 2000.
~a:!~~~~/
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson
e
.e
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2000
Members .pres~t Melton Wolters, Dottie Kaminski, Hal Lawler, Ross Moms
Members Absent Chairperson Be:ttr Waters, Sandie George
Ci~ St9ff' Present Planning Director Doug Kneupper, City Planner Brad Ellis, Planning
Coordinator Masood Malik, Police Chief Richard Reff, Fire Chief Joe Sease,
Assistant Fire Chief Champ Dunham, Director of Parks and Recreation
Stephen Barr, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Meeting called to order by Vice-Chairperson Melton Wolters at 6:05 PM.
A. REVIEW DRAFI' OF mE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
1. CHAPTER 7 - PARKS AND RECREATION
2. CHAPTER 8 - COMMUNITY FACIliTIES AND SERVICES
3. CHAPTER 9 - RES:Q)ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
4. CHAPTER 10 - BEAUTIFICATION AND CONSERVATION
Director of Planning Doug Kneupper introduced members of Executive Staff
present at the meeting, Planning Staff, and Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
Member Pat Muston from the audience.
Bret Keast, of Wtlbur Smith Associates, led the. review of Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10.
The Commission agreed that a recent report prepared by the Police Dept should be
included in Chapter 10. No changes were suggested for the other chapters.
fi. STAFF REPORTS
The Commission is prepared to review Chapters 11, 12, & 13 during a May meeting.
t
fiI. ADJOURN
Vice-Chairperson Wolters adjoumed the meeting at 6:45 PM
Respectfully submitted,
p~~
Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary
Approved on this 27m day of April, 2000.
(&J:/~/tltL, ~dk
M ton Wolters '
Planning and Zoning Commission Vice-Chairperson
e
e
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 24,2000
Mf"II1bers Present: Betty Waters, Melton Wolters, Hal Lawler, Sandie George
Members Absent Dottie Kaminski, Ross Morris
Ci~ Staff Present Planning Director Doug Kneupper, Director of Emergency Management Joe
Sease, City Planner Brad Ellis, Planning Coordinator Masood Malik, City
Attorney Knox Askins, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Waters at 6:00 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 2000, SPECIAL CALLED REGULAR
MEETING AND PUBUC HEARING.
Motion by Sandie George to approve the Minutes of April Zl, 2000. Motion seconded by
Melton Wolters. All were in favor and the motion carried.
III. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO RALPH DORSETf.
City Attorney Knox Askins administered the Oath of Office to Ralph Dorsett.
IV. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDING PLAT FOR SUMMER WINDS
SUBDIVISION, SECTION 3.
City Planner Brad Ellis presented staff's report. The Commission approved the Final Plat
for Section 3 of Summer Wmds Subdivision on May 20, 1999. Earl Wllbum is requesting a
first amending pIat in order to reduce a 16' utility easement to 8' on Lots Zl, 28, and 29 of
Block 1. This action will provide more space in the backyards of these lots. HL&P, Entex,
SWBT, and Time Warner Communications have no objection to the amendment. Staff
recommended approval of the first amending pIat.
Motion by Melton Wolters to approve the first amending pIat of Summer Wmds
Subdivision, Section 3. Motion seconded by Sandie George. All were in favor and the
motion carried.
v. REVIEW DRAFI' OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
Breat Keast, of Wllbur Smith Associates, presented to the Commission, a brief overview of
the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan Update:
CHAPTER 11 - PUBliC SAFETY
CRAnER 12 - REDEVELOPMENT STRA1EGY
CHAP1ER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION
e
e
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of May 24, 2000 .
Page 2 of2
The Commission discussed ~ous el~ents of the chapters, but no additions or deletions
were made to the draft. .
The next meeting will be a community forum. This meeting will be an open house format
with no formal presentations made. Comment sheets will be provided for citizen input
The consultant and staff will try to schedule this meeting for the third or fourth week in
June.
Mr. Kneupper informed the Commission there might be slight modifications made to the
Implementation Plan, such as updating the Capital Improvement Plan.
Chairperson Waters requested a report be prepared that shows projects from our current
Comprehensive Plan that have been completed, as well as projects that ,are being carried
over to the new Plan. Everyone agreed this was a good idea.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Ellis reported that Reverend Stillwell withdrew his rezoning request, therefore the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission will not be forwarded to City
Council.
Mr. Ellis also stated that the Zoning Board of Adjustment would hear a nonconforming uses
cas~ on June 1st.
VII. ADJOURN
Motion to adjourn by Sandie George. Chairperson Waters adjourned the meeting at 6:55
PM
Respectfully submitted,
~
Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary
Approved on this 20th day of July, 2000.
~~\~t .
Ddly W...1:\.1& Me " ~~ .
Planning and Zoning Commission Cft~CfSan \A e e. C!..hlA.i r pt!-Y...s .-n
e
e
DRAFT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
M~ESOFSEPTEMBER2~2~
Mem~ers Present: Betty Waters, Hal Lawler, Ross Morris, Ralph Dorsett, Pamela Baldwin
Members Abseo.t: Melton Wolters, Dottie Kaminski
Ci~ Staff Present: Director of Planning Doug Kneupper, Assistant City Attorney John
Annstrong, Director of Emergency Services Joe Sease, Police Chief Richard
Reff, Fire Chief Mike Boaze, Director of Public Works Steve Gillett,
Director of Parks and Recreation Stephen Barr, Planning Coordinator
Masood Malik, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Waters at 6:02 PM.
II. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBER,
PAMELA BALDWIN.
John Annstrong administered the Oath of Office to Pamela Baldwin.
III. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 17, 2000, REGULAR MEETING.
Motion by Ralph Dorsett to approve the Minutes of August 17, 2000. Motion seconded by
Ross Morris. All were in favor and the motion carried.
IV. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CITIZEN INPUT REGARDING
THE FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL PLAN REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LA
PORTE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. TOPICS TO BE COVERED
INCLUDE: COMMUNITY VISION; COMMUNITY PROFILE; LAND USE;
TRANSPORTATION/THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM; UTIUTY
INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS; PARKS AND RECREATION; COMMUNITY
FACIUTIES AND SERVICES; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT;
BEAUTIFICATION AND CONSERVATION; PUBLIC SAFETY;
REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY; AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.
Chairperson Waters opened the Public Hearing at 6:04 PM.
1. STAFF PRESENTATION
Doug Kneupper presented an overview of the Commission's review of Chapters 1
through 13 of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Commission began their review
on March 9, 2000 and concluded on May 24, 2000. The Plan was infonnal1y
presented to the community at an Open House held on June 20, 2000, at the Sylvan
Beach Pavilion. Some attendees submitted written comments on various elements
of the Plan, including the Farrington Rd. Extension, the "H" Street Bridge over Big
Island Slough, an overpass on SH 146 at Shoreacres Blvd., thoroughfare
e
e
DRAFT
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of September 21, 2000
Page 2
beautification, Canada Rd., removal of the apartments on Garfield, and the bayfront
area land use plan.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Greg Sills, of 4902 Meadowcrest, favors the extension of Farrington. It would create
a safer access for children to get to school. He noted that travel time from the Fire
Dept. into Lomax is currently 5-7 minutes but if the road were cut-through, response
time could be reduced to 2 minutes. Also, it would be more convenient to transport
children to the ballpark in Fairmont Park if the road was in place.
Bill Scott, of 1802 Lomax School Rd., distributed a petition signed by approximately
570 citizens that want all three phases of the Farrington connection to be removed
from the Comprehensive Plan. Twenty-two coordinators of the effort to stop the
Farrington Extension attended the Open House and submitted written comments
against Phase One of the extension and the proposed "H" Street Bridge. No
comments were submitted from individuals favoring the extension or the bridge.
Mr. Scott gave each Commission Member an "information package" that included a
videotape of traffic dangers in the Lomax area. Mr. Scott stated that ambulance
response time is not delayed because of the current location of EMS on "C" Street.
Dangerous conditions exist on "P" Street due to large volumes of speeding traffic.
Lori Druckenbrodt, of 11315 North "H", stated that some children in the Lomax
area are bussed to school and she doesn't see a problem with this. There is a Fire
Dept. on Lomax School Rd. that serves the area effectively. The Farrington
Extension presents a big problem because there are no sidewalks for children to walk
on and traffic is already heavy.
Nazar Momin, of 6306 Hidden Crestway, Sugar Land, Texas, has done business in
La Porte for twenty years. Mr. Momin made a general comment about the
appearance of buildings along SH 146. He feels there are too many metal buildings
and this does not give a good impression of the City. He asked the City to consider
some type of development restrictions for buildings that front SH 146. Brick and
stucco were recommended as suitable exterior finishes.
Sharon Tally, of 10706 N. "H", feels that creating another access into the area will
increase thefts. Also, more traffic will increase the number of traffic accidents.
Clarence Morgan, of 10415 N. "H", is retired and enjoys living in a rural area. He
would like for things to remain as they are.
V. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Waters closed the Public Hearing at 6:30 P.M.
VI. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
e
e
DRAFT
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of September 21,2000
Page 3
Motion by Ross Morris to recommend City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Update with the following changes to the Thoroughfare Plan:
1. Eliminate "H" Street Bridge.
2. Eliminate extension of "H" Street to Barbour's Cut Blvd.
Motion seconded by Ralph Dorsett. All were in favor and the motion carried.
VII. CONSIDER AMENDED GENERAL PLAN FOR FAlRMONf PARK EAST.
Doug Kneupper presented staffs report. At the August 17th meeting, the Commission
app.roved the Preliminary Plat for Fainnont Park East, Section 8, with the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall file with the City an amended General Plan for the area east of
Driftwood that would reflect the concerns of parking and adequate open space around
the detention pond
2. As part of this amended General Plan, show a general layout of the residential area
south of the detention pond Account for additional parking along with the goal to
avoid lots backing up against the detention basin.
3. The submittal and approval of an amendment to the General Plan of Fainnont Park
East, Sections Five through Eight will be required before approval of the final plat for
Section Eight.
Mr. Gray has submitted an amended General Plan, however staff noted that not all of the
guidelines were followed that were established with conditional approval of the Preliminary
Plat. Staff did not recommend approval of the Amended General Plan.
Motion by Ross Morris to deny the Amended General. Plan for Fainnont Park East
Subdivision. Motion seconded by Ralph Dorsett. All were in favor and the motion carried.
Eddie Gray asked permission from the floor to address the Commission. Chairperson
Waters granted him permission. Mr. Gray wanted to know why the unresolved problems
with Section 5 would prevent him from recording the plat for Section 8, once approved.
Chairperson Waters stated that the Final Plat for Section 8 was the next item they would be
considering.
Chairperson Waters asked for clarification from Mr. Kneupper regarding the Final Plat for
Section 8 then called for a motion to move to the next item in order to discuss it.
Motion by Ralph Dorsett to move to the next item on the agenda. Motion seconded by
Pam Baldwin. All were in favor and the motion carried.
VIII. CONSIDER FINAL PLAT FOR FAIRMONf PARK EAST, SECTION 8.
e
e
DRAFT
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of September 21, 2000
Page 4
Mr. Kneupper stated he had discussions with Mr. Gray, subsequent to staff's report being
distributed to the Commission. Mr. Gray has indicated that financing becomes complicated
because lenders are not willing to lend money if there is a condition that the developer
doesn't have any control over. With this is mind, staff' then recommended approval of
Section 8 without withholding the plat from recordation.
After some discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed to rescind their original motion
to deny the Amended General Plan for Fairmont Park East Subdivision.
Motion by Ralph Dorsett to table the Amended General Plan for Fainnont Park East
Subdivision. Motion seconded by Ross Morris. All were in favor and the motion carried.
Motion by Ralph Dorsett to approve the Final Plat for Fainnont Park East, Section 8 with
the stipulation that the following items be addressed prior to Final Plat recordation.
1. All construction improvements are complete at site.
2. Payment of$419.89 shall be made to the City for street sign instillation.
3. Payment of $6,663.68 for street lighting cost shall be made to the City.
4. Payment of $9,800.00 is made to the City in lieu ofparldand dedication.
5. Inclusion of sidewalks within the subdivision shall be noted on the Final Plat and
covenants.
Motion seconded by Ross Morris. All were in favor and the motion carried.
IX. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIAL
CONDITIONAL USE PEJUfIT #SCUOO-OOt FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUI'H OF MCCABE ROAD AND BAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 146.
APPUCANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT WITHIN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
Chairperson Waters opened the Public Hearing at 6:55 P.M.
1. STAFf PRESENTATION
Mr. Kneupper reported that Eddie Dutko has made a request for approval of a
General Plan and Special Conditional Use Permit for property located in the 1200
Block of McCabe Rd. The project is known as Park Forest Apartments. Public
hearing notification was mailed to six surrounding property owners. One response
was received in favor of the request.
Staff recommended approval of the General Plan covering 107 acres and the Special
Conditional Use Permit covering 16.2 acres with conditions.
2. PROPONENTS
There: were no proponents.
3. OPPONENTS
e
e
DRAFT
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of September 21, 2000
Page 5
There were no opponents.
X. CLOSE PUBUC HEARING
Chairperson Waters closed the Public Hearing at 7 :05 P.M.
XI. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A
GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #SCUOO-OOt.
Motion by Ross Morris to recommend City Council approval of a General Plan for Park
Forest Apartments Subdivision and Special Conditional Use Peanit #SCUOO-OOl with the
following conditions:
1. The overall density of the project (Phases 1 and 2) shall not exceed 19.7 dwelling units
per acre.
2. The applicant shall enter into a Sewer Service Agreement and commit to paying for lift
station upgrades related to this development project.
3. lbis action in no way commits the City to any maintenance responsibilities for the 75.7
acre Conservation Easement.
Motion seconded by Ralph Dorsett. All were in favor and the motion carried.
XII. STAFF REPORTS
The Commission was provided a monthly highlights report.
Mr. Kneupper reminded Commission Members of the upcoming Texas AP A Conference.
XIII. ADJOURN
Chairperson Waters adjourned the meeting at 7:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Lee
Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary
Approved on this _ day of
, 2000.
Betty Waters
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson
e
e
Planning
()cpa..tlllcnt
Memo
To: John Joens, Assistant City Manage~
From: Doug Kneupper, Planning Director
cc:
Dace: 10/12/00
Re: Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Plan
Based on P & Z's review of the Comprehensive Plan Update, modifications had been
recommended for the Thoroughfare Plan. These modifications were not depicted on
the latest version of the Thoroughfare Plan. Please substitute the revised
Thoroughfare Plan that incorporates the following changes:
Include the Farrington Road extension to North "H" Street
Delete the bridge on North "H" Street over Big Island Slough
Delete the connection of North NH" Street with Barbour's Cut Blvd.
Show a north I south collector between "H" Street and Nt" Street in the vicinity
of Valleyview
Delete collector streets shown between Canada Road and Underwood
Show location of East Blvd.
Delete collector streets shown between $ens Road and UPRR
. Page 1
FIGURE 5.3
LA PORTE
THOROUGHFARE
PLAN
~l'&lIIlr..
......
......
~IIW""
'/lEA
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Planners
""".'.'.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.'.,.'.,.'~
I
.
..,."
lloustOfl. Ship
i\
\
.,........................
iftI.al.,a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.al.
I -
-",c
r.~.-
'- ~ "::C-
-----F'
-t
-:;;:::;-:;,"';-.;;5..+--.....= -..==- -<.,....-
,I
'I
~~
.
.
LEGEND
N CONfROllED ACCFSS ffiGHWA Y
N SEMI-CONfROllED ACCFSS ffiGHW A
N PRIMARY ARTERIAL
N SECONDARY ARTERIAL
N COllECfOR
EB GRADE SEPARATED INfERCHANGE
J..':<
.. ~~.
CORPORATE UMITS
.alal.I.I.,.,...,...'.I...I..,.,.'.'.
...
"
...a.a.a.8.al.......'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'
Bayport Terminal
~
'~
-=a
1.t.t.I.I.......,.,.,~j'.,.I.1
= . 'J-J ~
Shore "~I
McCabe Rd.
~~
Acres
~
Ioc,
,
i
-
-d
:>
~
~
~
~
r
==' F='"~ ~ .cJl9'PO!ll
- Indust~ial Dis iet
I
Miles
0.5
o
N
-l + 0.5
-
u::
e
e
Date: 78.... f 0 -~ 2)
~e: t. (
,,' ~ ,'f'
Subject on which I wish to speak:
9luy~ ~& (!a-tnNl<1-'I'-'~,~{ 'f'~Q.1"~
1111 vAS Ck:K\;}",( 70 l2esrd~,;(I-(~(
b:y C2r.j, MG- ftj c... e.. ^(J (
e
e
Date: 10 - /0 -- Od
Name:
~ ~
Address: f/
' ..- tI 4uG
Joq/~
City, State, Zip:
ill arz;~ ~~
77:; 7/
Subject on which I wish to speak:
,-
r-4tZ!2I/Ve;70A( CorV/z/&cTlO^/
e
e
Date: }t>- (Co '-at)
Name:
5~/Qg ~~~^'-
-
Address:
-1<< l'J 2. {~'Y <;:;l"D.-.-Q ~.
City, State, Zip:
-t ftr. ODfL<r< ~,
Subject on which I wish to speak:
.rA ~s~ ~ 6LD~.
e e
Date: /0 -Ib- 6--C>
Name:
6, ,e~9
J o5e'l
Address:
2-0 z z- Lv iYI/t'l s~ao.gL (2.-j)
City, State, Zip:
k4f>o~ C::-
rr
11.5" 7 z-
Subject on which I wish to speak:
fllPIl-, ni701A j4>~ ~kJt"'- UJNllCk..7iD~
e
e
Date:
ccT I f.o
Name:
,
A \ 7e.,^,,^\~o\1..~;st + c~ c.~ ('~~
Address:
t { 2. ( S!) ",i-'" ~ rOADk:Jt4t..-1
City, State, Zip: ()
LA. ~..r1:c. \r.. '/" ~ 7 (
)
Subject on which I wish to speak:
K~ ~~ l"'i
e
e
Dear City Council Member.
* I come before you tonight as a La Porte Resident concerned about
the safety and quality of life in our neighborhoods and one who is
opposed to the Farrington extension.
* Would all those opposed to the Farrington extension please stand.
These are just a few of the many citizens that oppose the Farrington
extension.
* We are submitting a copy of our petition asking the City Council to
remove all 3 phases of the Farrington extension to HWy 225 from the
Comprehensive Plan. The petition is signed by 572 residents of three
different neighborhoods. We believe the Farrington extension will
funnel through our neighborhoods; a large amount of traffic that
should be on Underwood and Sens Road.
* We believe our experience with Myrtle Creek proves that this will
occur. We think the white cross on P street and the video you
received from us proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
Farrington extension would seriously threaten the safety of the
children of these 3 neighborhoods and would reduce the quality of life
for many residents in the area; while it would only benefit a few
residents. Please remember; There are deep ditches and no
sidewalks along the Lomax roads.
* In all of the Council meetings. P&Z meetings. and Comprehensive
Plan meetings. only two residents have spoken in favor of the
extension. One was a lady from Creekmont who thought the
extension would take traffic off of Myrtle Creek. and we quickly
responded that it was not right to move her traffic problem over to
our neighborhoods. The other person was Greg Seal who spoke
before the last P&Z meeting. Mr. seal went on at length about the
extensions effect on EMS service; when actually the ambulance is
located near Sens Road and the extension would have no affect on
EMS service. Mr. Seal speaking in favor of the extension is also
convincing proof that the extension will greatly increase the traffic
through our neighborhoods; because Mr. Seal forgot to tell the P&Z
that he owns the Mr. Mercury convenience store at Farrington and
Spencer. as we were told by his neighbors. And of course his
business would greatly benefit from the increase in Farrington traffic
caused by the extension.
* The Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee voted to remove the
Farrington extension from the Comprehensive Plan. We believe this is
the true vote of the people and it should stand.
next page is on back.
,-
.
e
e
* Twenty two residents who oppose the Farrington extension took the
time and made the effort to attend the Sylvan Beach Open House on
the Comprehensive plan and to submit written comments opposing
the Farrington extension and H street bridge. None of the residents in
favor of the extension thought it was important enough to attend the
Open House and give their written comment. There were 0 written
comments in favor of the Farrington extension. You have the petition.
You have the Written comments. You have the video. You have seen
first hand what the airport design standards say. It seems to me that
all these facts prove that this extension is a very bad and a very
dangerous idea.
Thank You,
&~ O1WVCJ~
e
e
Dear City Council Member,
* I come before you tonight as a La Porte Resident concerned about
the safety and quality of life in our neighborhoods and one who is
opposed to the Farrington extension.
* Would all those opposed to the Farrington extension please stand.
These are just a few of the many citizens that oppose the Farrington
extension.
* We are submitting a copy of our petition asking the City Council to
remove all 3 phases of the Farrington extension to Hwy 225 from the
Comprehensive Plan. The petition is signed by 572 residents of three
different neighborhoods. We believe the Farrington extension will
funnel through our neighborhoods; a large amount of traffic that
should be on Underwood and Sens Road.
* We believe our experience with Myrtle Creek proves that this will
occur. We think the white cross on P street and the video you
received from us proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
Farrington extension would seriously threaten the safety of the
children of these 3 neighborhoods and would reduce the quality of life
for many residents in the area; while it would only benefit a few
residents. Please remember; There are deep ditches and no
sidewalks along the Lomax roads.
* In all of the Council meetings, P&Z meetings, and Comprehensive
Plan meetings, only two residents have spoken in favor of the
extension. One was a lady from Creekmont who thought the
extension would take traffic off of Myrtle Creek, and we quickly
responded that it was not right to move her traffic problem over to
our neighborhoods. The other person was Greg Seal who spoke
before the last P&Z meeting. Mr. seal went on at length about the
extensions effect on EMS service; when actually the ambulance is
located near Sens Road and the extension would have no affect on
EMS service. Mr. Seal speaking in favor of the extension is also
convincing proof that the extension will greatly increase the traffic
through our neighborhoods; because Mr. Seal forgot to tell the P&Z
that he owns the Mr. Mercury convenience store at Farrington and
Spencer, as we were told by his neighbors. And of course his
business would greatly benefit from the increase in Farrington traffic
caused by the extension.
* The Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee voted to remove the
Farrington extension from the Comprehensive Plan. We believe this is
the true vote of the people and it should stand.
next page is on back.
e
e
,
* Twenty two residents who oppose the Farrington extension took the
time and made the effort to attend the Sylvan Beach Open House on
the Comprehensive plan and to submit written comments opposing
the Farrington extension and H street bridge. None of the residents in
favor of the extension thought it was important enough to attend the
Open House and give their written comment. There were 0 written
comments in favor of the Farrington extension. You have the petition.
You have the Written comments. You have the video. You have seen
first hand what the airport design standards say. It seems to me that
all these facts prove that this extension is a very bad and a very
dangerous idea.
Thank You,
~ ~(jar-
e
e
10-16-00 Council presentation notes.
1. Mr. Guttery of the Texas Airports Development Office has stated that ,". ..our
Advisory Circular on Airport Design does not preclude roads from being in RPZs".
Let's see what the Design Standards say. Page 13 yields the only information in the
Design Standards regarding vehicles in an RPZ. Sec.212(2)(a) states," Automobile
parking facilities although discouraged, may be permitted, provided the parking facilities
and any associated appurtenances, in addition to meeting all of the preceding conditions,
are located outside of the object free area extension(as depicted in fig. 2-3). Of course,
it also stands on it's own that vehicles and people are objects per the page 2 definition
and are not navigational aids and are therefore required to be cleared from the Object
Free Area extension. And of course this is located under standards and not under
recommendations and is therefore mandatory for this RPZ because La Porte used a
Federal grant to buy the RPZ. About 700 ft. of the proposed Phase 1 Road would not
meet the OF A extension c~earing requirements.
When I talked with Jim Curl, the Tex DOT inspector for this Airport, on the subject of
roads through an RPZ, I said,"I guess the upshot of all that is that you guys don't want
roads within your RPZ", and he replied," or within the OFZ or RSA, any of the three". he
also stated that "if we can purchase the old and get rid of it, we do that", but said that
sometimes roads (existing before 1989) had to be grandfathered in because "highways are
awfully expensive to move". I said, "but ifit is new stuff, you don't want them in there".
He replied ,"That's right."
Using the Design standards as we did above, We can just as easily prove that the
Farrington extension would not comply with the requirements of the Instrument approach
thresh hold or the Localizer antenna critical area that is supposed to be cleared of all
objects.
When I talked with Mr. Legeratta of the Washington D.C. FAA regarding RPZs, he
stated, "I f you take the federal money we want you to make all the efforts to obtain the
land". I think it is obvious the City did NOT "make all the efforts to obtain the land".
He also said that," even if an Airport does not accept Federal dollars and looked at the
book and says it is just a recommendation, when it comes to an accident, the Airport is
kinda hanging out there... because the judges will say. Why aren't you taking the
recommendations?" and La Porte is governed under the more strict "mandatory" view of
the standards, not the recommended view.
So with all these facts that prove that the Phase 1 Road should not be in the RPZ, Why
is Mr. Guttery insisting it is O.K. Sadly, many of us have seen this sort of thing at work
and in government many times. A bad decision is made and when it becomes apparent;
the people that made the decision choose to stonewall and push the decision rather than
take corrective action.
Will the La Porte City Council be a part of taking the corrective action? Or will the City
Council be part of pushing a very bad, very dangerous decision.
15J2idc~~
Bill Scott, Treasurer for CSG
Thanks for your time and consideration,
. ..
2/14/97
b. Rccom!dations. Other objects which
are desirable to clear, if practicable, are objects which
do not have a substantial adverse effect on the airport
but, if removed, will enhance operations. These
include objects in the controlled activity area and
obstructions to air navigation which are not covered in
paragraph 21 I.a, especially those penetrating an
approach surface. On a paved runway, the approach
surface starts 200 feet (61 m) beyond the area usable
for takeoff or landing, whichever is more demanding.
On an unpaved runway, the approach surface starts at
the end of the area usable for takeoff or landing.
........
212. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ).
The RPZ's function is to enhance the protection of
people and property on the ground. This is achieved
through airport owner control over RPZs. Such control
includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them
clear) of incompatible objects and activities. Control is
preferably exercised through the acquisition of
sufficient property interest in the RPZ.
8. Standards.
(1) RPZ Confi1!uration/Location. The
RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the
extended runway centerline. The controlled activity
area and a portion of the Runway OFA are the two
components of the RPZ (see figure 2-3). The RPZ
dimension for a particular runway end is a function of
the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimum
associated with that runway end. Table 2-4 provides
standard.&neoSions.iifor..:.RPZs. Other than with a
s~~ application of declared distances, the RPZ
~ 200 feet (60 m) beyond the end of the area
usable for takeoff or landing. With a special
application of decJared-distances, see Appendix 14,
separate approach and departure RPZs are required for
each runway end.
<a) The Runwav OFA.
Paragraph 307 contains the location, dimension, and
clearing standards for the Runway OF A.
(b) The ControBed Adivitv
~ The controlled activity area is the portion of the
RPZ beyond and to the sides of the Rwway OF A.
Chap 2
/lcL I.JU/.UUU-I-' Lil'-'.'
e (2) Land Use. In addition to the
criteria specified in paragraph 21 I, the following land
use criteria apply within the RPZ:
(a) While it is desirable to clear
all objects from the RPZ, some uses are pennitted,
provided they do not attract wildlife, are outside of the
Runway OFA, and do not interfere with navigational
aids. Golf courses (but not club houses) and
agricultural operations (other than forestry or livestock
fanns) are expressly pennitted under this proviso.
Automobile parking facilities, although discouraged,
may be pennitted, provided the parking facilities and
any associated appurtenances, in addition to meeting
all of the preceding conditions, are located outside of
the object free area extension . as depicted in
figure 2-3). Fuel storage act tties should not be
located in the RPZ.
(b) Land uses prohibited from the
RPZ are: residences . and places of public assembly.
(Churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings,
shopping centers, and other uses with similar
concentrations of persons typify places of public
assembly.) Fuel storage facilities should not be located
in the RPZ.
b. Recommendations. Where it is
determined to be impracticable for the airport owner to
acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ,
the RPZ land use standards have recommendation
status for that portion of the RPZ not controlled by the
airport owner. ,,'I
Co FAA Studies of Obiects and Activities
in the Vicinity of Airpom. The FAA policy is to
protect the public investment in the national airport
system. To implement this policy, the FAA studies
existing and proposed objects and '-activities, both off
and on public-use airports, with respect to their effect
upon the safe and efficient use of the airports and
safety of persons and property on the ground. These
objects need not be obstructions to air navigation, as
defined in 14 CFR Part 77. As the result of a study,
the FAA may issue an advisory recommendation in
opposition to the presence of any off-airport object or
activity in the vicinity of a public-use airport that
conflicts with an airport planning or design standard or
recommendation.
213. to 299. RESERVED.
13
I 1/101')1
AC 150/5
'r
Approach Facilities Dimensions
Visibility Expected Inner Outer
Length Width Width RPZ
Minimums 11 To Serve L WI \\'2
feet feet feet aeres
(meters) (meters) (meters)
Small
Aircraft 1,000 250 450 8.035
Exclusively (300) (75) (135)
Visual Aircraft
and Approach 1,000 500 700 13.770
Not lower than Categories (300) (150) (210)
I-Mile (I 600 m) A&B
Aircraft
Approach 1,700 500 1,010 29.465
Categories (510) (150) (303)
C&D
Not lower than AU 1,700 1,000 1,510 48.978
3/4-Mile (1200 m) Aircraft (510) (300) (453)
Lower Than AU 2,500 1,000 1,750 78.914
3/4-Mile ( 1200 m) Aircraft (750) (300) (525)
.......
11 The RPZ dimensional standards are for the runway end with the specified approach visibility minimwns. The departure RPZ
dimensional standards are equal to or less than the approach RPZ dimensional standards. When a RPZ begins other than 200 feet (60 m)
beyond the runway end, separate approach and departure RPZs should be provided. Refer to appendix. 14 for approach and departure RPZs.
Chap 2
19
;
J.
11--
,...""",;~
~J
e
U.S OepJrtment
ot Transportation
Fed~ral Aviation
A,dmklistratloo
)
Ad~ory
Circular
. "
Subject: AIRPORT DESIGN
__;I;"""~~~"_.,~~~~,_~,_._"""",~~__''''N",,.....,.n-- u. -. .~~...~~~.~.,..""-'''''.,...""..
OllIe: 9(291S9
Initiated by: AAS-110
AC No: 150/5300-13
DaRge:
~_............_~ .:.>0""'''' .....---
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular CAe)
contains the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
standards and rerommendations for airport design.
2. CANCELlATION. This CAe) cancels the
following publications:
a. AC lS0IS300-2D. Airport Design
Standards--Site Requirements for Terminal
Navigational Facilities. dated March 10, 1980.
b. AC 150/5300-4B. Utility AirportS-Air
Access to National Transportation, dated
June 24, 1975.
c. AC 15015300-12. Airport
StandardsuTransport Airports,
February 28. 1983.
Design
dated
~~f..~
Leonard E. Mudd, Director
Office of Airport Safety and standards
d. AC 15O/5325-Sc' Aircraft Data, dated
June 29, 1987.
c. AC 150(5335-2, Airport Aprons. dated
January 27. 1965.
3. APPUCATION. The standards and
recommendations rontained in this advisory circular
are recommended by the Federal Aviation
Administration (or use in the design of civil airports.
For airport projects receiving Federal ~nt-in-aid
assistance. the use of these standards i~ndato.v
At certi~ted.... airports. the standar sand
recommendations may be used to satisfy specific
rcquirentents of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
Part 139, Certification and operations; Land Airports
Serving Certain Air Carriers, Subpart D.
AC 150/5300-13 ClfG 5
" (c) When the.esholds are
staggered and the approach is to the far threshold, the
minimum 2,500-foot (762 m) separation requires an
increase of 100 feet (30 m) for every 500 feet (152 m)
of threshold stagger.
209. RUNWAY TO PARALLEL TAXIWAY
AND TAXILANE SEPARATION,
a. Standards. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present
the runway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane
centerline separation standard. This distance is such to
satisfy the requirement that no part of an aircraft (tail
tip, wing tip) on taxiway/taxilane centerline is within
the nmway safety area or penetrates the obstacle free
zone (OFZ). The computer program cited in
appendix II may be used to determine the increase to
these separation distances for elevation.
b. Recommendations. To have room for
the acute-angled exit taxiway, provide a nmway
centerline to parallel taxiway centerline of at least 400
feet (120 m) for Airplane Design Groups I and II,
500 feet (ISO m) for Airplane Design Group III, and
600 feet (180 m) for Airplane Design Groups IV, V,
and VI.
210. BUILDING RESTRICI'ION LINE lBRL).
A BRL should be placed on an airport layout plan for
identifying suitable building area locations on airports.
The BRL should encompass' the nmway protection
Z<ines, the runway object free area. the runway
visibility zone (see p8ragraph 503), NA V AID aitical
areas, areas ~uired for terminal instrument
procedures, and airport traffic control tower clear line
of sight
~f~~mBJc;Cf CLEARING CRITERIA. Safe and
.., effi~perations at an airport require that certain
areas on and near the airport be clear of objects or
restricted to objects with a certain function,
com~ition, and/or height The object clearing
aiteri8 subdivides the 14 CPR Part 77, Subpart C,
airspace and the object free area (OFA) grolDld area by
type of objects tolerated within each subdivision.
Aircraft are controlled by the aircraft operating rules
and not by this aiteria.
a. Standards.
requirements are as follows:
Object
clearance
(1) ObiedFree-Area (OFA). Object
free areas require clearing of objects as specified in
paragraph 307, Runway Object Free Area. and
paragraph 404, Taxiway and Taxilane Object Free
Area (OF A).
12
2114/97
(2) Run.' and Taxiwav Safety
Areas. Runway and taxiway safety areas require
clearing of objects, except for objects that need to be
located in the runway or taxiway safety area because of
their function. Objects higher than 3 inches (7.6 cm)
above grade should be constructed on low impact
resistant supports (frangible mounted structures) of the
lowest practical height with the frangible point no
higher than 3 inches (7.6 cm) above grade. Other
objects, such as manholes, should be constructed at
grade. In no case should their height exceed 3 inches
(7.6 em) above grade. Underground fuel storage
facilities should not be located within runway and
taxiway safety areas (see AC 150/5230-4), Aircraft
Fuel Storage, Handling, and Dispensing on Airports).
Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 4-1 specify runway and
taxiway safety area standard dimensions.
(3) Obstacle Free Zone (0 FZ).
Obstacle Free Zones require clearing of object
penetrations, except for frangible visual NA V AIDs that
need to be located in the OFZ because of their function.
Paragraph 306 specifies OFZ standard dimensions.
(4) Threshold. The threshold obstacle
clearance surfaces, defmed in Appendix 2,
paragraph 5, require clearing of object penetrations.
(5) NA V AIDs. Certain areas require
clearing for the establishment and operation of
NA V AIDs. These NA V AID critical areas are depicted
in chapter 6.
.::\
(6) 14 CFR Part 77 Obstructions' to
Air Navi2ation. Obstructions. to air navigation must
be removed unless an FAA aeronautical study, based
on proposed operations, determined otherwise. To
determine otherwise, the FAA must find no substantial
adverse effect as defined in Order 7400.2, Procedures
for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 7, Evaluating
Aeronautical Effect, Section I, General The FAA,
norma1Iy, limits aeronautical studies of existing objects
to obstructions to air navigation which are not included
in the aiteria cited in paragraphs 211a(I) through (5).
(7) Runwav.' Protection ZOne, (RPZ).
The RPZ requires clearing of incompatIole objects and
activities as specified in paragraphs 212a(IXa) and
212a(2).
(8) General. Other objects which
require clearing are those which generally can have an
adverse effect on the airport. These include objects in
the inner part of the approach area (coinciding with the
RPZ) such as fuel handling and storage facilities,
smoke and dust generating activities, misleading
lights, and those which may create glare or attract
wildlife.
Chap 2
t
.L
,
~-T
........
.~ 150/5300-13 CHG4
..
20
,~
.N - +-r-....-.....--. 1-
';J
11110/94
i
~
~
M
lCrI r
1. s.. Table 2-5 for
cUraen.ion Wl, w2' L
2. See Table. 3-1 through
3-3 for dimensions R, Q
Figure 2-3. Runway protection zone
~ l)ll(l,,~ f~ ,/ (1((
I (. . h-. .'\".
Chap 2
'C';Ty \'O})~f\c.lE. ~ <("
I,/" f'l1.Ct: 1>{l..E. P, (J:tJO-OfI. f1..b::J r\l .~~
r . t e
. ~ OFI\ 3C01 EaR.. ~ "0
t: fO't J.06'E~rz 1 ~
u. EoK- m ..1.
(Et-.J D of i
Ru N vJ~'1 ~ 'r
I
!
!
;r/
e
.
e
~ ~~ /
."'-. ~;(~ v'J'
X' -~. -
~~
1
I, -
~o FI\ E.X'\ED<; (O~
/
{
J
~.
/ ((-- .
\~. . /:,
\\ ':JV"'
\'., 0":
EN>J 0 F e.H (J:.i-JC.O(1..e.c:6~
\'11 .
,"
Lex.. '\ L r:tC R...
~(~>>IE.~~~'
L/END of
f R Y':C
I
I
I
,1
;. I'
THRE5f-\-OL[)
S ITI t0G GoES
. oyr)o)ooo'~
7-0 '1"61
.-
t, ...
, ,
I ' r-T _.~
. ........I.\:Of....... ....
.' r:)<'\ ~ :)1.010
~ '~~'. ;:.~~'_ '~".::'.o~ _ _-.-
~..- .. -:---
- .
. . .
- .
~~\l~
L .D~ =- \ZLC::>J1T of L.~ 0y 0 F-A ~ 01S'1 EcT F~EE A.\?,l~A
.o.E:t:. = n~Sl.fi(..CE_ fi(ft: to\~f R?-t::: RLA~w1\Y ~(Lc5\6c,\\Ot0 -=tDrvC"
"-
~
. ",
-r-l\J 5T K. u f'^...( V\ ~
1\ Q P ~Df\c ~. _' ~
<\ t\ f--.ESf\?l ?F\.?? RcPc::+-t ~
;1-.0 10 \ 9 o~ S 06\ IO/x)O~\ F-A R..R IN C? '\0 \
\\ ,\,
- *-- . _.~+ - . .- ... "
TR, f\ (' E b f~o {l_C_~~E_fl.3-'_rtt~.KG_E SS_.n--D_10__C:,___Q_f..ScJr~\j_E._'l-.S_.__~-5iJ\. l(6L
_ ~P~I 'S q __Y_...:&HJ.-<..._0.Gs:JJ \.~___._.....nu.._._~j:-,.!.:\..L.l__J~_~._<g_'Q~__. ... .. .
>;
~3
~ ~ .
((c-:C
'2 t- tJ
0V1<r
t=-:2~
-H<::!..
C) <L
Cl~j::
~r~
J-
.
.5ha.rol/ kill
e 10100 tU. H
Lc... to rie ,/'I. 7757)
C~ <g I ) L/ 7/ - / Y'-f5
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. (-!fj)
o ~
tJ Of.(
1060 I
060
10 - C)
10ft)
IOc;{} 0 Ie if
. 1-LO ) gl- Cf7J-9~c;
d.:JO/; 7()~906:T
~;<)~ ~~ t! '-);J -c)Z-S"')-
c9;;2/;1 t&/nc'v<-5l~ ~( Y?/02~1
10316 /JI7/'fiJ /I ?SI- J't;z-bO/'(
I07~~ Jtlr/"-. 1-1 ,2.8'/- ~7/-/~~-
b lId N()rt tL H C).€) - 47} - 9/J. '7
\ \ Do ~ ~. -t\. st 1B \ . 8~ l <6 ~ 0 t
f t~ l\\\q Ll* s* . ,)131- q7l -08~
" Cl / 1/ IcrfJ;/~j-)-<J1S~ 9' ~
cc IJf /</ ( { y. f!V,c; tt-r: ( ~ ;r f JJ
.;
\ OLO~
() '7 d ~
Phone #
t'(
r-8f/~ 7
S7 -Z ~/ L-f'7/-(]7
I , vz28/-'17/,..7L/G7
~ J ~ I
'I
, /
II
II
I /
~~/~7DISS~
1-\.f7D-1SS'..L
Ii
. c$A afO t[ --r:c 1/1
(0 pI t-5 /0706 JU. f-f-
\t,d./l ~~ 3su 1-4- fo{fe;rx 7757)
\<:>~l~v~ l:J-8U 'f7HY'-f5
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Ix. petition the City of La Porte
Ix. to abandon the proposed connection ofF~rrington Blvd. and Lomax ~____(jjJ
School Road and to remove all "ComprehensIVe Plan" references to . --~~
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. 35 fll9 ' \
<1D'\AL
e
J
Name
Address
f//L.L/4~
Sy-eue J<e ye~
!/If;V f<e Ye.~
-~
~\\ :\u\ '
~aNS
/1t'cJ A,/f/
/072 r A.JH
I
/1
If
j0636 Al If
'f 7 /- )
843
709'~3~
'f ) ~ tl ;;J..
1../- 7 / - dd L.j JJ
o/7/~33B;Y
1'"'_ 0
47/-6849
L/7! - b 8 rj
!-f7/- /J..;o 0
. BqJ- ?3cJ;L
:<fJ- C(7o- /CfOo
/1
~.8' /- ~7 / - 1 t 02-
,--
~g I"" t.{7Q-q3~:3
/1
8'y;2 775Y
-~ l.
./
e
e
, p~ \\1\S~~vetl-. l-t(-q1~515f
ac~ j~ -& m-l/ JJ orfl.. .4vt! If (z..'i"J)<i:'-!,;l -73'70
:(l tl8-1B ~. li ,),&'1-'/7l1-t,qZ.b
t~ 1/30b 1J H
- ~(I'/J6;/1I
~~, . L\ll ' 9Co8)..-
z;-/ C/7/-?6:F2-
:J
e
e
~tZro 11 . / cc 11 y
ItJ7tJ. 6 k/-.Jt../ .'
t-a. f6 rl-e r I/'-'" 7> 7(
&i:}) L-/7/-IL/!O
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte GJ
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
Phone #
I(!)~l> r.l ~II.
/o~30 tV. fl.
cXr( -rY-2.-71~Y.
~fl- 110-'0/(,
<-1'/' 47'0- C,o ~y
J ~ J. lf7/- J7 t j
~!-tf7/-SL.L f-
~ to C(~~
g/; 47o,,-f'449
,l(gl. - L/7o-?rtf <7
d. '8) ~ .v ?/'-O/1fc)
:J-~f - 17/-0) YD
J..f5'1 - 41 !~()/~o
.J./7 J- I~S7
of'
~
at; II
'p~
LLtL-ltl_>' ~ tJ(/~~,J /OfJ.~) ,d.J /1.
~() i3u~,IoAJ ; o:J SOl fi). II.
)Ij;(J;oe) ~o4.AJ 1();2'iJ'! ;t), iI.
. .~ . p
.. t., l~n,~- ~ -
'I
e
e
:$J'\Lk r^04/L" lce/Lr,
(0 76 {; f{} If
lc,-- fc/kcYp77S(
~ ~I) Lf-r 1-( Vl5 /
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to ~
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. ~
Address
Phone #
c... 0
ffi~R~e S~~~
~~~ ~~~
Gv-l~ rv\i> y~
".Al4 ~~) \)
~~n
i/- 1/- Dil l
.;J-<if(- if7! -071 ~
..---
2e> / 4 cJ /77 <:>
~ 1- ~ u'-/'i'l)-
L 1 - ? ~~? Ie;
oG8/- 47 1-(30'1
Z d/ 'I'll -730~
j~1 0lfd.--\lo34
~()o:\\\ ~~\ ~,"\~'\~1~
d. I - t;7()~/~
;;;. g I - 1/7/-/ ViS
;J ~ I - t/7/- /l.(((j-
OL\ \) ~ ~ '6 - " '\ '1 S ~ C
. (<1\)(.
\a~~d. ~~~\c~ ~~ - d--~\-L\'\\-~'\S:~
~) ~, .~. ~~ \.- t\'\ \~ ~ ~ ~c'Cr--f\jC)-0
~Z- ~ SJU}.d eJ. Lt1l l'14J
2 6D"Z-- ~ ~I teA lit t iqtf}
JJo 1 ~ ~"\) I fU/- ~ L(ID ZSr-:J-
-:: ',\ ~. f~ DI--
e
-5
~haxon'k 111
"070b iU-H
~. fo,f-e T'/7 7>7/
r
~8'r) L{ 7/ -1l/}5
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte ~.
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax /;LO )
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to ~
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
.~~1:~
~q~
1). f. -,
Phone #
I::::, AlP
I N. P.
I (f (\C'l N()r P
\\\Db rJq), ~
! \ 10& /Jo, Pi
:5 R tJ ef>~ fYU
L
iJ~;; 'J llJ/J1. f )eI(OOL /2'
%9#
o 9jc'
P:~~~::;
47 D -73;}-()
t47 c - f$S~S-
g~2- J) Yj
f?9-/~~7
99
470-9u;r
17f~0101
Lf 'J1-LCf
Y"7/'-~/3
<642 - Clo<O 7
C7
\ oq ;;:S 1\J t+-
- '-
4 0- I b
~ ~~ /
S4ITJ~-L- CJ -- Y/;1;.?
ild-OD 1J.~. H f//-4q<lf
Ie-fd-- c:..~233,;) DA-~ _LJ7LJgg'ii~
A. ~233Z.fjlA.~"'~ .LIII. '/7tJ - UO'Z-.
~ t:-pfl{)(~ d33d-.. ~-vel,0, .J.{-7D860~ ""._
11('1}L-/ s c'o'7 7
" '1"'/I~~/. " 180 h L/;m,:X sc:/fcoLjzJ
/":-(2tiJ Jl1~ 1'! srtff~ e LfrP()~7rc.. - ~ "7707)
4:-5~f.. . I)Jf-vfl" '- - ../ L/7() -C6"{? __
(J/'~ _ _ '; r ." \l C0\AJAft:\ fnIR/'1c.'F1/.
(5rLLE7-r '1-")/-S02o t',:- I V\^.. -v- iJ~{!J-e/0
/!!~/":; ~ /'J,j/f,cl /J:, / . /()<f:2-; Lf:Jl?fZ 1;d~.
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
,---"_'~~
.' ')
"/,"
Name Address
JtMk4 S~~ /t:M) 1hd y:J
~ a , :cd. lo2l""( 5 fl)()R.T~ H
I)' . ~
} G Vyv\...- '^-J (./M (~L~
Phone #
c:zg/- '17 tJ-o 7..s-y
28 ( - 47/- to Cj ~ b
)'6'!~-)
, ~,.../
.;;<t / - t.j 7/ -D;257
_~<61- L/7/_4~/C.I
d PI -</7/ g(j;)3
Z!lJ- ~7) - '1tJ/1
~~ tiofTVT\.f.7'\ Ic336 () \d O,c.h(\r,J ~ I -4,1-15~~
~~t #-- ~, r' /'
:~-:~ :~4JaI16}j 7 O/J fJ;u<k) ;J 'If -'1'13 'J 71/
ewwQJl(l(UCcuW - 103d'~ old OrcYurd ;Ag}'l/)O~Jf)
tU
28;-'11- 813
fC:{}
/-$"}
.. -,
I -
\ - \-
.'-- r-c."~~
e
;( If1 S ca"/'r . i
. / $6:1., L6/!1"J'J( S ~4
L;r,Pdte?'"'~ /X' 7?591~
tP- g I -I./? tJ-f:,~fiS
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Ix. petition the City of La Porte
Ix. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
<~
, ....,
. "
\. /"/
"', -,'
Phone #
(L\'1\ - -rB6 )
4:?-1- 111~
47/- /71 f?
~71-~~2~
H'1 ( - I S r~
~lo l- - CC,sy
f D 7- (;O)-/./
CZrd~~/J~
1./70-0:::'1/
7/ ~;)/ f&,S-
, .' r ." -LL.
.-T,~LZC
~ttLtl ,bVv1A..~/
ft
t.(')/-z€; '(,)
47t-"d-'827
A 7/~ ~7 c;ef-
4, [- -S-iG'6
Lj'JI- b6b 9
\ < fv : ~ ,,:,'l";\,.
e
e
;!/k1 SC<J77 "
/ 8d.2 L()IJJIt-XSC~-L ~V
U/'tJ/<?7 ~ 77'> ~/
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
r'---~7
. / )
~----j
--_.~--
Name Address Phone #
~AQ._3~^_ \()30ro C&Jt d~ {-47D-(O is
i\~ ~~~ If 1/ 411. (/Ie~r
5Ic.~A~~~~ /;y/() (!~;itr ZO/-;,t;;:-7J69
-------;y~ De. L /()31() (~ ;Z$/J.-11(- 73t?
whm!n1 Lt~/ /D3/8 ~a1iL-d J&/ B~J,1193-
. B~~thu~~ I,(.uf>-~ JD j (/1 !d~~f '1(/ -'ff.IW')/-y-:)
/~-1h0A- 9-f/;ttv1, It! ~.j:7 6#;PI' 'I{/ L( 7/ ~()6~'2-
C\, F>. .sd- 1033, 5EL.FA-SI 2.8/- '-I;1-~~6
/,
J-77/-/~88
'-' !r;r;
?f'/ - 47)- 4{,1'8
'Cf7 ( '-~316
~~ \ ~2~d--\)C\~
\ \
"
~q~(
D 073)
(fr- 3
~:' /._~.~ ~....-:-:....~!"'\.:-
e
e
j( I1tf 0 co'i7,
2jtJ!2. LomJl)( 5 c//TtfL ~
/ C-I'f (/() /( n /. --:?R -;J? 5~
.?3'I-~~O- 66~
@
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Address
'~D~~?- ~cd~ 0+1
Phone #
LI'l t -~ 70f;
5/ '/ ~ b/.,t f
4ll-Rq3,
~'7/-(pLLCj
Y:::
" /
L/7/2~f..pO
<-170-/2-1"8"
f& ~ '-I
l <.J '. _-,'''':z..I-...
e
/< ~ .5((/-/ / .,
e / ~ 6.2. L6/JJ /j- X -5 Cl/t13 L f2-4J
L-/f/'O(C'77 ~ 775'7/
t?-S'1-t./7()-66 ?S
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
/)~.
( .
'-. "
SCll'O~
Y7/-/,-39S-
~~\ Lfll-i geey
'2'Oi :-J 1-) 8(" 4-
'"']. -t/7/).cFR'7)
~gl.-1f70-c2131
.1 / - If I -:J. 79 9'
. /"-f1J'vZ-~9f
j :23/- {/7o" 766.5-
f6-f
,
.-f"' f'..C'
e
j!;4f seD 77 r
e I 8 () 2... L-o /11/1-')( S c;MZ f'~
ZI1;OO!<77 ~ :7~//
e?-8/- tf70 - 668)
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
(UJ
--------~ --
Name
Address
Phone #
41/-76S-S--
4 1 \ - 3l{t)
Yl1 ~?4. .
If lfJ ~~,~
J-!'/ J- u /0 D
~7-. ~jg'
(-//1- zC3Y
d-f7 G - (I Lf~G
ffJ~
\
l'-
e
e
!f';;j S ((J //
I g(J2- L'-o,;11)J-X .5cf/rdL P
UTfb/?/7 '<<' ??S-7j
)-g/-~/()-66g>
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed co;;nection of F~rrington, Blvd. and Lomax///7)
School Road and to remove all ComprehensIve Plan' references to <__1--
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Phone #
--
....
fG1
e
e
"t<tttf 5 Co "'//
/ jd:::z- ~ m+~ S'c/It,.L f
.::7/J c/7"1 J//hL MC2: 7/~,f/C;
L-J11bR.-/7 -<< 775//
~!/-cjJ~-66 g';)
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to r;:;.'
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Address
Phone #
41/-2/03
'7 C,( L/ 7 / .7;
i--' " _ ~
Lf)tJ ,/tJ9 'f
6-d. V
1/7/- J 9. <- I
~....",,;
2...?~-
Ir
/r
, ,
/ I If
JI
~)i / '- </7f.- 2 "'9~
. . , . l16~
:) L l7ee'6 {I 0 6\/ z1; -UJ17~
~ Q,r--\!,\ l6t.?f1.ll-- }r70* OClJ.lCAo U ( 2$1- '6'Lj2-172~
'-f'A-JJ~ ~ -/)7121 vf~Sdn.-,-{3~, ~ .
P&- 8
"
,Y~ SCO//
e 110;2- L()r1A-.J( Sc/ftrirL;4{
4W>aR -r7 -2R 77.s7/
'1?()-6~V
e
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to ~
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. ~
Name Address
~ 1JerJ;j~ I05Y! )/ L ~
~~ ~ ('~)..}~SLQ. \ ~\ bU ~ \ &--
~/WY.::A &Le_ ~ 7/j~ t/ S-7
~~() (OM:~~~
./ 'd.. - /61'1// ,/}i~
~' ~~ ~ /cJO/:;J ,7h~
/; ) fllj~ !r /rLVL--' ( Co(D --riliZ",A
~ Ilk
u1'L
(fJ~~ 9
Phone #
rj-y I-IV/fa
.
~,-Vl \- \ ll\\
Lf7/ --..-\Jl9?
~' 0-01 'if~
>1/- 9'.3,-~ '
f/1f- ?s~ c./
471'- fTS2-
~7/-1$
L)7 - J!l5s-'
'2- -7~
';1 ~ L/ 7 ~ ~
-....
e
/(kt.f S~ -r /" (J
e I g tJ!L tUJ/IJ/J-.'>( .5 C/~rL ft
L,lf-t4tC'77 /X ??.57/
'-/70.- b6~
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Fanington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Phone #
ffr~ fD
s~
:I?M /f;:JA-/J~5
/b 0 b UJml4-X SCIML
1",f
L/J-/'(J ;f' -;7 ~ -::Q(? ? 5" 7
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City oft:p~~" - ~3?f
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Fanington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
e
e
@
Name Address Phone #
,', ,S:5;~ ,~-~e3~ (JSi)--tf-::JI-=J;&f
. 4'p flY, L1f- h }lo-w-,C/ 'r ( fJ ')1 c;- J . P 5+- J.'6 1- '( t.f. :J5-P'1t.J'
. Id t N ~fJ~- C)?/- (- 02-
~6// No PM 'J-o/-Lf7/-777?
/Otp2&AI jJ ct8/ 470- Q/o1
Ii Olt,LorJ1 S:Jw[ c><.??{-170--c;(378"
t d.cPl <f 0-/(,,77
1-i{7/~ 7?4: ~
'd 2.'?/- ll-Jryz-
.L-J / - fC/2 - 9r.J /
L~f _ 11-17~~
'E/-1j7/-//~'
. ~ I,Jr71-6J9~z
...2. '7 ~ --r I
----------
p&1
/
d "D'v :;.
5t!rF-
, r
5 ftJff!OfJ/
5')f1r-lb;VS
,
sHfffbP
f& ,
e
J)AkJ&'-1
Hz_/~~ .
'J.:;}8 ~ ~-P.X 5e;;IJoj)t..~
Ul PO'rUtJ Ti 71S-1
e
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
.(ji>
C!/-
Phone #
;lx; I '-17 I :1 '/3 S
I
I
IV, if ST ~gl-q7/-Ir;IT
I )
I (
I" 't'
II
. D4/v.V; ~EY<-~
d8Q ~ / ~ 1/.( S:?-HC<1 L rZt
u p;rnr6J n ..77S-~ /
e
;t-
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
~I 1-'"30/7)
'f~ - :)6 70
::;-:~f
/02-23 /fl./f, if lf7/--1? J? 3
/()~2P ;rj, If. L . f 1 j- 7.
/
.J{ to ,./1 f /
$:~ /tJ.23 Ai,II, ;<?l1-~-;/-15j0
_ _ ~ _/tJ33/ /1). f!. L;O '/7/- /7d?
)UUIt ~ /{)33J /V, /I, L--~ t(7/-J707
Address
/()cf~ 4- tJ II
) () ~ 7 C; IJ H LfJ
/L,;O
<02-79 /v, h.
tGV
)
'7 f
\ !. ,-.
, ,,/
".~/./
Phone #
~v
161 ('l 11 ~A
6 ~ (7~v
/(6
k,(( . (l16e~
r
~
c;;p
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Address
Phone #
~h CH\C1Ml ~QYl ~ Q(1O
. ()
D
lOU-tD ~Lr-m f5~,
r ,
~ (~!') f"-J.-
'1 .
/l.ll (ZL.~ 11 I.~ t-t
1.. 161 - 54,2, - (I J a
\,o3Lonl(u~ 2~cL1?Gl
l1LPDrtc) Ti- ,157/
e
(~/7
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
~Na~e_ , "\ Address Phone# d-.'h\'L'\!1\-1<l'..'-t'f)
_ ill~ 6'0:::''(" ~""I"y-E> ~O~\;=:
rtl~ //&::2.& (lJ. 2 ~e)-Lj7/-~3j:
Ad ari~LL&'r.t-f{ 1'7 D :Lot-t!U Sr h ~ ~ 8/ -842.7 88
(lr.HQ.~- ClrLLorh@;(~ <peL c3,RI.fJ/Z.7B8
(Q q ~I 't. ~irJ.lt dB - J (, lolcr
~f\J.~v Lfll LJII
00V IVDrm ~r /~ 70-()6S!
-K~ tckdfYv\CYyv 9Cj~ ^ It) r~ (-1- J-fil- 170- ()6s-r
q $""D NoH-. - L(j 0 -06Jf/
\.() L ~ 1 \Y007
. ~ .
W. /cJ /1 - ~.
td:t ~ II 0 Z~ ~c?:r-~~
/P:S%<ctJ:: 11C-2/~w~" fJ
2 S-l . '-(7/liJ)
2.91- 4-1 D 51) D L-
'L61 P+i). 1/3$
J
e
e
C- /l-.e (. ,cJc:t.. Eo N
Lj?/ -73(9
(jj)
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Address
Phone #
o
L~.
I&-5
e
e
eJytL LJcc. ~o~,.J
4'71- 7369
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La porte.0J;2
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Address
Phone #
"/0-
~~
-p1
Ie- Z-
I-~~ ,.\ '
r-lcL
I ! (" r >-.
L ~:~"'".- <., --..
e
tit
&t12[ J:J ~ (€CJ~
~ 7/- 7.3 G 9
r"<> '.~~~~''''..
t ~-? ;
y-:.:../
}" ,"_:::'-'
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
Phone #
~.8'.~
CJlix.;vf ~r
~/-L/7~- II
2~1 Y7o-U9?7
2f/-fj7( :5
,?-fl....LJ71--,J90~
/,p336- ---ifvs7;c... K6e-k j..~/- 1..(71 -1<fc7S
j??1
.~ ~-. \( \___t
e
e
GAI2'- tJu~
.t/7/- 73b'l
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte /fiJ
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax ~
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address (' /
cJ 0 ~Jf41 ;Z
Phone #
7! _/s-Io.s---
'7 ;J/ - <:.<. -;y
:; l[J '-7/2 f
1. /- / '2-&,
~ W 0, '. ) ~ h J I \~ 615
lo3/r- eDc/ctt4/~w 17L)r-~:;('1
l-1Vl--LO\-,J 8 2- 1::) Lr2-
- --- 7 3"{Z-
4- 7/~fJ36
~10'- J/3
11" 1jr:? toCl
tr o~7LOI
ID?6'?,
-y J-'g3Y~-
t~J
Lf\,_L
~
e
-1ILL~S~
11{6L-b71?~~Q ~.
LA.,. P ~t.,\ c<\!(. 77 ..s,-'f L
e
fe-I
(jj)
w ~ the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
-connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
Phone #
A 6' N e- bu u A-J-.L.. J (j ");;., tj /\J 0 R7/-I J.., ;1. I? / _L/? 0 -:J. 7 c/O
~i;s~ llit1 -;;:~ ~4 :--I2a- ~~I) -
" '. ... JIl17= ~~Z t ..~ j&t) 7 :/-I/7/-,f.H':JI
S1\YSON 9<oborJ.3o;-J ~9a5 &/eu t1){e.y d~l-LJt-O-~o-'SS
.tchtfre/ KLt 10(1 Y1o<) /f1-1~/~wCr~~-/ rlJ-( V7o-7o'77
4 10 'I) eel \ L~~ 2J;/ -l.j7j-S'15 Y
(~q UJ rv\E:1\ ~ ~~ Q~t='~\ ) %-l' '-C( ( , ~1'~~
'tr I \' ~C\.~ 0'+ ~\ Go ~ l'Il', qC\c d C r ee-K IJ' . (' uJD ,", d- '( ( ~ "6ctJ- - ( ;; ~(I
1J1{l/?Jt,?~, b .It ,fiAt!.-. / or:: tJ =? ~ ;P p, S J - if 7 / - / 7 ~ /
t~ ~{k~ JuS"" '5 Ave f' .:<&(-47(-(76/
. , 0 '-1/5 CI1RLotJ i;/ 7-fJ/ - '-/71- 5807-
f&J-
.
e.
b~9~~~
i ~ 6"2.. ~I))J :s.Jl~ ~.
LP. Pcp.;f'6:, '.f)L. (7:s; 71
0/)
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Ix. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address Phone #
} I . '1 (I / ..1/
'/' rV7, 'I l/t' / / I.
/1. /..s I /'-;,...!,u--z.- /1)'/ / (t-"",' / (/(,;-5 ?-Ir..,,<-.~;(f i..c. !..t)r:"'<-
~
?/- )O-/~ C;
I '- Y?-o ~ I ,r:b (/
o 2632.
I) J-f?eJf)
170- )7c).. 9
'IS v-/7f 3
-;- L{'(\ -...3' c- \
L\,\ '-2a~J
at!. cl70/3tI{
.~
.tv &.'~-
I ' ( ,
( " j \\
-
e
g,ee Sc6r\
I q Di- f-<Sn1 0/ -sA..J< J~A
Lfr (J61L~. <():i- -n'~1
(&3
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte ~)
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax W
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
( 0 if () J i2 ~ ~ .J..-, c... (; 4:_ + e-
Phone #
47/- r<l7~
. ;-070 r
-5-;;ldd
4-
- '577)-
/lI-i-rYIJ
f'l/-lf/7
~
v
L ' '- ('--'
e
e
. E It' ) ~IN..,,\
J ~ OL- ~'\ Arf s.J-~R k
LA PCl7f\D "}6. ,/('1 f
pr,-t{
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Fanington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
@
Name Address
'oN",,",,' Q,~<J-\.~ '-\'iCl'1 f'lRCf\.WJ>'7 DR. LIl Po"~
(vIM; ,,'/llCfZ4' !.l16Cf I ' & t~ V. i a ~ ~4
~Y1R.:fJl L~a V:l<') BJ 4q oq ueQ. tv:ew LA ?o.- "ie
Phone #
2 e\ - 'l2S -{p (1S-
/-1-(70- rrC33
Z~r 4-1t-79!?S-
~P/- '170-(;17ay
L; )0~) ;>JS
2gj- 97/-g'fgj
C } / J--~/? 9?.5-;/
r& (
e
e
!I-~ /' /.:J ... I.) V \1....... ~
lxlZe.l~ u....,JCJ:..'-'V_\
l~bL lA..?t '1- s~dt14
Lv~ P 6f1STm 1):" '1) ~-'ll.
-""
/ ,
( -? i
" / C./'
....,.--...__..;~~.....
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
J/()(')/{, (;;fA(x J {J Lf010 C~DI//h~/; lvoO~
Q~r~
.,G.
Phone #
IAJA
'~~~*j/~~~;~)I
!~i ~- :\~~ f11D ~~. ~~, Pd
__&.-_\~ _ ,'- ~ (9(07 J --L- ~-
. ~ ~
9," 1 ~ Sf 6 (L, . Pel
~ L \.~ffl
Iv !J:I+A11~~~~')~
,ft"o~- ,,~~
/f)1 /(t V)7?~ 7/U
Cfi!A' '/) - . '\
I ~ ___ ~ JJ 0 ()~ 1.-..
?.=:.'6 "L-5-
~,()~
47 {-~Z(
l.{ 7 {- Lj I ,,:2-
lfil-(t(b"
::\ ~~'~.~~
.Lt1J - fd ') {p d-
8tt2 QC1lf-L
.99~ v/~J-r~ R/?/- #7/- O~,':5-
/ Lf I J $/1 (f'oJ Chtc) lj l/ 6.1/0/
It/If Of!Y;; Me.J dN- f11-MJf
321./ Lj.r'/te,55 {y. U/-L/7b-?9Rtc
3d. Y 6tpeM.J ~ ( .;2.2 0 <./70 - 'tq ~(,.
(\<1 'i,/ '
",-' '-JL L _.~
fV1fE'7/AJ?
"{ift. 5'21. d2-/ /<19J
e
}Sw ~c:.6~1 '-~
I~OL ~A-fl~~nJ-
L~ p t:f)..-1C-" rJY. -f/S.~--)j.
..----
p&L
\-i-:'V/
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Fanington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
~e Address Phone #
hJ:,LII1t~~ /!f(.//~ g../4; .28/--7/7/-2-(;7/
(i 10 fZe, /'/ ;)<<9 tVlz' /6 Clo 3 Ou _ ~ --- MLL ;J- 8) Cf 7/- ~t./-~J
(( ( ( (( (( ~
.-~------~-
l'fd 7 ,4;r'J/J ^
tffvl ~J. {/;~Iv Ov L
6c:JOp iUeh~~
;f1-'17/-J:ll{7
/'
-z,%r i7l -"6 '316
2 B/ 470 /J1L
-~~
(//~ ,.~
f ~cc :LIt -c. 7 o-tl ? .{,
}?; Ci. v ~ . ,:. 7J '017 {/ '2 13fS
5';r.J c?Y;:~&s..r Ivin/ ~Y7(f...cr;/I"j:.
J 2 r c?Yr/7C:= _C>),/V r:'.j ;; tI . d~tff g
f'f' () G
Y>1f r} /.rp
+r
e
~ ([)
/lJ ,t2ul if
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
/jI)
(~.__.
Address
I J J 1./ f/flri/A<2/rY;!--
(B(3 e(lhlJJJJ{J/)(/.~-
Phone #
~/! '170- /rJtf9
j8r.4rtf-llifQ
1", t f I (
,.
~ -o1-!.f7t7- / -77
J ~ \, - ~Jt7 (- < :1 tf~
d . ;2 07 ~ ~~I q) -/3 b
~fd b 2) I L ~ f~~7;7 ) 7-71-&? ~r
2t ~- -~_~,. ~.. 31~uc- --al1 /-~-fjJ)~ -('1
~~~ ~~D/ ~2 ~4;/~';~;?
tfiGS I
e
1/:100~~&
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Fanington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
Phone #
@
r I .) ,"7 II,'
I i < (>- r) All
(' A Fr>L kit" ( ? 113 2 0 ^./ L
~sfJi.,' I6tkn~ D{~[laJ/ ))7/7// /NrI ;l$/-,F7)ZIDl
~~U:'l ) ~:/7JVdL/~. L dg~-_Slf/-Q$L)5'
11 i J, 1/701 n. ';t. ,-A&/#1/-:ltg q
--- L& I
~JrC<Ajft"'\ '~ ' /16G7 IJI ~ul, _ 201/L./7u/20ttJ
. -
"
, . 'c,J I, L ~
//( / ;~,~ f~~ '/p1 /1; ;J/f:'" '
.
iI, #',/) , /t ~
^- g
117()6 /J.Il/l/j, 0< ~3(- <1,l+;;-7t./-tl/
/9' d / L (7./vA ~ L -" 2.. <II - )/';;o-/9? c;
'~L/"
;\/L
'I 4'- "
1..-'6'- /0 -7c;, ~ 4-
?"' ('? ) - /1 - (j - <:',/?- I J'
_" -(., (J___
~
\ 'j
ptrG~;L
e
e
9;:;:~
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
@
~a~ Address
-jf;"" me (J ;/:;2 7 AJ )
J1~ L~ //p.)/ ~h" ~
~~M ot~J //11177 (
1!J;l41 idttfbf; Sr'>1//LC-
l/Z~^J~ Nt)
Phone #
Lj'7!- )/YL 7
)f/- t7/- 3SQ.!
~/iLI':-'-
(=ZS~L-<"
/ /f." 2/.p 1/; r""'"
"'"j
./ ,\ - -;--" 2,
/ I " z i Iv; l)
./
,/7/ ' C; 5~ L
sty) r ')tll-HCAA L\.~
l{ [, (; JY~\,{ (I
IC-'; ;- (P Y
J- () ~
,,------
'7--7-.5
.'
f~2
.
e
-'~.@\ .
~ /!1t;
td Ii /
I..; /"1
(!jJ1/tO
J JjiJf)~a;;;;
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
(7])
Phone #
;iL .7 /-;'!2 /7'
Lj- ') -c;- z vJ!-
"--\=\:\ ~ ~
47i-3 I~
'17 J- h~~S-
470 -ci'725'
41C;-~'7<tS
oZ r&;j-Cijl-of f r
~/(l . 5 -L/ // -6 s: fJ/
/I'b IS r\J LST
/1 yOC; If) J...
,
-ell
~?M
L
It"
f~f
:\\ ~
- 7 'IlL)
/r
~
e
. 711Q---1\.( q 14 ~(fc.t.
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Fanington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to i-;-a
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. ~.
Name
Address Phone #
//r;~~ Wl~r!"A'/J'7.!/t.... .If-:7/-/.7Y' 0
/
f/7C/ -7?153
/1
fJ~1
.
e
BRET C. KEAST, AICP
DIRECTOR
URBAN PLANNING SERVICES
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and
Planners
9800 Richmond Avenue
Suite 400
Houston. Texas 77042-4524
(713) 785-0080
FAX (713) 785-8797
Emoll - bkeost@w1lbursmlth.com
e
e
SIGN IN SHEET
Please sign in.
PRINT your name and address.
If your wish to speak before Council please complete the form to the right.
NAME ADDRESS
& ~ }jos(~"i
1St LL S~
C ( flrlE '" <.E (\'I: ~ A'"
Bto.v QI /;-'e-
Jje~"'1~~~~~~& ~
~~~S:*~
r-{) 0........ ~ '1h{ ..! W/U-LJ-
lr
2-7D z.. lr.J J1,,/4. i sGiJ oL [2.\)
,'i5'bL- I ~~ Sl'~A ~.
I tJ fjjr tI.. IWc:7H
Lf '55- ">. 51> 'F!l La J(t ~
[o~ ~..1i:b L~~~
J(Po~ lp~CLY- ~~Lo..)/ i!~
2 A/~ ~e--~ ;e...L
1/ 1'1