Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Porte council delays vote on 205‑lot Fairmont Lakes subdivision after drainage and traffic questions
Summary
Council members postponed action on a special conditional use permit (SCUP) for a 205‑lot single‑family subdivision at Wharton Weems Boulevard and State Highway 146, directing staff and the developer to produce more detailed traffic and drainage analysis and to study a taller sound wall.
La Porte City Council on Tuesday voted to postpone consideration of a special conditional use permit for a proposed 205‑lot subdivision at the northeast corner of Wharton Weems Boulevard and State Highway 146, citing unresolved questions about stormwater detention, roadway access and the height of a sound wall along Highway 146.
City planning staff described the project as a 56.75‑acre single‑family development that would include 205 lots with a 6,000‑square‑foot lot minimum, about 1.9 acres of landscaped area, a 1.5‑acre park and a concrete walking trail around the proposed 9.7‑acre detention pond. Johnna Matthews, planning and development, said the application seeks two deviations allowed through the SCUP process: a small density increase (from 4.8 to 4.84 dwelling units per acre) and reduced front‑yard setbacks for 21 lots from 25 feet to 20 feet.
The project drew multiple concerns at the public hearing and during council discussion. Resident Mercy Estrada, who lives at 611 Fairway, asked council to move the subdivision access away from the community’s main entrance and to increase the sound wall along State Highway 146 from 8 feet to 12 feet, saying, “An 8 foot sound wall is not enough for the traffic that goes up and down 146.”
Mario Lanza, the project engineer, described proposed mitigation: “On the east side, we're gonna have a tree line exactly at the property line. That's gonna be the screening.” He also said the detention pond would be a dry pond that could be enhanced and expanded as needed.
Councilmembers pressed for more information. Councilmember Martin said he wanted a clearer drainage report and traffic analysis and asked whether the city could require language in the SCUP to limit “corporate housing” uses; city attorney Clark T. Askins said he would need to research whether a zoning condition could withstand legal challenge. Martin also asked that the developer consider using Cobb, Fendley & Associates for the drainage report because the firm had been vetted by the city.
After discussion Councilmember Martin moved to postpone the SCUP and directed staff to bring back information on the traffic impact analysis, the drainage report and feasibility of a 12‑foot sound wall; Councilmember Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
Why it matters: The parcel is inside the city’s planned‑unit‑development zoning and the city’s comprehensive plan designates the site for low‑density residential. Council’s request for additional engineering reports and the sound‑wall analysis will shape whether the proposal can meet city infrastructure and safety requirements and how the subdivision will connect to existing neighborhoods.
Next steps: Staff will meet with the applicant to address the items spelled out by council — traffic, drainage and sound wall height — and return the SCUP to a future council meeting for final action.
Votes at a glance: Motion to postpone consideration of SCUP 2024‑0003; mover: Councilmember Martin; second: Councilmember Williams; outcome: postponed (motion carries).
