Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous~~n ~J--~~~~ h, a ~~~~~~~~~~~~z ~"I LEGAL EP `T T PC)ST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-996Q ($09}764-3507 MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, City Planner FROM: Pete Shively, Assistant .City Attorney RE: LaCour Development Agreement -closure of Austaco curb cut DATE: May 12, 1995 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In conjunction with the eventual extension of Kyle South Street south of Harvey Road, can the City force Austaco, Inc., the owner of the Taco Bell site, to close its most easterly curb cut on Harvey Road in exchange for granting Austaco a new curb cut on the newly- constructed portion of Kyle South Street, which will abut the Taco Bell site on the east? 2. If the City can force the closure of Austaco's most easterly curb cut on Harvey Road, what damages, if any, will the City have to pay to Austaco? FACTS PRESENTED LaCour Investments ("LaCour"), a Louisiana Limited Partnership, currently owns the property along Harvey Road through which the City intends, eventually, to extend Kyle South Street. LaCour is in the process of platting this property in anticipation of selling a portion of it to Greater Texas Federal Credit, d/b/a Texas Aggieland Credit Union (hereinafter "Buyer"). In this proposed platting and sale, however, LaCour has; been unable or unwilling to fully comply with a number of the requirements of the City's platting ordinance and the City's Wolf Pen Creek parkland dedication ordinance, which applies to this property because it is in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning Ordinance ":Zone." Over several months now, the City and LaCour have been engaged in a lengthy negotiation process to work out the details of a "development agreement" whereby the City would waive or defer certain ordinance requirements in exchange for LaCour's dedication to the City of certain property for the future extension of Kyle South Street. While negotiations have progressed now through six drafts of the proposed PS105/12/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 12, 1995 Page 2 development agreement, the parties still have not reached a final accord on all its terms and conditions. One of the principal issues has been the City's desire to have the abutting property owner to the west, Austaco, close one of its two curb cuts on Harvey Road. The City's rationale being that the most easterly curb cut is currently not in compliance with the City's development ordinance and is a hazard to traffic using the now controllE:d "T" intersection of Harvey Road and Kyle South Street. It is supposed that witch the extension of Kyle South Street through this intersection and south of Harvey Road that (1) this traffic hazard will increase due to increased traffic through the intersection and at the traffic light; and (2) the opening of the new roadway along Austaco's eastern property line presents an opportunity to equitably "re-locate" the problematic curb cut from Harvey Road to this new side street. Originally, the City proposed accomplishing this "re-location by including Austaco in the development agreement with LaCour. Subsequently, LaCour has informed the City that they have been unable to contact or negotiate any agreement with Austaco. Accordingly, LaCour has requested that Austaco be eliminated as a party from the development agreement. The City will only agree to do this if the City has the capacity, independent of any agreement with Austaco, to force Austaco to re-locate the curb cut. The problematic curb cut on Harvey Road was "permitted" by the City and constructed by Austaco in 1984. It is my understanding that this was before Kyle South StreE:t was extended through to Harvey Road and hence there was no intersection or traffic light at this intersection. When Kyle South Street was subsequently extended and the light installed, the easterly curb cut was too close to the intersection to conform to the City's ordinance. Rather than force the re-location of the curb cut at that time, howevE:r, the City apparently chose to leave it and wait until the further extension of Kyle South Street to the south of Harvey Road. Although it is pure supposition on my paint, this decision to delay the re-location of this driveway may have been prompted key the dimensions of Austaco's site and the. likely fact that there was no location further to the west that the new driveway could be installed that would be in compliance with the City's ordinance. That is, there was no place to which the curb cut could be re-located. Cathy recalls some degree of discussion at the time the City Council approved of the site plan and second curb cut in 1984. She recalls that the staff and Council may have even conditioned approval of the curb cut on Austaco's compliance with certain conditions, including a promise to move the curb cut if Kyle South Street were ever extended across Harvey Road. Unfortunately, neither the City Secretary nor the Planning staff have yet been able to locate any such discussion or conditions in the Council's meeting minutes from that era. Finally, it is also my understanding that the second curb cut was originally approved as part of Austaco's site plan review based on Austaco's representations that the second PS105/12/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 12, 1995 Page 3 driveway was necessary to accommodate the large delivery trucks for the Taco Bell restaurant and to allow for a more "efficient" use of the drive-thru window that Austaco constructed on the east side of restaurant. SHORT ANSWERS 1. While the law on revocation of curb cut permits and relocation of curb cuts is something less than pellucid, it appears likely that the City could force the re-location of the problematic driveway either by (1) revoking the permit for the original drive on Harvey Road and issuing a new one for Kyle South Street under the terms of the City's ordinance and the City's inherit "police powers"; or (2) condemning the Harvey Road curb cut at the same time as the condemnation or purchase of the right-of-way for the street extension. 2. Under either scenario, the City will probably have to pay for the design and construction costs of the new drive and curb cut. In the event of condemnation or an inverse condemnation suit by Austaco, the City may also have to pay for any material or substantial impairment, if any, of Austaco's "access" rights to the property. While this impairment should not, in the City's view, be considered sufficiently material and substantial to warrant inverse condemnation damages, Austaco should be expected to argue that the loss of the easterly exit on Harvey Road for the drive-thru makes the use of the drive-thru much more difficult for customers and that, accordingly, the vallue of Austaco's property has been diminished. DISCUSSION I. Revocation In general, the rule with respect to revocation of building permits, including perrrlits for curb cuts and construction of driveways, is that they cannot be revoked except under certain, narrow circumstances such as fraud in the application, mistake by the City inspector or engineer, or a permit that on its face violates the terms of an ordinannce or that in some other way exceeds the legal authority of the issuer ("ultra vires"). S'ee 9A EUGENE MCQUILLIN ET AL., THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 26.212, at nin.1-13 and accompanying text (3rd ed. 1986). The ability of a municipality to revoke a building permit is particularly limited when the applicant has already begun or completf~d the permitted construction--as in this case. See Id. § 26.213 n.10 and accompanying text ~ Though it is not clear to me exactly how this second curb cut is of any great advantage to the drive-thru. If I understand the site configuration correctly (a big "if'), cars that are exiting the drive-thru window could still exit the site by turning left in front of the building and exiting out the same, westerly drive through which they originally entered. This is similar to the current traffic pattern on the new "Red Line" restaurant site. Arguably, it is "easier" to separate the entry and exit points, but in light of the traffic patterns at other drive-thru's in the City (see also McDonalds on Texas Ave), I'm not sure that this "2-drive" configuration is "necessary." PS105/12/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 15, 1995 Page 4 and § 26.214.2 This limitation on a City's ability to revoke a building permiir after construction has been commenced or completed has been applied and followed Iby the Texas courts. See City of Dallas v. Rosenthal, 239 S.W.2d 636, 645-46 (Tee;. Civ. App.--Dallas 1951, writ refd n.r.e.) (City of Dallas estopped from revoking building permit for meat packing plant after plant was nearly completed); Board of Adjustmient of City of West University Place v. Jones, 153 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. Civ. App.--Galveston 1941, no writ) (revocation of apartment building permit improper for minor infraci:ion of building line after work commenced); Gulf Refining Co. v. Dallas, 10 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1928, writ dism'd) (Dallas enjoined from revoking permit for filling station after construction is partially completed); but cf. City of Amarillo v. Stapf, 101 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1937) (City not estopped from revoking permit for location of fc-undry in certain district even though money had been expended in reliance upon the permit where the permit was unauthorized and void). The case law concerning the application of the foregoing principles specifically to permits for curb cuts or driveways is very limited. The one Texas case concerning a permit for a curb cut was brought after the City denied an application for a curb cut and did not involve any attempt by the City to revoke a previously granted permit. C.~~it of San Antonio v. Pigeonhole Parking of Texas, 311 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1958).3 In this case, however, the Texas Supreme Court did affirm the City's denial of the company's application for a second driveway permit as being a valid exercise of the City's police power to regulate for the protection of public health, safety, comfort and convenience. Accordingly, this case is useful precedent for the proposition that a City may under its police powers deny an application for a driveway, particularly where--as in Taco Bell's case--the applicant already has another driveway access to its property. Unfortunately, the case does not involve the revocation of a previously granted permit and is, therefore, of limited value for the proposition that the City should be able to revoke a permit after construction has been completed. Nonetheless, the Pigeonhole Parkina case and the cases. cited therein are generally supportive of the arguments that regulation of driveway access is a valid exercise of a municipality's police powers (rather than an inherent property right) and that denial of a second access drive: does not unconstitutionally take or damage a property owner's right of egress and ingress to her property.4 2 "[T]he general rule is that where a person acts on a building permit duly issued and expends money, incurs liabilities, or otherwise materially changes his or her position in connection therewith, the permit cannot be revoked except for fraud, misrepresentation or concealment." McQuiLLEN, supra at § 26.214 n.2. 3 There is one other Texas case involving curb cuts, however, it addresses only the question of how much in condemnation damages a City should pay for forcing a shopping center owner to relocate two of his curb cuts. Unfortunately, it does not address what means the City used to force the owner to relocate the driveways or whether those means were enforceable. SeeCit~~ Texarkana v. Kitty Wells. Inc., 539 S.W.2d 205, 206 n.1 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1976, no writ). 4 The following three cases were cited and quoted by the Pigeonhole Court in support of its holding that denial of a second access drive did not unconstitutionally damage the owner's right of access: Breinig v. County of Allegheny, 2 A.2d 842, 847 ("the right of vehicular access to property abutting the highway may be ... limited as to exclude the right to maintain driveways immediately fronting the property, where it is possible to locate them elsewhere, ....") (emphasis added); Farmers-Kisinger Market House Co. Inc. v. Reading, 165 A. 398, 401 ("If the City of Reading were attempting to deny plaintiffs property all vehicular ingress and PS105/15/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 15, 1995 Page 5 With respect to revocations of permits for driveways or curb cuts, the only cases that I could find were all from other states, and none of them were particularly supporlrive of the idea that a city may revoke a permit after construction has been completed and where there is no implication that the original permit was improperly granted or that the property owner has violated any term or condition of the permit. For example, in Russell Dairy Stores. Inc. v. City of Chippewa Falls, 74 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 195Ei), the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a city's attempted revocation of a driveway permit for dairy store where the driveway had already been constructed and the city even reimbursed the owner for his or her lost construction costs for the drivewa~y.5 In Alexander Co. v. City Owatonna, 24 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. 1946), the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a revocation of a driveway permit, but the Court did so primarily on the grounds that the City Engineer's original grant of the permit was "without authorii:y and therefore null and void." In Friedland v. Ingersoll, 291 N.Y.S. 32 (N.Y. App. Div. '1936), the court affirmed a city's cancellation of a permit for a curb cut but only if it shol.lld be found upon a trial on the merits that the property owner had violated the terms and conditions upon which the permit had been granted--namely that the property not be used for the storage of vehicles. Somewhat more helpful is the case of Denman v. City of Tacoma, 268 P. 1043 (1,Nash. 1928), in which the State of Washington Supreme Court held that Tacoma's revocation of a driveway permit was authorized but only where the owner had not yet made any expenditures in reliance upon the permit and where the owner had other means of egress and ingress available. The Court also stated as grounds for its decision, however, that the driveway "permit here in question is not at all analogous to a building permit.... [And b]y the granting of the [driveway] permit ... the city authorities did not surrender their continuing regulatory power over the use of the city's streets." Id.. (italics added). This case at least provides some precedent to sustain the argl.~ment that permits for driveways and curb cuts are not like building permits and thus may be revoked or canceled when traffic conditions necessitate the closure of the drive Even if there is not any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the property owner. A similarly helpful holding is found in Wood v. Cif of Richmond, 138 S.E. 560, in which the court affirmed a city's right to remove an existing driveway where the property owner had another access from another street. The Court in this case conceded that the property owner had a property right of access but went on to state that "the exercise of this right is subordinate to the right of the municipality ... to so control the use of streets as to promote the safety, comfort, health, and general welfare of the public." In short, the right of access is subordinate to the city's police power. egress, the reasonableness of its act might be questioned, but plaintiff is now asking for additional vehicular ingress and egress ...."); and Wood v. City of Richmond, 138 S.E. 560 (denying the landowner the right to cut a driveway, where he had access from another street). 5 This case might be distinguished on the grounds that it appears to involve the property owner's only driveway from the hiighway to his business and not a second access as in Taco Bell's case. On the other hand, the case also indicates that merely offering to pay for the lost construction costs will not, by itself, legitimize a revocation of the driveway permit. PS105/15/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 15, 1995 Page 6 The applicable City of College Station ordinance makes clear the City's intenit that driveway or curb cut permits are to be revocable and are not to give the property owner any vested right to that point of access. "All permits granted for the use of public property under the terms of this section shall be revocable at the will of thE; City Council." Ordinance No. 1971, codified in the College Station Code of Ordinan~:,es at Chapter 3 "Building Regulations", Section 3 "Development of Streets, subsection K "Driveway Access Location and Design Policy", subsection (8)(f) (emphasis added). Of course, this statement in the City's ordinance is not, by itself, sufficient to preclude a challenge by Austaco that a revocation of its curb cut permit in this case violates either the common law of the State of Texas or the "takings" clause of the Federal Constitution, both of which are obviously superior and controlling over the terms of the ordinance. Nonetheless, the ordinance does provide both a procedure for the City to follow and some additional rationale for arguing that in College Station, at least, a property owner's interest in a particular curb cut is not a vested property right, or at least not a sufficiently vested property right, that it should estop the City from revoking a curb cut permit. In discussing this matter with Cathy, she also raised a question about the effect of section 481.143 of the Government Code, which affects the rights of applicants for state and local permits. I have reviewed this statute, and as I read it, the effect is sirriply to insure that the requirements in effect at the time of the first application for any permmit on a given project are the requirements applied to all subsequent permit applications on that same project. This statute "vests" the permit applicant with a right to employ the original requirements and not any subsequently enacted requirements. However, I do not think that the statute necessarily addresses the issue of whether any particular type of permit gives the owner a vested property right. II. Statutory Condemnation I have not researched condemnation on this project. However, from my reading of other public works cases involving statutory condemnation and from a brief discussion with Cathy on this matter, I feel fairly confidant that the City could condemn Austaco's eastern curb cut at the same time that it condemns or purchases the property through the bank tract for the extension of Kyle South Street. The rationale for this condemnation of the curb cut would have to be carefully laid out by the City's traffic engineers and would, I assume, specify how the extension of the street requires the closure of this curb cut: either because it conflicts with the turning radius of tlhe re- constructed intersection, or because the extension of the street creates an even greater traffic hazard at that intersection, or both. Assuming that the City can condemin this curb cut, and as stated above I've read a number of public works cases wlherein driveways were blocked or otherwise restricted by the new construction and this PS105/15/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 15, 1995 Page 7 condemnation power was assumed, I think that the real issue becomes simply how much must the City pay for this condemnation: III. How much will it cost? There are two separate property values to be considered in answering this question: (1) the independent value of the owner's right of access to the property; and (2) the value of the remainder portion of the property with a damaged or restricted right of access. Under Texas law, the City must pay damages for a taking or damaging of the owner's right of access only if it is "materially and substantially impaired", and this issue is to be determined by the court as a "question of law." Cif of Waco v. Texland Corporation, 446 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. 1969); see also State v. Schmidt, 805 S.W.2d 25, 31 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, writ denied). Although this is a matter of law for the court, my own °'guess" is that if the City constructed another access for Austaco on the new portion of Kyle South Street, the change in the location of the access but rnot the number of access points would not be a sufficiently material and substantial impaiirment of the owner's right of access to require payment of damages by the City. This assumes, of course, that the delivery trucks for Austaco could use the new driveway so as to allow them the same access to the rear of the restaurant that they now have. Conversely, if the City did not permit a new driveway on Kyle Street South and pray for its construction, Austaco could argue that it has suffered a material and significant impairment of its right of access because the delivery trucks can no longer access the rear of the restaurant and because, purely as a matter of numbers, Austaco's access points have been reduced from two to one. Austaco could also bring an inverse condemnation claim for the damage to the value of the remainder of the property, everything but the right of access and any properlry that was statutorily condemned. This is what the owners of a commercial property did in the State v. Schmidt case cited above. In that case, the City of Austin condemned asix- foot strip along the front of the owner's property as part of re-construction of Highway 183 into a controlled access, and elevated expressway. The result of this construction would be make the access to the property more difficult because vehicle traffic would have to use the newly constructed "access" road and this road would be a one-way street rather than the two-way highway that abutted the property prior to the re- construction project. The trial court awarded the owner's $7,559 for the value of the strip of land and $74,880.00 damages for the depreciation in value of the remainder. The City appealed this latter award on several grounds, including (1) that under Texas law the owners' right of access was not injured because the greater "circuitry of travel" required by the re-routed traffic patterns was not a material and substantial impaiirment; and (2) that under Texas law land owners do not have a property right, at all, in the volume of traffic that passes in front of their property. The Austin Court of Appeals agreed with the City's statements of law and then proceeded to eviscerate the City for confusing these arguments affecting whether an owner could collect for damage to a PS105/15/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 15, 1995 Page 8 particular property right with the issue of how much the owner may collect for dannages to the remainder of his property. In short, the Austin Court held that all the evidence regarding greater circuitry of travel and diminished vehicle traffic were relevant 'to the determination of damage to the remainder property. Austaco could bring a similar kind of inverse condemnation claim--or claim damages to the remainder property as part of a statutory condemnation action if the City condlemns the curb cut on Harvey Road. With respect to a claim for depreciation to the remainder of Austaco's lot, their argument would have to be that the re-location of the one curb cut from Harvey to South Kyle has forced its drive-thru customers, upon exiting the drive- thru window, to turn inconveniently left in front of the restaurant and then exit out the western drive on Harvey Road or circle the restaurant to exit onto Kyle Street South. This "inconvenience" has reduced the value of the restaurant tract--or so the argument goes. The City's argument would likely be that with the re-location of one curb cut to Kyle Street South and the additional vehicle traffic passing by the restaurant, they "net" effect on the value of Austaco's remainder tract is positive, zero, or de minimus. All of this assumes, of course, that the City has permitted and constructed the re- location of the curb cut to Kyle Street South. Without the City permitting and paying for that new drive, the amount of Austaco's damages are increased to match that amount. See City of Texarkana v. Kittle Wells, Inc., 539 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1976, no writ) ("The land is depreciated in proportion to the expense, and the allowance is for the diminution in the market value of the land in consequence of the burden cast upon it." Italics in original, cites omitted). This case involved the relocation of two driveways by a shopping center. The court held that the remainder of the property had been damaged in direct proportion to the burden cast upon it, namely they cost constructing the two new driveways. CONCLUSION The City should be able to force the closure of the easternmost curb cut for the Taco Bell site by one of two available methods. First, the City could revoke the "permit" for the existing cut, issue a new permit for a cut on Kyle South Street, and avoid an inverse condemnation suit for the cost to build the new driveway by paying the owner that cost or constructing the drive itself. The revocation of the permit for the Harvey Roadl drive could be challenged in court and the outcome under Texas law will depend on whether the City can successfully argue that either no right vested as a consequence of the language of the City's ordinance allowing for revocation at the will of the City Council or that curb cut permits are not like other building permits and should be revocable whenever traffic conditions so require. Because the law is not settled on this matter, however, this method involves some risk that a court would rule that the City cannot, as a matter of law, revoke the permit for the existing curb cut. The second method would be for the City to condemn the curb cut at the time the City constructs the extension of PS105/15/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 15, 1995 Page 9 Kyle South Street and to pay the owner the cost of constructing the new curb c;ut on Kyle South Street and any depreciation to the remainder of his lot, if any. Under either method, the City will have to pay for the cost to design and build the new drive and the costs, if any, to close the old one. PS105/95/95 . ~ __ _. _ iii October 24, 1995 Ms. Jane Kee City of College P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Station Texas 77842 "1~ Ret 4.339 Acre. tract and the 7.891 acre tract in the Morgan Rector League., Brazos County, Texas Dear Ms. Keen We appreciate the opportunity of having met with you and your fellow planners regarding the above referenced tracts. I would like to submit to you a preliminary request and/or issues for discussion regarding the above referenced tracts and the development agreement. These points are as follows® 1. Road Right of Way for Kyle Street - The Developer of the 4.339 acre tract (°'Developer") will designate the area by plat for the future Kyle Street which will ultimately be acquired by they City. Furthermore the developer will agree to construct on that night of way a road that meets the City's specifications for a puiblic thoroughfare and grant to the City a right of access across said f..uture KyIQ Street right of way for maintenance purposes tc- the Wolf Pen Creek. At .such time that the City decides to extend Kyle Street they will acquire the .subject land from the Developer or his assignee for an amount that will be based upon the value of the land and not the improvements thereon. In consideration of the Developer building this street there will be no further- assessments whatsoever allocated to developer for any additional improvements which the City may elect to make to Kyle Street. The LaCours will dedicate by plat (as currently depict;ed) a right-of-way to the .City for the future development of Kyle Street through the 7.891 acre tract. The LaCours would al:>o request that the City grant to the LaCours the right of access over the Kyle Street dedication from the Noonan tract to Holliman Blvd. until the Kyle Street extension is completed. In return for the LaCours making this dedication, the City will agree not to assess the LaCours for any improvements to Kyle Street in the future. ~~~ ~a~~ ~~c~~-ci, ~t~ite 3~~0 ~i~e~~phc~~le (~13} 6~ %-7!~0 ~-~c~tFstc~i~, '~e~~~~ 7/~~6 i~lecopic~~ C~~3) t365-9~ a~ October 24, 1995 Page 2 of 3. 2. The Developer will grant to AUSTACO an access easement at a point to be determined at the request of the City on to the: westernmost portion of the Kyle Street extension on their property. 3. The Developer will agree to dedicate the 20-foot trail area on their property as called for in the Wolf Pen Creek ordinance. 4. The LaCours will dedicate the 4.734 acre tract shown on the plat as the Wolf Pen Creek dedication. 5. The LaCours will agree out of the proceeds of the sale to pay all outstanding advalorem taxes on the subject properties. 6. The City will agree to incur the design cost and construction documents for the initial construction of Kyle Street through the 4.339 acre tract.. The timing for the development of these plans needs to be discussed. 7. The Developer will agree to pay the cost of extending a water line from Harvey road south along the Kyle Street right of way to the Wolf- Pen Creek dedication at a size that is consistent with the needs of its property. Based on a hydrolic study by tree engineers and agreement by the City, there will be an allotration of the incremental costs differential between the size of the line necessary to service the subject tract and the twelve--inch line requested by the City. The .Developer will either install the twelve-inch line to its southern property line and receive a reimbursement upon completion from the City or provide their prorata share of the money to the City for their construction of said line. The City shall be responsible for the extension of the lines across the Wolf Pen Creek dedication. The LaCours shall be responsible for their pro rata cost o:E a line from their northernmost boundary tract of the Wolf Pen Creek dedication to Holliman Road to service their 2.599 acre parcel (LaCour Tract). The determination made by the engineers. o:E the line size necessary to service the LaCour tract and costs will be allocated to find what the incremental costs will be for tlne development of the twelve-inch line as requested by the City. The LaCours will agree to escrow at closing of the sale of the 4.399 acres their pro rata portion of the cost for said line or they will develop the line and upon completion the City wi:11 reimburse them for their incremental costs increase within thirty days. 8. The City will cooperate with the State so as to provide the Developer at the City°s expense a four-way signalized intersection at Kyle and Harvey Road. October 24, 1995 Page 3 of 3. 9. The Developer will construct the required sidewalk along Harvey Road. 10. It i.s understood that the actions taken by the Developer and the LaCours independent of one another. In no way responsible for the default under this artlT if they r~a~ae fulfilled their req set forth herein to be are separate and can one party be held agreement of the other si.rements hereuneler. 11. In consideration of the contribution of the land to the Wolf Pen Creek District we would like some kind of indication about when at least an initial effort to cleanout the creek and brush hog the area may take place. I hope that the above sets forth the primary issues of concern of all parties regarding the. development agreement for the subject properties. I will ask Gregg Taggart to prepare the necessary hydraulic studies for the water line if this approach meet:; with your approval. I have. asked Gregg to please get with you after you have had. an opportunity to review this letter so that we can decide how to proceed from here. Again, we enjoyed meetinc; with you regarding this property and appreciated the very gracious reception we received regarding our development of this property. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Very~~:, truly°~,yours, Frdd ~7.;~ P~eyne„ I I I ccs Mr. Dick LaCour Mr. Scott Deskins Mr. Gregory K. Taggart Mr. Gary Roup _.. ~~.J October 24, 1995 Ms. Jane Kee City of College P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Station Texas 77842 Re: 4.339 Acre tract and the 7.891 acre tract in the Morgan Rector League, Brazos County, Texas Dear Ms. Kee: We appreciate the opportunity of having met with you and your fellow planners regarding the above referenced tracts. I would like to submit to you a preliminary request and/or issues for discussion regarding the above referenced tracts and the development agreement. These points are as follows: 1. Road Right of Way for Kvle Street - The Developer of the: 4.339 t'7`~` ~~v~~`~ acre tract ( "Developer" ) will designate the area by plat for the i ty. future Kyle Street which will ultimately be acquired by the: C ~~ ~ t~%~yti~'`f' Furthermore the developer will agree to construct on that right ,~ ,d ~~- ~~'' of way a road that meets the City's specifications for a public ,,, R W'd~~~" thoroughfare and grant to the City a right of access across said f~a~~' future Kyle. Street right of way for maintenance purposes tc, the . '~~ Wolf Pen Creek. At such time that the City decides to extend Kyle Street they will acquire the subject land from the Developer or his assignee for an amount that will be based upon the value of ~a~, the land and not the improvements thereon. In consideration of ° the Developer building this street there will be no further- assessments whatsoever allocated to developer for any additional improvements which the City may elect to make to Kyle Street. The LaCours will dedicate by plat (as currently depici~ed) a right-of-way to the City for the future development of Kyle Street through the 7.891 acre tract. The LaCours would al:~o request that the City grant to the LaCours the right of access over the Kyle Street dedication from the Noonan tract to Holliman Blvd. until the Kyle Street extension is completed. In return for the LaCours making this dedication, the City will agree not to assess the LaCours for any improvements to Kyle Street, .in the future. 2121 Sa~e~ Road, Suite 380 Telephone 0713) 627-7460 Houston, Teas 77036 Telecopier (713) 965-93 E? October 24, 1995 Page 2 of 3. 2. The Developer will grant to AUSTACO an access easement at a point to be determined at the request of the City on to the: ~~ westernmost portion of the Kyle Street extension on their property. __._. ,,~ = ~_ %~~ :~ 3. The Developer will agree to dedicate the 20-foot trail area I .-°~'r on their property as called for in the Wolf Pen Creek ordinance. ~, _ __ 4. The LaCours will dedicate the 4.734 acre tract shown,ori the plat as the Wolf Pen Creek dedication. - ~~'~5. The LaCours will agree out of the proceeds of the sale to pay (~ ~-~' all outstanding advalorem taxes on the subject properties. 6. The City will agree to incur the design cost and construction 'documents for the initial construction of Kyle Street through the 4.339 acre tract. The timing for the development of these plans needs to be discussed. 7. The Developer will agree to pay the cost of extending ~i water line from Harvey road south along the Kyle Street right of way to the Wolf Pen Creek dedication at a size that is consistent with the needs of its property.. Based on a hydrolic study by the engineers and agreement by the City, there will be an allocation of the incremental costs differential between the size of i:he line necessary to service the subject tract and the twelve--inch line requested by the City. The Developer will either insi~all the twelve-inch line to its southern property line and recesive a reimbursement upon completion from the City or provide their prorata share of the money to the City for their construct_i.on of said line. The City shall be responsible for the extension of the lima across the Wolf Pen Creek dedication. The LaCours shall be responsible for their pro rata cost of a line from their northernmost boundary tract of the Wolf Pe:n Creek dedication to Holliman Road to service their 2.599 acre parcel (LaCour Tract). The determination made by the engineers of the line size necessary to service the LaCour tract and costs will be allocated to find what the incremental costs will be for the development of the twelve-inch line as requested by the City. The LaCours will agree to escrow at closing of the sale of the 4.399 acres their pro rata portion of the cost for said line or they will develop the line and upon completion the City will reimburse them for their incremental costs increase within thirty days. '~ 8. The City will cooperate with the State so as to provide the `~'~ Developer at the City's expense a four-way signalized intersection at Kyle and Harvey Road. October 24, 1995 Page 3 of 3. 9. The Developer will construct the required sidewalk along Harvey Road. °"~fi1~`~10. It is understood that the actions set forth herein to be ,;.:, ~ s '~~'\~ taken by the Developer and the LaCours are separate and ~~l~~~n ~ independent of one another. In no way can one party be held ~~~ . ~'v, responsible for the default under this, agreement of the other ''~ partl= if they rave fulfilled their requirements hereunder. t 11. In consideration of the contribution of the land to the Wolf [,Pen Creek District we would like some kind of indication about !~~'t when at least an initial effort to cleanout the creek and brush ~~ hog the area may take place, I hope that the above sets forth the primary issues of concern of all parties regarding the development agreement for the subject properties. I will ask Gregg Taggert to prepare the neces:>ary hydraulic studies for the water line if this approach meets with your approval. I have asked Gregg to please get with you sifter you have had an opportunity to review this letter so that we can decide how to proceed from here. Again, we enjoyed meeting with you regarding this property and appreciated the very gracious reception we received regarding our development of this property. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Very, trulyyours, Frdd !7 ./" ~eynd,, I I I cc: Mr. Dick LaCour Mr. Scott Deskins Mr. Gregory K. Taggert Mr. Gary Roup E i . ~... ~... a~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~ ~5~ ~'~-~ ~; ~~ ~~ ~~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ,. p ,~ ~~ .~_ ~ ,. E x ~; , 4 ~' ~.°` ~+kl~ igkX~~ i ~-- ~ ~ d. Z~ l~~.s ~e~F d~- ~~ ~~.s ,,~~1 -mss ~J o ~~~ ~~ ~~-~~" ~~~ ~C ~~ ~ c~C a ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~~~ ;L, s" t3 c ! ,° r~ l m P ! iJ~J ~&~"~~'d <i' S..-~~ °°'" ~.., '~Li.r'S !Jf ~"~' V;_, ~!'" ....~ n~E,r2t`a." ~~° E'~~ `°' g` ~ t ~ ~ ~ !f ~~i~~, ~ iii - ~~ `~~~-:~ l~ e ~ y~~~ „_ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ., ~ ... ~ ,~:~, ~~"`.` ~,6°~^'`,;tea ~1~'y}R ~~G.~ ~,~,,,~~ / e# ~, t "~ (~ d r of ~ ~ J (i !` _~;' . . _ ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ~ G.~ ~~ ~..~ 1~~~ ~ ~. .~ ~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I .Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 April 19, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. 3220 Williams Blvd. Kenner, LA 70065 Re: College Station Development Agreement Dear Mr. LaCour: Accompanying this letter is the fifth draft of the proposed development agreement for LaCour Subdivision, Phase One. I apologize for the. delay in gettinc,~ this latest draft to you, but I was attending an out-of-town conference for part of last week and have only recently begun to catch up with pending work-load .demands. In this latest draft, I have attempted to incorporate the revisions that were discussed in the meeting two weeks ago held in Council Chambers among the .City's Planning Department staff, your engineer, representatives from the Buyer, and others. This draft of the Agreemen# has been preliminarily reviewed by the City's Planning Department. .Other parties, including the buyer and Austaco, have not yet seen this draft--or to my knowledge any prior drafts of this Agreement. !f you have no# already done so, I would encourage you to begin working with the other parties tca this Agreement and to the transaction in general to insure their cooperation. Sincerely, Pete Shively Assistant City Attorney Encl. cc: Ms. Jane Kee, City Planner ~ls~/eronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Ms. Shirley Volk, .Development Coordinator Home o€ Texas Al;~i Qniversity ~~ ° ~ °'~`° ~ ~~ ~ i ~ `~ .. i ~ 1 .:. P a2 g , j~)`_ R ~e a ~r ~ _ ~ ~,,~ - ~ g) pPP f 3y ~ ~+`~r~~ "~ 'c~ __., `~ ~' e ~ ~ '~ ~ p f~ u ^i:a. ~~.4^"~Ab, ~ ~1~ .~ ~. t . _ _ .~. 4~9N 'C'~` ; ~ S^!."*C/E' w. 4-? °~~L.~'~.~/'~ ~* ~; ~ _ . ~yy E, .. •-i ~ .fry e 9 d~ 1 l _ j , 9 ~ 9. ''' 4 ~ a ~ 7 ~ 3 S _; Pr '~^", t " __ _ _ __ _. ... _ _ __ _. (409) 7643500 Fe~:~ruary 22 , 1995 .._, 'IC) t'~M TT MAF C0~T4'II~I P1ea~e be adva~~ed ~ha~ the attached documenf repre~en~s a draft,copv of items for: Legal ~o use while preparing a Develo~tnent Agreenenf for. cons;' erasion by the City Colxncil. Sh ey J , V Development Coox~dinatoar ~~~;~:acbment Home of Texas ABM Qniversity CITY ®~' COLLEGE STATI®1`I Post Offlce Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College 3tatlon, Texas 77842-9960 o-~°' ~,; ~. EXPLANATION OF FACTS: The owner of property in the WPC zoning district wants to plat some of his property without complying with all the City requirements. He wants to defer the dedication until the City has funds available for improvements in that sector of the district. Another requirement prior to accepting a plat for consideration is receipt of a "paid tax certificate". When the City received the tax certificate on the property to be platted, not only were the current taxes unpaid, but taxes had not been paid since 1986 on this property and the amount owed is $274,723.70 if paid before March 1, 1995. The owner has indicated there is a court ordered reorganization plan that defers payment until one lot along Harvey Road sells,, or over the next five years. I have .attached a copy of a FAX we received from one of the owners which addresses the tax issue. The City could have dedication of right-of-way for a future extension of S. NCyle with this plat. S. Kyle is not identified on the Transportation Plan as bE;ing scheduled for extension, but during the discussions of the bond issue program, the Capital Improvements Committee identified it as being very desirable. The owner would like to defer dedication of the S.Kyle right-of-way through Lot 1 until after the sale of the property. Staff would also like to have one of the curb cuts to the Taco Bell site closed. That would necessitate a shared access easement through this property between Taco Bell and the lot along Harvey Road. EXPLANATION OF ISSUES: Paid Tax Certificates are a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations at the time of Final Platting, and would indicate that all .back taxes as well as current taxes have been paid on the property in question prior to changing the configuration of that property. The wording on the Faxed note from Mr. Lacour is difficult to understand, so I am uncertain as to whether he is asking to defer payment of back taxes and current taxes until he can sell the one lot fronting on Harvey Road, or to defer payment of the taxes for up to 5 years to according to some court ordered reorganization of the company. The City does not have the authority to require right-of-way for a street which is not shown on the approved Transportation Plan. The extension of S.Kyle has been identified as being a very desirable way to add anorth/south street iri an area which is very congested, and an agreement between the City, the current owner and the proposed owner(buyer) of the lot fronting Harvey Road and the owner of Taco Bell is a vehicle by which the City can accomplish this. ~RPFS The "intersection" created by the driveway into the Taco Bell site is a very dangerous situation. The City has the opportunity to improve this situation by eliminating one of the troublesome driveways, and at the same time, create a "real" intersection by extending S. Kyle. The sale of this property will bring in revenue for back taxes which have been in arrears a long time. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ISSUES: STAFF GOAL ON THIS REQUEST: To have a Development Agreement prepared for consideration by The City, Lacour Investments, Inc., Taco Bell and the Texas Aggie Credit Union (proposed buyer of Lot 1) for the following items: 1. WPC dedication requirements to be deferred until the City has funds available in the area between Texas Avenue, Harvey Road, Dartmouth and Holleman for park improvements, or within 5 years of the date of the approval of the plat. 2. Right-of-way for extension of South Kyle through Lot 1 to be deferred for a period of time not to exceed 12 months from the date of the approval of the t>lat. ROW for the remainder will be dedicated with Lot 1. 3. No future assessments will be made by the City against the property owners of land shown on this plat for the development of South Kyle in exchange for street right-of-way dedication. 4. The City waives the costs of preparation of this development agreement up to 50%. The concept of the Kyle dedication is a staff proposal. 5. The City will incur all the cost of design and preparation of construction documents for the extension of South Kyle as in any other C.I.P. street. 6. The most easterly driveway to the Taco Bell site will be closed on that property, and Taco Bell will share adriveway/access through Lot 1 of this plat. 7. The owner will document/provide evidence of court ordered reorganization plan that defers taxes. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: 1. Copy of FAX from Dick Lacour, Lacour Investments, Inc. 2. Copy of proposed plat. 3, Copy of WPC District taken from the Zoning Ordinance. 4o Copy of Tax Certificate 5e Copy of Application submitted with Final Plat pRpFS CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Offfice Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 March 30, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. 3220 Williams Blvd.. Kenner, LA 70065 Re: College Station Development Agreement Dear Mr. LaCour: This is to confirm the substance of our telephone conversation yesterday morning. You indicated that the Texas Aggie Credit Union, the. prospective purchaser for Lot 1 of LaCour Subdivision, Phase One, was absolutely unwilling to dedicate the seventy foot (70') proposed right-of-way through lot 1 for the planned extension of Kyle South Street. As you know,. the City had. requested this dedication. as a condition for waiving a number of the City's development ordinances for this subdivision. In order to proceed with a sale of the property to the Credit Union, you then proposed the following: 1) LaCour lnvestments would dedicate the .558 acre tract for the extension of Kyle South Street (as originally planned); 2) LaCour lnvestments would also dedicate the remaining .7.333 acre tract to the .City in compliance with .the Wolf Pen (',reek zoning. ordinance; and 3) the Credit Union would dedicate the .295 acre tract to the City, also in compliance with the Wolf .Pen Creek Zoning Ordinance. You also suggested that no development agreement would be necessary at all because LaCour Investments would be in compliance with all the dedication requirements of the zoning - ordinance. Pursuant to your .request, 1 have passed along #his information to the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. The City Planner, Ms. Kee, has confirmed that this scenario has been previously contemplated or discussed or both by the City and Mr. Roup. She also informed me, however, that under this plan LaCour lnvestments would sti11 need at least 4 waivers. or deferrals of the. following City ordinance requirements: 1) construction of the water line; 2) submittal of impact studiEa; 3) submittal of tax certificates with the application for .plat approval; and 4) constructiion of sidewalks. Assuming that this is the case, some form of a development agreement would still be required in order for .the City to waive or defer these development requirements. ~m~ ~€ T~s f~~ r~ive€~~~t~r Letter to Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. March 30, 1995 Page 2 In addition, Ms, Kee pointed out that the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning ordinance does not require dedication of the entire 7.333 acre remainder tract. Rather, the ordin<~nce only requires dedication of the .295 acre tract discussed above and that portion of the 7.333 acre tract that falls within the "approximate floodplain lines" on the proposed plat. The property south and east of this line is not required for dedication. Accordingly, we are asking for a clarification as to your intent with respect. to the .7.333 acre tract: are you proposing to dedicate aN of it or .just the portion required by the WPC zoning ordinance? Sincerely, Pete Shively Assistant City cc: Ms. Jane Kee, City Planner Ms. Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Ms. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator ~$` 806 792 6160 P. D. !. 03.~21~96 10:32 PO1 tiar:ch 21 ~ 1995 Shirley Volk City of College Station Fax 409-764-3496 Re: Proposed changco to College Station draft Development agreement Dear Shirley, I believe these changes will be necessary iar our deal to proceed smc-othiy. Tho changoa addrasg tvo araas_ First, the Bank must control the futL[re kyle right of vay, until the city is ready to commence construction. 9econd~ the city should pay for the Kyle right of vay fronting on tia='vey road, from the east line of the right of vay to the property line vit:h TdCO Bell. I baliQVO thoso changQS and those Pete Shively discussed with T. Robs!rt Lacour yesterday viii make the agreement acceptable to all parties. I have not spoken with the banks architect, or attorney. They may have additional comments. Para 1. Accepted Para 2. Remove Developer, add, over Buyers access when improved by buyers at a location acceptable to Buyer. Para 3. Accepted Para 4. Aclci, once Buyers access is developed. Para 5. Replace with- Buyor agrees upon citieR readiness to commence eonstruction of the Kyle Road hxtension to sell the property from the east line uI tt~e Kyle Road right of vay vest to the property lines with Auotaco, to the city for the appraised value of land and lmprov+:mer[t:s. Para 6. Taxes will be said by Developer out of proceeds from the sale of the property. Para 7. Delete the occond eentenco. Para 9. Refer. to phv[[e conversation betven T. Robert Lacour and Pete shively(for City of College Station) Nlarch 20 1995 phone conversation. Para 10. The city ayrees to waive all costo of preparing the developmment agreement not approved by the Developer. The remainder of the development agreement to be amender3 as per phone conversation between T. Robert Lacour and Pete Shively on Ciarch 20~ 1995. Pleaac let me sae a revi+~Pd agreement if one is ready this afternoon. Sinc~ejrely.,,~~ Gary Roup Broker Phone 806-792-5131 Fax 806-797.-516{} CITY OF' COLLEGE S°I°A°TIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 778429960 (409) 764-3500 Mr. Fred J. Heyne, III SCC Development, Ltd. 2121 Sage Road, Suite 380 Houston, Texas 77056 Mr. Dick LaCour 101 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 February 23, 1996 Mr. T. Robert LaC®ur 3220 Williams blvd. Kenner, LA 70065 Mr. Greg Taggart Municipal Development Group 203 Holleman Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 Re: 4 339 & 7 891 acre tracts off Harvev Road in College Station Dear Gentlemen: After speaking with Mr. Heyne this morning, it is my understanding that the proposed sale of the 4.339 acre tract from the LaCours to SCC Development, I,td. is either ready to proceed--or nearly ready to proceed--to closing. As you knovv, the subdivision of this property requires platting and the platting, in this case, requires a development agreement between the City of College Station and the other parties. It is also my understanding that you wish to have the proposed development agreement placed on the next available City Council agenda for approval so that this proposed transaction may be kept on track toward a future closing date. The: next scheduled City Council Meeting is Thursday, March 14, 1996. According to the staff in the City Secretary's office, the deadline for placing items on the agenda for that meeting is Wednesday, March 6, at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. At Mr. Heyne's request, I am sending each of you a revised, clean copy ~of the proposed development agreement for your review and siignature where approprial:e. In the end, I would prefer that there be at least one original copy of the agreement wiith the signatures of all parties. In the interim, however, and if time constraints require, we can work from separate signatures on multiple counterparts of faxed copies. Home of Texas ASM University Letter to Messrs. Heyne, LaCour, ~ Taggart February 23, 1996 Page 2 Eriefly, reading over this latest draft of the proposed agreement, I note at lea:>t two prerequisites that must yet be satisfied before the agreement may be submitted too and approved by the Council: 1) the LaCours--or a parry on their behalf--needs to provide the City with 50%--up to $2,500--of the preparation costs for the agreement (item 15); G~nd 2) the City needs a copy of a bankruptcy court order or approved plan or reor~rizati.on or liquidation that authorizes the sale of the property (item 6). From early 1995 through today, the actual preparation costs to the City for this agreement equal 59.25 hours of attorney time, multiplied by the very reasonable billable rate of $52.00 per hour, producing a total actual cost of $3,081.00, of which 50% equals $1,540.50. This is the number that now appears in item 15, page 5 of the proposed agreement. To insure that this agreement is placed on the March 14, 1996 Council agenda, then, please make arrangements to insure that a check for this amount and a copy of the required bankruptcy court authorization are provided to the City prior to or on the agenda deadline of March 6, 1996. Thank you in advance for your efforts and cooperation in bringing this mal~ter to closure. Sincerely, Pete Shively Assistant City Attorney Encl. cc: Jane Kee, City Planner -~ '~,_ ~v}1'y ~7C`lJ ~o J'Q ~ ~. f13C~'.7Cll c'3. T '-.:° December 1, 1995 Ms. Jane Kee City of College P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Station Texas 77842 ~N ` .+ Y ~ N M1 ' ~ _ l s ~..,~ A,~ Re: Development Agreement on the 4.339 Acre tract and the 7.891 acre tract in the Morgan Rector League, Brazos County, Texas Dear Ms. Kee: I am writing this letter as per our multiple telephone conferences to document our discussions on the development agreement for the above referenced tract. The following points will be amendments to my letter of October 24, 1995, which is attached hereto, that should reflect our discussions on the' above referenced agreement. They are as follows: 1. In reference to Item #3 of the October letter, it is the intent that both tracts will dedicate the 20-foot trail area on their property as called for in the Wolf Pen Creek ordinance. 2. In reference to Item #6 of the October letter, the Developer will agree to incur the design cost and construction documents ia7Y ~.~'1~ ~T1.L'GicCi l:'i.~Si§C..LIZZ:E.ilJii ~'._ ,tij7i~ ~G3_c'~t ~:.'i'c7iiiyi 'i.i 4.3.39 acre tract. In addition the City will participate with the Developer in an engineering study to determine the grade 31~ which the road will need to be built so that the road can be built in accordance with future bridge requirements. The allocation of those study costs will be determined by mutual agreement between the city and the developer at such time as we receive proposals for the reference work. 3. In reference to Item #11 in the October letter, the Citty will not be required to clean. out the Wolf. Pen Creek area contiguous to the property. 4. The LaCours will agree to forward a check to the City of College Station in an amount equal to $1,231.00 to clear up previous obligations incurred for legal expenses and the drafting of the original Development Agreement. 212 Sage Road, Suite 3~0 Telephone (713) 627-7460 Houst®n, 'T'exas 77056 Telecopier (713) 965-345 e Ms. Jane Kee December 1, 1995 Page 2 of 2. I believe that this is all the items that needed modification from the October letter. After .you have had an opportunity to _i$"'iew a.a~ ~...~. aAl^ia~_a~161.Ci1 V ~1.Lr aS~ iCt die lCilU'W if .you f3nC1 any inconsistencies with our previous conversations. If not I look forward to hearing from the City's attorney when he gets the revised document drafted. Ver truly yours,. Fred J. H ne, II ce : Mr . f~k-~aCour Mr. Scott Deskins Mr. Gregory K. Taggert Mr. -Gary Roup Mr. Robert LaCour .n SAM OVERHEAD This property is located in the Wolf Pen Creek District along the south side of SH 30 (Harvey Rd.). It is adjacent and east of the existing Taco Bell. A preliminary plat dividing the property into two lots, a 4.339 acre lot along SH 30 and the remainder as a reserve lot to the south was previously approved by Council. That plat was approved with the conditions that Kyle Street be shown for future extension and the provision of access fir Taco Bell to the Kyle Street extension and the ultimate closing of the eastermnost curb cut of Taco Bell. This is the final plat of the one lot that fronts .on SH 30, the area to be dedicated for the Wolf Pen Creek project and the ROW of Kyle through the reserve tract. It was mentioned during the preliminary plat that the applicant wished to defer the WPC dedication. Staff has been working on a development agreement because of this. Since that time, the applicant has decided to dedicate the property. However, there are still several other deferrals being requested so a development agreement is being presented with this finall plat. Before going into the details of the development agreement I would like to remind the Council of our development agreement policy. It states: "Where developers wish to delay the implementation of any C.S. development requirement and the City is willing to consider such a delay, the developer shall make application for a development agreement. The Council will only consider development agreements that are beneficial to the City as a whole. The City will receive what it deems to lbe adequate consideration for the deferral'of any development requirement." DEV. AGREEMENT OVERHEAD The applicant is asking: 1. To defer the design and construction of a 12" waterline. 2. To defer the submission ofimpact studies addressing the reserve tract until it final plats. 3 . To defer the payment of back taxes on the property until the final plat is filed and the sale can occur. ~'~o defer the design and construction of a sidewalk along SH 30 until the site plan is submitted for the lot being final platted. 5. To pay only part of the City's administrative costs for the preparation of this development agreement. 6. City shall not make any future assessments against the developer for design or construction of Kyle street where the ROW is being dedicated. In consideration for these items staff recommended that the follotivin~ be accomylished: 1. Developer shall design and construct a 12" waterline within 12 months of the date o;E the agreement. 2. The Kyle street ROW through the WPC dedication and the reserve tract shall be dedicated with this final plat. 3. An access easement shall be granted to Taco Bell with this final plat and their easternmost curb opening closed within 30 days of the Certificate of Occupancy for the buyer of the lot being final platted. 4. An access easement shall be granted with this final plat giving access to the WPC dedication area. 5. When the City purchases ROW through the lot that is being platted now and constnicts Kyle Street through the entirety of the property, City reserves right to assess the lot currently being platted for improvements. 6. Developer pays 50% of the administrative costs of this agreement up to $2,500. MAP OVERHEAD Since staff presented these items in concept to you during the PP phase, we have. found what we believe to be an error on the engineer's part in locating the reserve for the future ROW of Kyle. Dev. Serv. staff feels that it will not line up as it should with Kyle on the north side of SH30. This was confirmed by the developer°s engineer late this afternoon. For this reason we would recommend that if Council approves this plat you do so by giving the engineer the flexibility to make adjustment where necessary to create the proper intersection without having to bring a revised plat back through the P&Z and CC process. No plat will be filed until this item is resolved. Because of this adjustment that will need to be made, the access easement to this site for Taco Bell is no longer workable. It will not allow enough room for vehicles to stack from the Taco Bell site waiting to enter Kyle. It would be more difficult for truck traffic. Staff would recommend that Council direct us to continue looking at the Taco Bell curb cut situation and come back with a recommendation to Council as the design for Kyle .as it intersects SH 30 is more clearly established. This will be some time as the City will be purchasing the ROW in this location and ultimately designing and building the street. At this tune there is no money or plan to do this. Staff met yesterday with representatives of the Noonan property (adjacent to the south.). This owner has apparently been working for some time on development plans for this tract. The Kyle extension will go through this property. Staff recommends that it continue through along the western property line of the Noonan tract. To try to tie Kyle into Lassie Lane, as was discussed during CIP Committee discussion would too severely impact the Noonan property. . Because of this Kyle will stop at Holleman. Staff still supports the CIP Comm. rec. to extend Kyle even if it is only to Holleman. With the improvement planned for Kyle at t:he Texas Ave. intersection this connection to Holleman will relieve some of the traffic along the worst stretch of Texas Ave. It will provide an alternate north-south route for these; tracts and for other traffic traveling from the east & south to the Mall, HEB, Target acid WPC. MAP OVERHEAD We still have the possible north-south route to Southwest Parkway - it just won't be continuous. Direct my comments to the development agreement. Apparently there is still disagreement on the part of the parties involved as to terms of the development agreement. There are no signatures on it. Property owner, Lacour is asking that the City approve the plat conditioned upon the signing and filing of the development agreement. The agreement, when signatures are received would come back before Council. Again no plat will be filed w/o this agreement. Staff sees no problem with this. When I have completed my comments I believe representatives of this tract would like to request permission from the Council to address you. They have expressed concerns to me yesterday and today about communication over the Kyle issue. They feel they did not know about this extension. Our documentation shows communication with the developers last Oct -before the Kyle extension was put on the table by the CIP Comm. I personally spoke over 18 months ago to a different Eng. re: same property about a sewer line easement running through it and whether a 50' access easement extending from Lassie Lane could be a>ndoned. The answer was yes - t~l~s' was before the Kyle extension. C}~Q.e ~ Last week a staff member was contacted and discussed general topics about WPC development and urged the developer to schedule apre-development mtg to get all topics out on the table. This meeting was held 2 days ago and the Kyle extension was discus:>ed. S~ .anxa~.te-.d-~~#~~ =-b~x~~r-gate=~=~l~r~g~s~os~~ar~-. .-~%+~~t ~1~=., t.~% c~sR ~ ~~ ir% ~A ~" ~...~.a S ~~~~ ='~-'v ,~4--~' ~~ , ia/~~1.5 ~ ~Q~ ' C,'l (~~~i~ r Q<;J u~.j 1 +1-t? ~C~: ; r °, ^ G~ ~`~ ~ ~~5 ~ p r ~, ~~ Xrl4-G~'v G-~~% Q~~'~ ,,. ~ ~~~ ~ CITY GAINS SLIDE In exchange the City is gaining: ~.~~~ (l) a monetary guarantee for the waterline design and construction, :~ ~~t (2) t~' actual Kyle St. ROW through the future reserve tract (3) the ~~?VPC dedication, (4) an access easement to the WPC dedication area for maintenance, (3) & ~ ~ (4) are actually ordinance requirements and not additional thing the City is gauung but they are referenced m the Development Agreement. ~~ (5)'~an access easement granted to Austaco so that a future relocation of the ~~,Taco Bell curb-cut to a safer location maybe possible. Taco Bell is not a part of this agreement. This access easement will allow the City to work with Taco Bell in the future to relocate their driveway if possible. (6) a guarantee that future acquisition of the Kyle right-of--way through Lot 1 ~f.~will not include the cost of any improvements thereon (SCC intends to build the entrance drive in the future Kyle right-of--way to the City's current street specs. This insures City will not have to pay for these improvements when acquiring the right-of-way.), ~(7~)` receipt of 1/2 the costs of document preparation ($1,540.50) (8) participation in an engineering study to determine grades for Kyle J~ extension across the creek through the WPC area. This participation is '~~ ~~'~~'~ proposed to be City 50%, SCC 25% and Lacour 25%. ~n'~~ ~~ ~~~~gv~r. ,~ (9) Back taxes ~' ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~~~~ ~,, ,~ In the event that the sale does not occur within 150 days the agreement is '~`^~,, void. `~wJ CITY'S RESP. SLIDE Want to reiterate items that carry some financial obligation on the City's part. DEV AG. TITLE SLIDE In May of 1995, Council approved a preliminary plat of the Lacour Subdivision with the condition that a development agreement be brought back to Council outlining what the City would gain in return for certain deferrals being requested by the developer. City's Dev Agreement policy calls for the City to enter into a dev agreement with someone requesting deferrals of oral requirements only where the City gets something in return.. Subsequently an agreement was approved by Council, however, it was never executed by the developer as the pending sale had fallen through. This is a~ new agreement as there is a new buyer now interested in the property. SAM Property contains 12.23 acres. It is approximately 1050 feet east of the Texas Ave./SH 30 intersection. The property is being divided into two lots, a 4.339 acre lot along SH 30 and the remainder as a reserve lot to the south. Wolf Pen Creek runs through the property and as the zoning ordinance requires, property dedication will be made as part of a fmal plat you will see in April. The developer intends to sell the 4.339 acre lot to SCC development Ltd. for construction for retail users. The 12.23 tract being divided is currently involved in bankruptcy proceedings. The agreement outlines the responsibilities of the seller (Lacour), the buyer of the 4.339 acre lot(SCC Development, Ltd.) and the City. ENDS ST. SLIDE Ends Statements EmploymentlProsperity;Transportation/Mobility,Parks & Recreation and Civic Pride Strategic Issues: Strategic. Issue # 7- Retail recruitment The development agreement is proposed to address several development requirements and property dedication issues. This development agreement is similar to the one previously approved by Council for this tract. Reference PP that is slightly different from one approved -reflects proper alignment of Kyle. As recall, during the CIP Advisory Committee process the extension of Kyle south through this property was discussed, recommended and accepted by Council. Since the Kyle extension was not on the City's thoroughfare plan at that time, staff s response to the developer asking for deferrals was to include Kyle extension as part of this D.A. DEVELOPER ASKS SLIDE Specifically, the developer is asking: ,~' .: d r, ~ `~ (1) defer the construction of a 12 waterline _ew ~-'~' ~~i ~ ~ , r~ SAM -explain waterline ASKS SLIDE (2) defer the submission of impact studies until the .final plat, (3) defer the payment of back taxes until the sale of Lot 1, ~~ ~'~ ~~-~~"~~ `' ~~ ~~~'~~`~ (4)`pay only 50% of the administrative costs for preparation of this .,development agreement, and (5) be relieved of any assessment for design .and construction of Kyle where the`'right-of--way is being dedicated with this plat. l'e -'~ ~e SAM These were all elements of the first agreement that was approved by Council. ~®~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I -V Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue f~ ®~ College Station, Tezas 77842-9960 9~~ l~ (409) 764-3500 ~ February 23, 1996 Mro Fred J. Heyne, III SCC Development, Ltd. 2121 Sage Road, Suite 380 I~ouston, Texas 77056 Mr. T. Robert LaCour 3220 Williams Bivd. Kenner, LA 70065 ~ ~ ~~~ F' ~ ,~ ~~ ~ - I ~E~ ~~ t~~ti , `~ ~ ~ ~ . ^~, ~~ fly ~,~=' ~u~ R ~'~ ,~,.. ,~A~ Mr. Greg Taggart ~ ~~ ~ Mr. Dick LaCour Municipal Development Group 101 East Garden Street 203 Holleman Drive East Pensacola, Florida 32501 College Station, Texas 77840 Rea 4.339 & 7.891 acre tracts off Harvey Road in College Station Dear Gentlemen: After speaking with Mr. Heyne this morning, it is my understanding that the proposed sale of the 4.339 acre tract from the LaCours to SCC Development, Ltd. is either ready to proceed--or nearly ready to proceed--to closing. As you know, the subdivision of this property requires platting and the platting, in this case, requires a development agreement between the City of College Station and the other parties. It is also my understanding that you wish to have the proposed development agreement placed on the next available City Council agenda for approval so than this proposed transaction may be kept on track toward a future closing date. The next scheduled .City Council Meeting is Thursday, March 14, 1996. According to the st<~ff in the City Secretary's office, the deadline for placing items on the agenda for that meeting is Wednesday, March 6, at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. At Mr. Heyne's request, I am sending each of you a revised, clean copy o~f the proposed development agreement for your review and signature where appropriate:. In the end, I would prefer that there be at least one original copy of the agreement with the signatures of all parties. In the interim, however, and if time constraints require, we can work from separate signatures on multiple counterparts of faxed copies. Home of Texas ABM University Letter to Messrs. Heyne, LaCour, & Taiggart February 23, 1996 Page 2 Briefly, reading over this latest draft of the proposed agreement, I note at least two prerequisites that must yet be satisfied before the agreement may be submitted to and approved by the Council: 1) the LaCours--or a party on their behalf--needs to provide the City with 50%--up to $2,500-of the preparation costs for the agreement (item 15); and 2) the City needs a copy of a bankruptcy court order or approved plan or reorgairization or liquidation that authorizes the sale of the property (item 6). From early 1995 tlu~ough today, the actual preparation costs to the City for this agreement equal 59.25 hours of attorney time, multiplied by the very reasonable billable rate of $52.00 per hour, producing a total actual cost of $3,081.00, of which 50% equals $1,540.50. This is the number that now appears in item 15, page 5 of the proposed agreement. To insure that this agreement is placed on the March 14, 1996 Council agenda, then, please make arrangements to insure that a check for this amount and a copy of the required bankruptcy court authorization are provided to the City prior to or on the agenda deadline of March 6, 1996, Thank you in advance for your efforts and cooperation in bringing this matter to closure. Sincerely, Pete Shively Assistant City Attorney Encl. cc: Jane Kee, City Planner ~~::~ CB~v~~~p€~a~e~~ ~~~sr~~~~ ~ ~~~~~€a~ ~~~~s~€~~ ~ ~~ tt~ta (9.}~rr9ef ~kll3ty ~}rk~ ~, ~ }i~i~ I~r1~~ ~ tr~tl I~~ R~tll ~~ru6tr~t ., ~; ~~v~~saptrs~a~i ~~~s€~~es ° Pfas~~s~~~ ~€a~~€a~ ® Ir~tla~s~ t ~~~tlt~ ~ y ~~~~Is~pr€~~sat ~~tl~~s - ~tl~~~tl~ tlestl~tl~;€€s~ .~ ~~a+~tla~p~aa~sat S~~rB~~s a ~I~~~i€~ tl~tl~tl~tl~~ ~9~y"~ ~tr~ ~~p~n~~~~~~ Pr~~r~tec by Jane Kee 3/29/95 1:44pm From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: LaCour ===NOTE====------=====3/29/95=11:02am== CC: Cathy Locke, Legal Temp T. Robert LaCour called this a.m. and told me that the Credit Union absolutely does not want to give up the ROW area through the tract that they are buying. (You would have thought that this would have been addressed earlier?!!). LaCour's proposition "in lieu" of that is as follows: 1. LaCour would dedicate the .558 acre tract to the City (though if we can't get the ROW through the top half of the tract, I don't know why we would even want the .558 acres: but this is what they are proposing. 2. LaCour would also dedicate the 7.333 acre tract to the City. 3. The credit union would dedicate the .295 acre tract out of the 4.339 acre tract to the City. 4. They would, they think/hope, then be in compliance and would not need a variance or development agreement at all. He says that Roup has faxed a letter to this effect and that he has had some discussions with Jane, who he says, recommended this course of action. As always, I don't care how this works out, but you will have to let me know what, if anything, is acceptable and if you still need a development agreement. Have a nice day. Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======3/29/95==1:37pm== Fwd to: Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Pete Shively ....................................... Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee_______________________ Fwd to: Pete Shively ....................................... You like getting blank messages? I've known all along that the bank did not want to dedicate that top portion of Kyle. This has been what LaCour has been trying to get out of all along. They made a deal with the bank before finding out that the Kyle dedication would be an issue if they did not want to meet all of our ordinances. Lven if ParrP ~ ~ Prnte~ by Jane Kee 3/29/95 1:44pm they decide now to dedicate the WPC area, they are stilling asking for 3 other waivers - 1. waterline 2. impact studies 3. taxes being paid. Any of these requests will require a development agreement. I say we go with the same one and let Council decide whether to give on the Kyle ROW thru the bank lot. If they choose to give that up then staff would recommend that the City be allowed to assess the bank tract for the Kyle construction as we would in any similar situation. Page: 2 °~ s. .CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I ~~~ t ~ t %C~ Post Off4ce Box 9960. 1101 Texas Avenue ~~ ~~ College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 7643500 November 13, 1995 Mr. red J. Heyne, III. SCC Development Corporation 2121 Sage Road, Suite 380 Houston, Texas 77056 RE: 4.339 acre tract and 7.891 acre tract in the Morgan Rector League, Brasos County, Texas (more commonly referred to as the Lacour tract) Mr. Heyne: As mentioned in our previous meeting, the City of College Station may enter inti~ a development agreement with a developer when that developer wishes to -defer one or more ordinance requirements. It is the City's policy that the City receive. something; in exchange for any concessions granted through the agreement. The previous development agreement on the Lacour tract was one. where certain ordinance requirements. were being postponed while the City received certain items in return. Although it was never signedl by all parties, the City Council had agreed to the contents of draft #6. Before proceeding, I think it is important to state what could have been done by the Lacours to affect ordinance compliance and negate the need. for any developrrlent agreement on their tract. The same applies to development today. The following is the responsibility of the developer: -- Design Kyle through the entire. property. -- Dedicate and build Kyle with each tract as they are final platted. -- Design and construct the water and sanitary sewer lines through the extent of each tract as they are final platted. Dedicate the. WPC area to the City or develop it in accordance with the Master Plan. `~ Pay back taxes. Build the sidewalk along State Highway 30 and Kyle. Prepare and submit impact studies. (This was delayed and should have been done with the preliminary plat.) -- Design and construct sewer to the reserve tract. H~~e ®~' Teacas AF,M C.~niverssty It is our understanding that the developer still wishes to defer certain ordinance requirements. Staff has reviewed the contents of your letter dated October 24, 1'995, relative to the development agreement that had previously been drafted. There is one item that needs clarification and several items that are requests additional to t]'aose previously agreed to by the City. The item needing clarification is your item #3 regarding the 20 foot minimum reservation. It is not clear that it is to be dedicated on both sidc;s of the Wolf Pen Creek dedication area. I believe this is the intention but it is not clear. The additional items are: (Reference item #6 in your letter) The request that the timing of the City's design of Kyle be discussed. The City did not, in the original agreement, have any time frame imposed for the design and construction of Kyle. If you need this design sooner than the City would have funds available, that point will have to be negotiated and would be an additional item/cost the City would be incurring as a part of any agreement. 2. (Reference your item #8) The original request made no mention of City participation in signal conversion for the Kyle/State Highway 30 intersection. 3. (Reference your item #10) The previous agreement held both parties jointly liable. There is a value to this for the City and separate and independent liability wout'd be giving up something on the City's part. 4. (Reference your item #11) The previous agreement did not tie the City to any kind of time frame relative to cleaning the creek area. If you are looking for a time commitment, that again will need to be in exchange for something. 5. (Reference your item #7) The previous agreement required that a 12" waterline be constructed from .State Highway 30 through the reserve tract with some allowance for the timing of construction. Since you are asking for more than this in your letter and the City would be incurring more cost with your new proposal, this point will have to be negotiated. These additional items convey considerable expense and concession on the part of the City. It will be necessary for staff to demonstrate to Council that the City is getting something in exchange for these concessions. We are open to your suggestions. The City has recently become interested in the use of the reserve tract to construct a desilting facility for the siltation that is occurring downstream at the amphitheater. This area could be used in conjunction with the WPC dedicated area for this purpose. This item m<~y be negotiated to offset some of these additional concessions. As per the City's policy on development agreements, the developer is responsible: for paying costs incurred by the City in the preparation of any agreement. The costs incurred to date for the existing agreement on this tract have not been recovered by the City. The staff is very willing to continue work on a development agreement as long as prior to City Council consideration these costs are paid. The previous agreement called for the developer to pay only half the cost, which to date equals $1,231. If >~`•can further assist you in any way, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, ~L~cSZ ~S Jane R. Kee City Planner cc: Mr. Dick Lacour Mr. Scott Deskins Mr. Gregory K. Taggert Mr. Gary Roup Pete Shively, Assistant City Attorney CCS Kent Laza, P.E., City Engineer CCS _~--- f? 1J~ IJ L 1 C® O IOl~T October 24, 1995 Ms. Jane Kee City of College Station P. ®. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: 4.339 Acre tract and the Rector League, Brazos County, Dear Ms. Kee: b +'„ ,~ 7•.891 acre tract in the Morgan Texas We appreciate the. opportunity of having met with you and your.. fellow planners regarding the-above referenced tracts. I would like to submit to you a preliminary: request and/or issues f or discussion regarding the above referenced tracts and the development agreement. These ;points are as follows: 1. Road Right of Way for Kyle Street - The. Developer of the:; 4.339 acre .tract ("Developer") will designate the area by plat for the future Kyle Street which will `.ultimately be acquired by ,the City. Furthermore the developer will agree to construct. on that right of way a road that meets the City', pecifications for a public thoroughfare and grant to the City a right of access across said future Kyle Street-right of way for maintenance purposes to the Wolf Pen Cree]c. At such time that the City decides to extend Kyle Street they will acquire 'the subject land from the Developer or his assignee for an amount that will be based upon the value of -the land and not the improvements thereon. In consideration of the Developer building this street there will be no furthe~c assessments whatsoever allocated to developer-for any addiitional improvements which the City may elect to make to Kyle Street. The LaCours will dedicate by plat (as currently depclted) a 'right-of-way to the City for the future development of Kyle Street through the 7.891 acre tract. The LaCours would also request that the City grant to the LaCours the right of access over the Kyle Street dedication from the Noonan tract to,H~olliman Blvd. until the Kyle Street extension is completed. In return for the LaCours making this dedication, the City will agree not to assess the LaCours for any improvements to Kyle Street in the future. 2121 Sage Read, Suite 380 Telephone (713) 627-7460 Houston, Texas 77056 Telecopier !;713) 965-9345 -~, ~~ October 24, 1995 Page 2 of 3. 2. The Developer will grant to AUSTACO an access easement at a point to be determined at the request of the City on to the westernmost portion of the Kyle Street extension on their property. 3. The Developer will agree to dedicate the 20-foot trail area on their property as called for in the Wolf Pen Creek ordinance. 4. The LaCours will dedicate the 4.734 acre tract shown on the plat as the Wolf Pen Creek dedication. 5. The LaCours will agree out of the proceeds of the sale to pay all outstanding advalorem taxes on the subject properties. 6. The City will agree to incur the design cost and construction documents for the initial construction of Kyle Street through the 4.339 acre tract. The timing for the development of these plans needs to be discussed. 7. The Developer will agree to pay the cost of extending ~~ water line from Harvey road south along the Kyle Street right of way to the Wolf Pen Creek dedication at a size that is consistent with the needs of its property. Based on a hydrolic study by the engineers and agreement by the City, there will be an allocation of the incremental costs differential between the size of ithe line necessary to service the subject tract and the twelve-inch line requested by the City. The Developer will either install the twelve-inch line to its southern property line and receive a reimbursement upon completion from the City or provide their prorata share of the money to the City for their construction of said line. The City shall be responsible for the extension of the line across the Wolf Pen Creek dedication. The LaCours shall be responsible for their pro rata cost of a line from their northernmost boundary tract of the Wolf Pen Creek dedication to Holliman Road to service their 2.599 acre parcel (LaCour Tract). The determination made by the engineers of the line size necessary to service the LaCour tract and costs will be allocated to find what the incremental costs will be for the development of the twelve-inch line as requested by the City. The LaCours will agree to escrow at closing of the sale of the 4.399 acres their pro rata portion of the cost for said line or they will develop the line and upon completion the City wi.l1 reimburse them for their incremental costs increase within thirty days.. 8. The City will cooperate with the State so as to provicle the ~~ Developer at the City's expense a four-way signalized intersection at Kyle and Harvey Road. ~~ ~~~ ~~ October 24, 1995 Page 3 of 3. 9. The Developer will construct the required sidewalk along Harvey Road. 10. It is understood that the actions set forth herein to be taken by the Developer and the LaCours are separate and independent of one another. In no way can one party be held responsible for the default under this agreement of the other part= if they have fulfilled their requirements hereunder. 11. In consideration of the contribution of the land to the Wolf Pen Creek District we would like some kind of indication ak-out when at least an initial effort to cleanout the creek and k>rush hog the area may take place. I hope that the above sets forth the primary issues of cone:ern of all parties regarding the development agreement for the subject properties. I will ask Gregg Taggert to prepare the neces:aary hydraulic studies for the water line if this approach meet; with your approval. I have asked Gregg to please get with you ~~fter you have had an opportunity to review this letter so that we can decide how to proceed from here. Again, we enjoyed meeting with you regarding this property and appreciated the very gracious reception we received regarding our development of this property. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Ver ,trul .yours, Fr d eyn III ccs Mr. Dic LaCour Mr. Scott Deskins Mr. Gregory K. Taggert Mr. Gary Ro p ~ ~J~~~ ~~~ ~~ 02/02/96 13:23 'd'409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS ~OOl a %K ~::k :k :K ~::k :k sk ~: ~ sY :~~ k sk N::k ~: ~::k ~Y :k :k :k :K ~ :~~:~ ACTIVITY REPORT ~~~ %k~~k%k~~k*sk%ksk%k:ksk%k%k:~sk%k~:X:sk~::k:k%k~::k TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NOe CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START T I 14IE USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT 4752 17138711148pp161 02/02 13:16 07'06 14 OK ~~:,:,:,:f:J: f: f: ,.,.,.f.f...J.,.: 'J ~ J'rs~f~J~J~!•Ja$J~/~J'fa'f•f•r9J'J'f'J' l•14f,l~J J~f~!•I :~ tJ~/4I.I.J4J~J~f~: ~f~J~l~!•f ittttattatttttttttttttttt ~.. .f.r.r.f.J.l.f.f.l.r.J. /... r. e.f. r.J.f.f. e.f.J. J.f.r.f ~f.l•J•f•r•l•f•f•l•J•J.J•J •!•J •i.f •I •d°P•J •J•f .J•; .J•J•/• ~ .~,t.ti.t.t,i.t.•.•t•.,.l~i.•t.t.t•t.t•t.t. t.t.t.t.t. t.t•t•i ;1.J.J. /. f;!•f; f: J•f. J:J•J ~l•i.J•J•~ J•.r •f •.•t. tFt~l~\ \Ii MITI'' Q1= ~f7LLE~E S~TFITIaIW I~EUEI_QF~MENT SERtt6~ES t10f TE?:A~ ALtE ~~{TLLE~E ~TAT10N, TEXAS 7784 Facsimile Cover Sheet Company: Phone: Fax: .t From: ~~~~, ~. Company: Phone: Fax: tv .. ~.J••.,.•.,.,.f. J. f.f.J•f. f.J•J•f• ,.,....,.,.,-,-..,...,.t. t.,.t. .~1'.`:~f`:'r~;.,_,.J•r•;.f...f.J.;.,•;•,.J.J.• .~ r~J•;•f•f~J~f•J~f•J ^J,J~1~J9J•I~f~/~I~J~f~+~f~f.J. .lt.t.t.t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t.t• ~}~i•f•J:J•e•/•J•l.J•f•J~.J•l •/.f.f.f •J•r.f •f •J•J.J.J.J.J •J•!,f `/•; J•!•J•/•f•J•J•i°/•l •J•!-: ~I~i •!•!•i •f •f •J•J•J •/ .t•t•t.t•t...t.t•t.t•t•t•~,•:-t•t•t•tn•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• .f.J.f.;.,.f.J...f.J.J. f_ f • r.f_ •.J•r_ J_ f•nf_f_ nrf. r. r•f Date: ~~ ~ .,~~ , Pages including this cover page: Comments : ~~ k r ~, ~ ~ ~~. ~..,~,~ ~ ,s ~ ~' ~ .~.. ~ . ~~" ~..~~~ ``~ t< m ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ k 7 _ _ ;~ . ~~~~ t,t•t.~,t•a,••e. e.t•~.~.•.•..•.,... n •!•f•J •J•f'J'J'J'J'f'J'J'J'J'f •I •J•1 t (I~ [~ } 7 ~ ~ . r] ~ ! V •+ t t t t t t t t t t t 1. t i t t 1\\ -t•l•t• •J•/•/•J.!•/•J•t •f •/-I-!•!•f~f ~J•f •J•f•f /~} f•J•1•J 1•t •5• t t t 1\ t t\. t t t t t t t t t F rl /! ~ l 'y (C Jp _ •} q~ 1C FA L r+~ ... t t t ,J.J.J.J.J.J=I-J •J•f•!•J•J•J•f •J•f •J•f•f J•f L `t V J ( V `Y t7 °T V (1 FR. ^•f•J•f•! •`•t•t•t_t•l•t•t• .t. •t. `•t•t•t•t• • t t t t l t •l~J-1~1~l,/-!•J•I•J.J •; •J •/•/•J•f•J•J.J •J•J..cc t.•/•fJ •f•!•f•f•I . .. .1./.J.f.J.l.f. r. f.; • CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I MEMORANDUM 'TOs Jane Kee, City Planner FltOMa Pete Shively, Assistant City Attorney RE: LaCour - re-re-re-re-re-re-re-revised Development Agreement Dt~°I°E® February 1, 1996 Pursuant to our telephone conference call yesterday with 1VIr. Fred J. Heyne III and his attorney, Mr. Charles ("Jerry") Wolfe, I have made a number of revisions to the proposed T Development Agreement among LaCour, SCC, and the City. A copy of the contract is 3 attached hereto. A number of these revisions reflect the substantive changes reque:>ted by Mr. Heyne and Mr. Wolfe. Other changes are primarily stylistic. All of these changes are summarized below, seriatim. Substantive Changes 1. because of the road alignment being moved to the west (from the original preliminary plat) so that it now is directly adjacent to the western property line of lot 1, I have removed all references to a 30 foot wide private access easement from Austaco to the City's 30 foot wide private access easement. Among other things, this change eliminated old paragraph number 3, at the top of old page 2. 2. Also due to the revised road alignment depicted in the proposed plat provided to us yesterday, I have revised the "Kyle Street South Dedication" property 1:0 only include a 35 foot right of way south of the Wolf Pen Creek Dedication and through the Reserve Tract. Concomitantly, I have revised the acreage amounts for the Wolf Pen Creek Dedication upward from 4.734 to 5.100. In other words, the old "Kyle Street South Dedication" ran from south of Lot One all the way to the southern edge of the Reserve Tract and was 70 feet in width. Now, the portion of the roadway (whatever its final configuration) that will run through the Wolf Pen Creek Dedication area is omitted from the Kyle Street South Dedication and the remaining portion (out of the Reserve Tract) is reduced from 70 feet to 35 fE;et. LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 02/01/96 - ps/c/jan96/lacour2. doc - -- Memo to Jane Kee February 1, 1996 :Page 2 3. At the request of the Mr. Heyne, I have added a sentence to new paragraph 3, which grants the City the 20 foot wide strip out of Lot 1 in accordance with the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning Ordinance. The additional sentence simply makes clear that the 20 foot strip is being dedicated in fulfillment of the Wolf Pen Creek dedication requirements. Mr. Heyne, or his attorney, requested this revision in order to foreclose any possible interpretation of the ordinance that would require them to dedicate an additional 20 feet, above and beyond the 20 feet required by the Development Agreement. 4. In new paragraph 4 (old paragraph 2), I have included a statement that the 30 private access easement being granted by SCC through Lot 1 to the City and LaCour is for "maintenance and engineering purposes". This revision, again, was requested by SCC so as to preclude any interpretation that simply because the City owned the easement that the general public could use it. 5. Also in new paragraph 4 and as suggested by SCC, I have made SCC's grant to _ Austaco of a right to traverse across a portion of the City & LaCour's easement conditional upon Austaco agreeing in writing to close its most easterly curb cut on Harvey Road. 6. I have placed into a new, separate paragraph (number 6) the requireme-nt that LaCour provide the City with a bankruptcy plan of reorganization, and I have added that LaCour may, alternatively, provide a bankruptcy court order authorizing the sale of this property. 7. In paragraph 9, I have at SCC's request re-divided the contribution for the costs of the engineering study for the. grades to accommodate the bridge: 50% City, 25% LaCour and 25%SCC. 8. I have added a new sentence to paragraph 13 to specify that the form of the guarantee for the costs of design and construction for the waterline shall be a bond from SCC and cash (out of the closing proceeds) from LaCour. 9. As discussed, in paragraph 17 I have changed the number of days required for closing the sale from 90 to 150. 10. Also as requested by SCC, I have removed the first sentence of paragraph l.8 and I have divided the release into two: a release for LaCour and a separate relf;ase for SCC. 02/01/96 ps/c/jan96/lacour2. doc Memo to Jane Kee February ][, 1996 Page 3 Stylistic Changes: 1. I have revised the names of the parties in the opening paragraph and the internal references to them throughout: from "BUYER, DEVELOPER, and CITY" to "SCC, LaCour, and the City'°. I did this just for the sake of clarity and readability. 2. I have also removed the numerous redundant references to the revised, preliminary plat for LaCour Subdivision Phase One, and, after an initial reference, referred thereafter to this document simply as the "Preliminary Plat." 3. I have changed the order of some of the initial numbered paragraphs in order to put the primary dedications by LaCour up front and generally place the various obligations in a rough rank and party order. 4. I have corrected, I hope, the street name references in paragraphs 7 and 8. 5. I have removed the first sentence of paragraph 15 because it was .unnecessarily confusing and revised somewhat the remaining sentences; leaving blanks for the current dollar amounts that LaCour must pay for the preparation of this development agreement (those numbers escalated again, considerably I would think, in the last 24 hours). 6. Lastly, I have revised the signature block and the acknowledgment forms slightly to show the correct party names, their relationships, and to shorten the form simply in order to fit it on the page. Please review these changes and let me know if you think that any additional revisions are necessary. Otherwise, you may forward a copy of the attached draft to SCC. (l[ would advise copying one of the LaCours on all correspondence at this point) - 02/01 /96 ps/c/jan96/lacour2. doe / -_ _ /` l~ __. _ . . ___ 4 ~~ ,;; August 27, 1996 Mr. Greg Taggart Municipal Development Group a 203 Holleman Dr. E College Station, TX 77840 `'~ RE: Site Development - Lacour Tract Dear Greg: In response to your telephone request to Jim Callaway today for a reason as to why the Highway Department permit application and grading permit application were not being processed by staff for the referenced project, staff has prepared this letter of explanation. As you know, projects in the Wolf Pen Creek corridor require review and approval of a complete projf;ct by the Design Review Board prior to scheduling the project for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. To date we have held two predevelopment meetings to review conceptual site plans with members of the Design Review Board, but have not yet received complete plans to be reviewed by anyone. The Design Review Board has expressed concern over being called in for repeated review of concepts and would prefer to look at a complete plan for a project. As you are aware, all reviews and approvals granted in the WPC corridor are site specific, which translates into project (use) specific, and would include specific locations for driveways, parking spaces, islands, landscaping, sidewalks, buildings, slopes, berms, light posts, fixtures on the posts, colors and materials of each building, etc. Because we have not had an official site plan to review, we are not willing to process a drivewaypermit for somekind of retail project at a location which has not been pinned down by dimensions to anything. If a site plan were submitted which included specific dimensions from, for example, the driveway at Taco Bell to the proposed driveway, and exact driveway locations of those drives opposite the proposed driveway, staff will review that and will be able to approve it based on the proposed use and the specific site plan. Processing by the Texas Department of Transportation will not hold up the project. Part of any review by the Design Review Board includes grading and filling of property in the Wolf Peen Corridor. At the lunch meeting staff and 2 members ofthe-Design Review Board had with you last week some ideas for filling inside the dedication area were discussed, with the Design Review Board members giving some examples of some trades that might be considered by the entire board when the complete project is submitted for review, but I reiterate, complete plans have not yet been received, therefore additional review has not been possible. Staff would point out that while the Development Agreement concerning this property has been signed by everyone, all conditions of that agreement have not yet been met. For example the grade study on Kyae has not been completed and could affect a reclamation plan for this properly. There will be some drainage structures which cross this property which have not yet been submitted for review which could affect a reclamation plan for this property. The comments made by the Design Review Board as possible tradeoffs for allowing fill into the dedicated area have not been included on any plans we have seen to date. Our suggestion to you would be to put together a complete package which includes all plans necessary for developing a site in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district and submit that package with an application for site plan approval and let the official review begin. In that package your site plan and building elevatiions should include the "facade which orients the project to the creek" if the project is to include compact parking spaces, as well as the sidewalk and terracing mentioned in both predevelopment meetings. Another concern which has been mentioned at both meetings is the treatment of the screening of the loading dock. Nothing which has been reviewed in the conceptual plans submitted has addressed any kind of acceptable screening. I would remind you that signage is a part of the submittal package and must be reviewed as part of the project, therefore should include elevations, colors, materials and any proposed lighting. •- ~~ ~~ ~ c%, ~~ . ~~ ~ .~ ~~ --~-°' ~ ' _ ~- G , } ,_, .~j ~, {.G~ °~ ~~' ~ ~ w ~ ~. + ,. r l ~ ` r .. % ____ __ - - ~ ~ U r ~ l ~...~ "~ ~ "...> ~fl~y ' ' ;~ . ~ °~~ `~. ~ '" .r rl ~~3 .A ~„~, ,!~ ~~~~r~L':~,~~.~~_ ~~'.: , Cat :~: ~_ ,. ~°~ ` t ,. _;~ ~~_ _ __ _ _ __ '° z ii d~: a.> .~ ~~ ~`- { old ~, t l,~ /~ ~ ~„ -_ f ~. ' ~ _ 1 ., -_ ~- ~- ,._.~.. ~ .-' - C_: ~ ~ -~. gym. r' ~ ~~ _ (__ ~" t~`~-~ ~''-a-C'` "~-_ s__ ~~=-~-~'~ ~~-~-'~~?~-"°-~ ~` -~ q~ ~~' .. ~_. t! r t ~ v~ ,~ ~_ ..~-- _ ~ 1 z ~~ n ~ \ --... ~/~~ ~ ? " 1a~ ~~_ ~- j :~ 1 ~ ~ ~ .. .~, '~ ,~ , ~ - ; ~ ~- - F s ,~ _ r __ __ _ _ _ - ,a r (I.. ~ ~,~ ~~- ., ~, F. ~, f ~/~~,~° CMG e--z,.~-- , ,, w r ~ // ~ ~ ~ jy~l -~ ~' 1 J -~/X t ~~` ' ~--%"~ ~"" ~ _ rte. /~L `~ a f~ ~ ~ .i~~'~%~?~(~-~'-'' ,~ _ _ _ _ ~~ ~~ r ~1~~1' ~(/i /) i~ ~ ~ 1. ~~_.e~_,,,m___.~-°°°,°`_ w---- ' ~ f-/~t J ~~ ;.~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I ', ~-; ~ Post Ql'fiee Sox 9960 1101 Texas Avenue `~-_+ ~ College Station, Texas 77842-9960 {409; 761-3500 August 28, 1996 Mr. Greg Taggart Municipal Development Group 203 Holleman Dr. E College Station, TX 77840 RE: Site Development - I,acour Tract Dear Greg: This letter is in response to your telephone call to Jim Callaway, in which you requested a reason as to why the Highway Department permit application and grading permit application were not being processed by staff for the referenced project. As you know, projects in the Wolf Pen Creek corridor require review and approval of a complete project by the Design Review Board prior to scheduling the project for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. To date. we have held two predevelopment meetings to review conceptual site plans with members ofthe Design Review Board, but have not yet received complete plans to be reviewed by anyone. The Design Review Board has expressed concern over being called in for repeated review of concepts and would prefer to look at a complete plan for a project. As you are aware, all reviews and approvals granted in the WPC corridor are site specific, which translates into project (use) specific, and would include specific locations for driveways, parking spaces, islands, landscaping, sidewalks, buildings, slopes, berms, light posts, fixtures on the posts, colors and. materials of each building, etc. Because we have not had an official site plan to review, we are unable to process a driveway permit for a retail project, where the driveway has not been located on a site plan .and dimensions to other drives has not been shown. if a site plan were submitted which included specific dimensions from, for example, the driveway at Taco Bell to the proposed driveway, and enact driveway locations of those drives opposite the proposed driveway, staff will review that and will be able to approve it based on the proposed use and the specific site plan. Processing by the Texas Department of Transportation will not holdup the project. Part of any review by the Design Review Board includes grading and filling of property in the Wolf F'en Corridor. At the lunch meeting last week, staff and 2 members of the Design Review Board discussed with you some ideas for filling inside the dedication area. The Design Review Board members gave some examples of compromises that might be considered by the entire board when the complete project is submitted for review, but I reiterate, complete plans have not yet been received, therefore additional review has not been possible. Staff would point out that while the Development Agreement concerning this property has been signed by everyone, all conditions of that agreement have not yet been met. For example the grade study on Kyle has not been completed and could affect a reclamation plan for this property. There will be some drainage struchues which cross "this property which have not yet been submitted for review which could affect a reclamation plan for this property. The comments madeby the Design Review Board as possible tradeoffs for allowing fill into the dedicated area have not been included on any plans we have seen to date. I-lome o#' Texas A&M €dnlv~r~lty Piecemeal, or incomplete submissions, we have found, tend to be difficult and confusing and create strained relations for all involved. Our suggestion to you would be to put together a complete package: which includes all plans necessary for developing a site in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district and submit that package with an application for site plan approval and let the official review begin. In that package your site plan and building elevations should include the "facade which orients the project to the creek" if the project is to include compact parking spaces, as well as the sidewalk and terracing mentioned in both predevelopment meetings. Another concern which has been mentioned at both meetings is the treatment of the screening of the loading dock. Nothing which has been reviewed in the conceptual plans submitted has addressed any kind of acceptable screening, I would remind you that signage is a part of the submittal package and must be reviewed as part of the project, therefore should include elevations, coliors, materials and any proposed lighting. If your request is to prepare the site for sale or potential development without. a specific site plan in mind, the Design Review Board still has to approve any fill material and its placement. They may not be lik:ely to approve fill in the minimum reservation area based on speculation. The same is true for the driveway locations. These two items are being considered based on a site plan proposal. If you have any questions or I can be of assistance please do not hesitate to call. Veronica J.B. o gan, Asst. City Engineer cc: Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Jim Callaway, Acting Director of Development Services Kent Laza, P.E., City Engineer Jane Kee, City Planner Fred Heyne,SCC Development, Ltd. ( ` /~ -'1P~~'q 1'.Il~cC> .~''~ ~~.'~ ~rG:~. _°nl~ I_-i1 L1"~iui April 4, 1996 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Shirley Volk c/o City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave College Station, Texas 77840 Re: LaCour Tract -Kyle & Harvey Dear Shirley: Enclosed please find three large and one small copies of the most recent proposed site plan. Please note that the planner did not show Kyle property but I do not think that this has a major impact of this review. I would like to discuss in our meeting the following: 1. The site design and the Wolf Pin Creek Ordinance; 2. The size and cost of the 20' drainage easement on our northeast property line; 3. .The 20' "jogging" trail dedication on the rear of the tract and how it matches pup next door. I am sure we will come up with something else but I don't know what it is today. I look forward to seeing you all next Tuesday. Very truly yours, SCC DEVELOPMENT, Ltd. By: SCC-GP, Inc. Sole General Partner By: FJH:bdw 21.21 Safe Road, Suite 380 Telephone (713) 62'7-7460 I~oustor>, Texas 77056 Telecopier (713) 965-9345 volk.wpd From: Jane Kee To: svolk Date: 7/19/96 10:59am Subject: fred heyne Do you have his #? Goin to cal lhim today. Bollards that are removeable are OK for the end of the drive, Pll tell him also they are obligated for the entire street to the creek so anything less will need to be bonded or we can amend the DA to have an equal amount taken off the price we pay when we purchase ROW. Pll also reference the WPC design standards in the plan. From: Jane Kee To: City of College Station.City Hall(JCALLAWAY, KLAZA... Date: 7/22/96 12:15pm Subject: Lacour Development -Reply Before I read this a-mail I had left a message for Heyne to check with greg -there are dev. standards in the WPC plan. You engineers sound like you have it under control. Remember 2 things - we want to encourage and help retail dev. (CC Issue) and we are in the process of revising WPC; master plan. Who knows if we'll end up with direction from CC to continue to pursue the hike/bike path idea or not. »> Steve Homeyer 07/22/96 12:09pm »> FYI - During the predevelopment meeting for this site, staff indicated a concern with the proposed fill within the dedicated reserve. I told Greg Taggart that I would research this situation and get back with him. While reviewing the ordinance, I found some verbiage that could possibly be interpreted as Greg referenced. I spoke to Veronica this morning to see how it had been interpreted in the past and she stated that at Sneakers, they made "improvements" by dumping construction debris in this reserve and they were required to make the necessary improvements to meet the ordinance. I called Greg back this morning to relay this information and he was not too happy. From his tone of voice, he will more than likely be calling Jim or Kent Ito argue this requirement. From: Steve Homeyer To: JCALLAWAY, KLAZA, SVOLK, VMORGAN, JKEE Date: 7/23/96 4:11pm Subject: Latour Development -Reply -Reply -Reply I think that Greg understands this requirement. When I spoke to him yesterday, I explained that this fill constitutes improvements to the properly in the dedicated area. From this, he would be required to make the necessary improvements (ie, retaining walls, sidewalks, etc). I stated That he had the two options (1) do not fill in the reserve or (2) make the necessary improvements. He said that they did not want to make the improvements and that is why they chose the dedication. I then made the suggestion that in order to stay out of the reserve and keep the same site plan he could build a retaining wall to compensate for the fill. He stated that this was ludicrous because he would be responsible for building an extremely long wall and that would kill the project. I did not use the Sneaker's example in our conversation, but only in the a-mail to indicate a past situation. Maybe I was not clear in yesterday's e-mail because when I read it again today, it was vague and would not make sense to someone else. »> Jane Kee 07/23/96 03:48pm »> I agree wN. My concern is ate we all e-mailing each other about this and no one is really making sure Greg AND Heyne understand this? »> Veronica Morgan 07/23/96 01;16pm »> as some additional information on this subject...... here is what i think the philosophy behind the ordinance is on this topic. the developer has an option to "dedicate" or "develop" the minimum reservation area, they "dedicate" with the knowledge that they cant use this property for their development and in return the city will improve it with spark features, trails, etc. they "develop" with the knowledge that they "gain use of this property" and in return they develop the park featurs, trails, etc. as part of their development. in this instance, they opted to "dedicate", hence the property is now OURS to develop to meet the park standards we want/need in the corridor and they cant place any fill orvmprovements on it without our permission (just like. if it belonged to another property owner), if they wanted to "use" the minimum. reservation area to meet any of their development standards for their site, they could do so by choosing the second option. but once they "improve" that area, the ordinance kicks in and all requirements for improvement within the minimum reservation area are in effect, greg wants to use the minimum reservation area here to place fill necessary for his parking lot elevation that he has chosen -the fill does not benefit us, in fact it may force the city to pay for retaining walls later on, that we shouldnt have to. if they want to develop it, they can go back and choose that option. »> Steve Homeyer 07/22/96 12:09pm »> FYI - During the predevelopment meeting for this site, staff indicated a concern with the proposed fill within the dedicated reserve. I told Greg Taggart that I would research this situation and get back with him. While reviewing the ordinance, I found some verbiage that could possibly be interpreted as Greg referenced. I spoke to Veronica this morning to see how it had been' interpreted in the past and she stated that at Sneakers, they made "improvements" by dumping construction debris in this reserve and they were required to make the necessary improvements to meet the ordinance. I called Greg back this morning to relay this information and he was not too happy. From his tone of voice, he will more than likely be calling Jim or Kent 1:o argue this requirement. From: Jane Kee To: City of College Station.City Hall(JCALLAWAY, KLAZA... Date: 7/23/96 4:53pm Subject: Lacour Development -Reply -Reply -Reply I would think we could work something like that out. We have to keep in mind at least 2 things (and probably more) (1) retail development is very important to our CC (2) we are revisiting the WPC plan and may end up keeping the committment to it or throwing it out -who knows. But we need to felxible and not generate unnecessary complaints about how difficut it is to develop in this district. We have a DA on this project. It's most likely going to be amended due to the street construction on Kyle. So maybe they want to throw in something about the improvement in the min, reserv. area. As per my previous note. I have not been talking to ANYONE about the 20 area and what the eng. desing standrads are or what the plan says. »> Shirley Volk 07/23/96 03:16pm »> Thanks, V. That's what I remembered about how the ordinance works. Pm wondering if we the City as owners of that dedicated area, could allow the use of this for their fill IF they would build the retaining wall? Any thoughts on this from anyone? .s IT ~` C~ AI1~I t~: ~ n a, ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ar~~~~e ~, "'-~__ ~ August 22, 1996 Ms. Lisa Hagerman Municipal Development Oroup 203 Holleman Drive East College Station, TX 77840 RE: TxDOT Access Drive Permit for LaCour Subdivision Dear Lisa: Our policy is to refrain from sending submittals to TxDOT until we feel relatively sure that the plans will not change in the course of our review. As we have not yet approved a site plan relating to this proposed access drive, we cannot forward the application to TxDOT at this time. Please call me at 764-3570 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Samantha Smith Engineering Assistant cc: vShirley Volk, Development Coordinator Kent Laza, City Engineer '' `Pik 23 ~ 7' -.- ?'~! -~fl~,:.; rw;l LS j. ~ '.~ .~ __ - YI : July 16, 1996 Ms. Shirley Volk c/o City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave P.U. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Shirley: .., o % A I want to again express my appreciation to you and the staff of the City of College Station in working with us so diligently in accomplishing the development of our project. It is our fondest hope that we will be under construction in the very near future on this. property and that we will be able to provide the City of College Station a project that will be an asset to the community for many years to come. Again thank you very much for your efforts and guidance. Very truly yours, SCC COLLEGE STATION PARTNERS, LTD. FJH:bdw 2121 Sage Road, Suite 380 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone (713) 627-7460 Telecopier (713) 965-9345 volk.wpd By`. SCC Corporate Partner, Inc. From: Jane Kee To: nlhomassvolk Date: 4/19/96 10:~0am Subject: updates we'll ask to table or more tha likely just pull the mobile home amendment from the agenda and readvertize later. Bine is going to a leagl seminar May 10 where one topic is mobile homes. We're going to wait and see what comes out of that before we proceed. Letter to Klotz postponing sidewalk was singed by me and Kent and went out today. Lacour -plat has a dimensional error along 30 frontage. B"me is calling Greg to fiat. Also Bine will be talking to Heyne about doing a tree survey only for the 14' along 30 that is outside where electrical will be putting lines underground. GIT1' Of CQLLE6E STATION DEVELQPMENT SERtlIGEs 1101 TEXAS avE COLLEGE STATION., TEXAS 77840 -.-f Facsimile Cover Sheet To: ~° _ ~ s Company: °~ ~- Phone: `°~ t °~ Fax: `7 t ~~ From: c Company: ~~cr,~/ ®~! Phone: Fax: °~~/ ~~f g Date: - Pages including this cover page: Comments: _ i _ _____ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ - _ 1 ,`{,{ k ~ a ..~ c4og] 764-as7o C409] 764-3496 FAX From• Edwin Hard To: SVOLK, VMORGAN, JKEE, SHOMEYER Date: 4/12/96 4:37pm Subject: Heyne's Lecour After the predevelopment meeting with Heyne on Tues(?), I followed up with him on the questions he had about his driveways. Kent and I have reached consensus on the following: The driveway on Kyle nearest SH 30 will not be allowed. Heyne asked if we would consider aright-in right-out at this location. We did and found that it could not work b/c it's too close to the intersection. Access to this site via Kyle can be no closer than as shown - approx 300 feet. This space is needed to design for proper left turns on 3.0 and into his site. I also explained to Heyne the reasoning behind why the Taco Bell drive would allowed to relocate on Kyle so close to the intersection. The driveway onto 30 needs to be moved either 50-60' to the east to align opposite the apartment drive or approximatey 120-140 west. This should give him some flexibility in how he'd like to access 30. The current location would be analogus to the Kroger -Commerce Bank Problem. CC: KLAZA, JCALLAWAY ~\ K: ~. _# ~: ~~ ~~ ,~ '; From: Jane Kee To: JDUNN Date: 4/2/96 9:29am Subject: lacour rear bldg line.-Reply Technically, maybe -but let's say No. Also, when the site plan is reviewed at pre-PRC everyone remember to check the WPC ord. 'camse landscaping and setbacks etc. maybe differnt because they dedicated property. »> Joey Dunn 04/01/96 04:57pm »> Jane, I got a call from Greg T. about the rear bldg. line as shown on the recently-approved plat. The plat shows a rear bldg. line placed 15' in from the dedication area. In the process of site design, they discovered that section Fla of the WPC ordinance allows the dedication line to se~:ve as the rear bldg line. I looked it up and conferred that it indeed allows that. Greg wanted you to know that he is removing that bldg. line from the plat, anti for you to let him know if there's a problem with doing that at this stage. CC: skuenzel,nmanhart,svolk ~,~. - ~ ~ ~~ ~:~ Ty ~ ;~ ~- ~ l ~-~`~. ~ ~ ~ / _ f~% oai23i96 16:41 4409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS ~ 001 ~::k :k -k :k :k :k ,k * :k :k :k %k ~ k >k ac :k :k :k :k * ~ :k :k sY. ~ :k:k:k ACTIVITI' REPORT *~:k :k:k;k%k:k~k:k~k~%k:k~:k:k%k:k~:k:k~k~~Y%k:k~k*%k TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 5681 CONNECTION TEL 17139659345pp161 CONNECTION ID START TIDIE 04/23 16:40 USAGE TIME 01'27 PAGES 1 RESULT OK From: Edwin Hard To: SVOLK, VMORGAN, JKEE, SHOMEYER Date: 4/12/96 4:37pm Subject: Heyne's Lecour After the predevelopment meeting with Heyne on Tues(?), I followed up with him on the cpaestions he had about his driveways. Kent and I have reached consensus on the following: The driveway on Kyle nearest SH 30 will not be allowed. Heyne asked if wie would consider a right-in right-out at this location. We did and found tlhat it could not work b/c it's too close to the intersection. Access to this site via Kyle can be no closer than as shown - approx 300 feet. This space is needed to design for proper left turns on 30 and into his ;site. I also explained to Heyne the reasoning behind why the Taco Bell dive would allowed to relocate on Kyle so close to the intersection. The driveway onto 30 needs to be moved either 50-60' to the east to align opposite the apartment drive or approximatey 120-140 west. This should give him some flexibility in how he'd like to access 30. The current location would be analogue to the Kroger - Commerce Bank Problem. CC: KLAZA, JCALLAWAY Printed by Shirley Volk 5/11/95 3:41pm --------------------------------------- From: Joey Dunn To: Natalie Thomas, Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley Volk Subject: Steve Utley fyi --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====5/04/95==1:39pm== I met with Mr. Utley today regarding the vacant WPC tract north of Holleman and the Lassie St. deadend for an apt. complex. I gave him some details regarding the process, parking w/incentive of creek orientation, landscaping, saturation of market, etc. I told him he needs a predev. mtg. before site plan review. I don't know when Shirley will be in, but I told him to contact her or you, Nat. His #: 214-739-8141 n~k 05/11/95 1~:2~ '$`21~ 369 X130 FIRST WORTHING X001/005 r LRJ 1 .WORTHING COMPA-NX~ TELECOPY COVER LETTER °° ~- 9 T® ~ ~1 ~~ ~,~ ~~~/1r,~. ~/I !llr7~ . Telecopy Number: FROM: =~ Telecopy Number: 214 / 369-4130 Pages INCLUDING Cover Letter* COI~+Il~iENTS *If you do not receive this telecvpy in full, please ca1:1 Vicky Hastad at 214 1 739-814ia 8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 550, LB-6, Dallas, Texas 75231(214) 739-8141 Fax: (214) 369-4130 05/11/95 1~:2~ '~`21~ 369 X130 FIRST WORTHING N~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ Mr. George 8c~ll Texas s-lerttage Reol Estate 4101 Texas Avenue, Suite 8 Bryan. Texas 77802 Fax: A09-849315 Re: Creation of Kyf®Si'rert as it could affect my 8 ocre tract under contract for development pear Mr. Ball: ~ 002/00~ s would ask thrtt you ghre a copy of this writing to the proper person art the City of College Station since I do not know who that tnlght be. This letter is a diary of what has happened since late Monday aH'ernoon. McsY ~• 1995. You know thOt we ore probably thirst to forty-five dvys awary from being obte to close the svrnesl' money contract to sell this tract #o First Y'Jorthing Compony which would conclude o long transacflon s#®rtln fl in December 14Si3. This controct is now in jeopardy os a result of actions contempioted by t>~er City of College Station. The long delay In forging ahead with this project by the purChoser wos due to getting the ~nvnc,rrg In place. Tltis wCS the we~e-k they were ready to move the development Unto a final slugs of closing fibs land purchase, plan approvoi by the Ctly of College Sto'tlon and cortistructlon ~>Ionning schedule. .. There vre certain conclusions I went to mCke of the end of this letter. 1d0 f FOUNrAJNV1EW • SuJ7E 910 r•~ HOUSTi7N.!lTEXAS T7057 • PWONF (113) 783-721Q 05/11/95 14:24 'x`214 369 4130 FIRST WORTHING f~003/005 F'vQ@ 2 Mav ~. ~ 945 Gory Roupe, aflent for Latour Interests, coiled fror'n Lubbock. Wonted me t0 re- offer 2 acres of lard to the buyer of my 8 acres. Mer~tloned the fact that 'the development plat for the Latour tract was floing to be pies®nted to the City Council on May 11, 1995 at the reguior night meeting. Toid m®of a proposed rlght~f-way Included in their plat which dead ends at the northwest corner of rrsy property, He thought he had sent me a plat but had not. G. Asked how the proposed right-of-way wos projected south 'throul?h ntiY property to intersect Holleman. A. Fie did not know, Geor~pe Boll, my .broker, called minutes toter to inform me that the broker represen#lnp the buyer, under eontract to purchase my properly, hvd been odvlsod that a development plat showing a new street r~ht-of-way hoCl been brought to his attention while visiting the City of College Station offices where he woo moking orrongements for a meeting for his Client, First Worthing Compony, with the Clay PlanNnq Deportment. fie plat was scheduled on the oger'-da for May 11 of the City Council. Mr® Cailohan, broker for Frst Worthing, asked what the alignment ml~~ht be crossing the Noonon property? He wvs told either due scxsth or 'S curve the street to connect to the Lassie lane right-of-way. He knevrr this would bodly offect the proposed land plan. Georfle gall faxed me o copy of the plot. He also informed me that Mr. Utley, Rrst WAAo~~rthing, were scheduled to meet with the Plonnlnp Department of the City on W~Yne~Qye May 10, 1997, f osked Mr. Ball to be present at thot meefinp orx! to represent m®. He dkl. Mr. Ball tolled me with o negative :report, on the rneetlnp, stcsNnp thvt the City Plcnners would not or could not answer #1ae question of how such cright-Hof-woy would lmpcct my properly or the development plan of the buyer. t ~: - . 05/11/95 14:25 $214 369 4130 FIRST WORTHING X004/006 Page 3 This was embarrvssing to the buyer and his investors. The buyers stated to Ball that since I had not commuNcoted a right-of-way taklnQ information os is required in the eames't money contract, that if such v tcking occurred, l would be 1loble for their Bost to-date and the contract would be cancelled. From late In the afternoon on lu+ay 8th, the 9th, and 1 Qth, I was in o posture of trying t0 end out the #acts. C1) I wos never notlfled by the C:iiy of College Stotlon that such a plan to Create Kyle Avenue wos being considered. 1, as o land owner. hod a right' to knOrrr- a~'tid ®xpress ®n opinion. ~) The cantr®ct to sell my tract of Icnd for development occuRed M+orch 7, I99A. We hod, my troet surveyed and found where the Cfty of C:ollepe Station had converted, stole, seized Cwhotever word You want to use), a portion of my fond over two C2) years ago without my knowtedg+a for o sewer line coMdor. This violated the State statute. i need to address thE~ issue and other matters with various deportmerits of fhe City in the future. I informed the CHy of th® proposed development intended by the buyers of my lond. I even gave them a copy of the pre~minory deveivolnd the plan, fie CHy did have knowledge of th® contract to sell the properly proposed plan. We had to make certain the utitil9es were avolioble and there was odequate avrfoce drolna8e. The City did have knowledg® of the project. Since we hwe paid probably S30p,0001n property Loxes under my ownership over the years, I am now and have been the owner of record, I was not a person that Could not be IOCCated or corttocted. Why was there no Hulks or comrnun~ication from the Ctt~r of College Station on this mattert We should really be on ttv~ same teartl. I Bke to look upon a plonnirlg board and a city In which I hove on inveshnent in real estate as portners of sorts in which we work together to grow the anaa in a proper manner, to satisfy the housing needs of the area and provide a good Investment for our partners. tt cn should work together. Whet hoe hoppened here Is d complet® disruption of thv process and could cruse v large t[noncioll bss to all pflrties. lnciudir-g the C>sy of College S`totion. Bused on the outcomes Of this matter will determine whet k~es moy occur and who wiR utttrnately be responsible for this disruptbn and financial disaster. We hove rot been treated properly as of this wrtttng. We need to resolve the issue of tt~ls right-of-way immediately. 05/11/95 1;25 $21~ 369 X130 FIRST WORTIiING ~ 005/006 Page 4 Some inforrnution 1 hav® received seems shange, and t hope the infortncrtion is correct. A. That the biggest benefactor of a raw sheet would be the Dote Interest who hove 1ltttle frontage and v great deal of depth, the property to tfie crest of the La~cour tract fronting on Hervey Road end, of course, the Latour tract since the arrangement proposed by the City is qutFe good for them. This is whQi' I havo been told: o Lacoupr psel/l~s/t~he~rri/g~1h~~_tyo7 f-~voy fronn Harvey to Wolf Pere Creek and pays br the Street !!~ ~„ YV's~• a° The City builds the bridge over Wolf Pen Creek at their experue and t =uag®st S 1001J00 to S 135,000. LOCOUr gives the rl~ht-of-woy south Of Wolf Pen Creek and ttw~ C1ty constructs the road at their expense. This gives access to Latour fond south of Wolf Pen Creek which iii ku~d- bcked now cnd makes it saleable at a current mvrket price. lhvt's a~ good deal for them but at a great expense to the City of College Station and the taxpayers. The other two fond owners get the use of the t~ridge and pay nothing for the benefits. If oD thEs b true, t wonder what great benefits might be avcllabie to me and my investors. We don't need a new streert or a bridge over Wolf Pen Creek however. B. the proposed street is shown os 70' on the plat. Lassie Lone has a 50' tight~f~vay. Holleman has o 60° right-of-way. • Why would c simple cross streefi be 70'? If the City takes 70' Off Ot our west :, ~~ ~, ~- :, ~ line, tt could taus®a problem fn development due to set-bac:k line requirements and affect the parking relic. If v project such as Is pro~poaed an our tract is not built, the City of College Station will lose future tax revenues that would be generated from the new improvements. To dL*turb the present proposed use means everyone loses. ~:•~k ~~~,. , I would also question why the right~f-way was not equoify token from all -~ property owners rather than just two to lessen the impact? Nona of this racily snakes trafflc flow or economic sense. ~:; i would qu®stton th® procedures and leade~p of the Planning DeparfiTecant for having done such a shallow investlgatton of this proposed new street proposal as 05/11195 14:26 $214 369 4130 FIRST WORTHING 1~j006/006 ~P®ge S to posstbte impost, The same >s true in b®Irp suro oli bnd owners righil~ were protected. QueStiOr~s 1. It the City of College Station pursues this street project and odlveraely effects the proposed project on my toad, are they willing to otter the set bock distcnces and perking ,r+otloa to occornmodate the project gas now planned? 2. PurChCSe the right~f--way end pay for the construction of the sheet? 3. We need an answer of where such a proposed riQht~fJwvy is to be k~cvted? How does the City expect to work out any p~obiem concerned with our trot[ ff they really don`t know where ®d~ht-of-woy to to be located. That's realty unfoir to the lord owner. I r®comrlnend and request #hot th® Ciiy Council should delete the prop~osol to opprove the Locour plot with the Kyle Sheet project from the vgenda scheduled for the Council tonight ur~tll such time as ail property awnara con mo®t and discuss th[s mutter with the CJty of College Station. i plan to be In attendance crt the council meeting tonight but will conflrm~ this by tei®phone fate this afternoon. Best regards, _-.. ~ ~` J. Ce ~V\/~ nin, 1~~ JCtvecoj ~' G~/N~FGG~.DlU~1 ~ G~,~/Cl~,t/ E..~ ZEI~~ ~1,CE~7it/' Tr~E~ G~,~/,~1L C/l~G~GG~'GEG~"G~~G~t/N~tl~/,~lit/O. ~/~ ~Z1~ ~juD>' C/1~(//~~ ~'r~l/ivy' Corvo~r/O.u~• ~CC~/C,~7•~/~ ~Gora~ ,GrlJJ/v° .~ ~~,/,~!T/Drt/ = 2~ Goo ~v~ :~'~~ . P®st-i#® Fax I~1ote 7671 Date pa°ges® / To ° From ~' Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # ~ d~ ~.~ J~~ ~,~~OG/O ''%GG~, GTO ~. ,O~GE /G1~` Vf ~~E~ ~~ ~~®~ ~®®®®® ~~t~~, r~ ~~~ ' ~ ~[ A~ ~ ,.. ,~ . ©~ Gt ~ 3 ~~1 ~~'`~' Cam.. - -----__ ' -• :-~-r:~-. ~fLJNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP (i(w ~~- _ - f~~"-, _ 203 HOL.LEMAN DRIVE F.A~T ' COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 __._____ _ -- _ _ ;~ `.- (409)693-5359 GGCe~.~~~~;~Q ~tt~.~ P~~~ Engtinee~rng Plari~ning Surveyi~n.g ~'~~`'`~~~"Bl , ~~~~~ -~ 11AAT[ and E~ ~iON y V a .~, // ~" 7 ~ -- ;~ /6 , r~~ ,. p ~ i __ rat- :,~_,, ~ A <s~ ~a ~ i ~.. j ~~ r,_ ~:~ ~.r~ , ~ ~ ~~ - T ,.~ ~~ ~ J ~~ = ~' ~ ~ ~x w f ~ P / J/ ~ `~ r o 6 d " ~ ~ ~9 i ~ r ,~ ~ ~ ~t~ _ ~> r `'~ ~' ~ ~ p~ ~{` ~~ r f -. / ~ ~~ ~F ~t .x ~~ ~ i ~ -~ r f o ~ (~ ,_ ~~ ~~r~ _,, ~~ a ~- P _ ' - e -Y"7il. v. aG i °.( ,~~j '~>~a , v' , rl-,, a J rd~~R`jN„_ _ ~~ / jq ~ .FJ'-5"L^: G~ . ... ~. ,, i ! . i ,' ; u y( ~ V ~% ~ ~~ r ~,~ Fr NP ~ ~" 'C ~ t ~~~ N f ~ ~ ' .' _ 4/~vL ~ idl.S I s,~r`Ii~ R~,~ fS.~ v a{ - ~ 4.. r .~, ~ .. .. .fir ... _. Printed by Shirley Volk 4/10/95 1:20pm From: Shirley Volk To: Jane Kee Subject: fwd: Lacour ===NOTE====------=====4/10/95=11:37am=====__________________________________ I hated to write that word! I was afraid you wouldn't read this!!. Anyway, I am just reading the PRC report, and noticed that Taco Bell will be responsible for putting in some underground conduit when the pole is taken down for one of the required easements! I called Don Lusk about this and he verified it, and said he had talked with the credit union people (Jack Cumpton, etc.) several times about this, so "they" are aware of it. I asked him if he had talked to anyone from Taco Bell about it and he said he had not! This thing goes from bad to worse! Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======4/10/95=12:31pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk I~would•say•that•if.the pole is~being.removed•far•easements•required~for•the Credit Union then they should pay for it. Even if the easement is for the cross drive for Taco Bell so that we get the curb cut closed - it's the Credit Union wanting all this. It's the same as the "who pays for the closing" question. We don't care, but someone will have to and they'll have to work it out or NO ONE DOES ANYTHING. By the way I was up in Cathy's office Fri about 4. She was working on this dev. agreemnt. She said she's not worried if Taco Bell won't sign. Once we provide for that cross access through the bank tract she feels we can go in and force the clasing because of safety reasons and the fact that a 2nd access will then be provided. T Printed by Shirley Volk 3/30/95 1:10pm --------------------------------------- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: LaCour --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====3/30/95=11:16am== CC: Legal Temp ....................................... Mr. Robert LaCour just called and told me 3 things:. 1. the offer to dedicate the 7.333 acre tract refers only to that portion of the tract that falls. within the flood plain--whatever that acreage amount is. The offer is not to dedicate all of the tract. 2. he is assuming that with respect to the .558 acre tract that the City would agree to the same terms as originally discussed: namely that the City would pay for the costs to pave it and construct any drainage improvements. I went ahead and told him that this was my understanding as well--but only with respect to that tract. 3. He is going to fax my latest letter to all the interested parties and add on that he clarified the offer with respect to the 7.333 acre tract. That is all--for now. o~n~. ~ Printed by Shirley Volk 3/22/95 3:56pm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: LaCour ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====3/22/95==3:54pm=====________=_________________________ CC: Legal Temp T. Robert has called me thrice today (I really want to thank "ya-all" for giving me this project). The first phone call was to acknowledge Roup's fax: let us know that he didn't object to any of the changes requested by Roup. However, he was not pushing them necessarily either. Actually, the only ones that he was interested in and would "request" or '°prefer" were items 6,7, and 10 on Roup's fax. Translated, this means that he would like a statement in paragraph 6, saying that taxes will be paid out of the sale proceeds. I asked him if they were really going to have sufficient funds after closing to pay off the $274,000 some that is owed. He told me that yes, certainly, they would. In paragraph 7, he would again "request" that the City agree not to waive all future assessments against the property for everything. Same thing with paragraph 10: he is "requesting" that we waive all costs of the development agreement. In general, I got the sense that he knows that he doesn't have much bargaining position and he will accept whatever we put our collective feet down on. I don't have a problem with adding a "proceeds" clause to paragraph 6, in fact it would probably be better for the City. As for the rest: that is up to you. I did take the opportunity to tell him that Roup was probably not his best negotiator right now in that he had burned more than a few bridges with his harassment of City staff.. He didn't argue the .point. His second call, then, was to ask me to tell Shirley that it was ok for her to talk to Roup. That is, LaCour is authorizing it. I again reminded him that Roup may not be helping his cause any at this point, but said that I would nonetheless pass along that authorization. His second concern was when this was going to council. He said that the closing on the property was scheduled for the end 'of this month and that they need the plat in order to close. In his 3rd call, he asked whether we had to have the development agreement in place as a condition to approving the plat, I said I wasn°t sure, but that I thought so. That is all for now, I am coming down to talk with you all. Dano• ~ Printed by Shirley Volk 3/21/95 4:33pm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: Lacour ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====3/21/95==3:58pm=====__________________________________ CC: Legal Temp ............................................................................ The following are the issues that I discussed yesterday with T. Robert Lacour regarding the proposed development agreement. 1. The correct name of the developer is "Lacour Investments, a Louisiana Limited Partnership". I don't think that this is a controversial change--or at least I don't have any objection to it. 2. Mr. Lacour said that he felt that the verbs "grant" and "convey" in paragraphs 2 and 5 would be better if they were "dedicate". Again, I don't have any objection to this either. 3. He wanted to know what the agreement was in paragraph 7 regarding subsurface improvements for the right-of-way (sewers and drainage). I said I didn't know what my client wanted with regard to that, and we would have to get back to him. 4. In paragraph 9, he said that he would prefer that the specific citation to the City Ordinance No. 1638, subsections 7.21D & E be changed to "all applicable city ordinances and laws." His explanation was that the specific citation references could well change over time. I said that conceptually, I didn't see this as a problem. My preference would be to word it as "all applicable laws and City ordinances, including without limitation the dedication and development requirements for drainage and pedestrian access in the City's Zoning Ordinance." 5. In paragraph 10, Mr. Lacour wanted to know how much the costs of preparation would be. He would prefer to put a number in the agreement or at least a cap: they cannot exceed X amount, e.g. I don't have a problem with this, but we are going to have to come up with some number. How much have we charged in the past for development agreements? 6. In paragraphs 1? & 18, Lacour would like to add the Buyer so that they are also responsible for indemnification for anything arising out of lot 1 (the 4.339 acres). I don't object to this at all: the more parties that we can get to indemnify the City, the better. We will probably want to word it so that the Buyer's indemnity dates from the date of the sale of the property. More problematic is that the Buyer may not want to agree to this, and I don't necessarily want to do the sale negotiating for Lacour. 7. Finally, Lacour requested that we insert somewhere a termination clause that terminates the effectiveness of the agreement in the event that the sale does not close: that is, make the agreement conditional upon closing of the sale. I don't necessarily have a problem with this either, except that I would prefer that the City's release and indemnity provisions remain effective, the rest of it can be worded to automatically terminate if this is ok with you guys. I just read and re-read Roup's fax. It is not at all consistent with either the content or tone of my conversation with Lacour. We need to tell Roup to go find a deep hole and throw himself in it. Once you've had a chance to review the above and decide what, if any, changes you are willing to agree to, please let me know so that I can make those changes and fax it on to Lacour. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pa~a~ 1 Printed by Shirley Volk 3/21/95 4:35pm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Volk To: Jane Kee, Pete Shively, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: Lacour Development Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====3/21/95=11:Olam=====________________=_________________ I received a fax from Gary Roup this morning. It has some (more) proposed changes to the Development Agreement to make it acceptable to the owner. Apparently Mr. Lacour spoke with Pete yesterday and made some proposed changes to him. I'll get you a copy of the fax I received. Then I guess we need to talk! Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======3/21/95==2:07pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk ............................................................................ I have a call in to Pete. He better not be making any changes to the Dev. Agreement. We'll take it as proposed and will forward comments from the developer on to CC and they can decide between the two. Lacour better be prepared with some cost estimates to convince CC why we should buy ROW from the bank and not get it dedicated just like the remainder. We can't help it that they illegally subdivided and neglected to include street ROW or WPC property in their negotiated price. We ought to just stop the whole thing and not approve the plat. Let Lacour sue us and let the Credit Union sue LaCOUr. Page: 1 ./°`~ REQUEST FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE (Research ^ REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE SUBMITTED BY Advice ^ ~ ~. ~ i~rdinance DATE: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DEADLINE AND EXPLANATION THEREOF: EXECUTIVE MEMBER APPROVAL: EXPLANATION OF F EXPLANATION OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ISSUES: (STAFF GOAL ON THIS REQUEST: SUPPORTING DOCU 1. 2. 3. js/c/formslarsist 04/11/94 ATION: 'Wntmg ^ Contract 'Writing ~ laroperty ~Acquisition~ I'_itigatioN IRotential (Litigation ^ Printed by Shirley Volk 2/07/95 8:51am From: Shirley Volk To: Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: LaCour Plat ===NOTE====----=-=====2/06/95==2:32pm=====______________°______=____________ Robert Todd just called and said the credit union probably will not want to build on the WPC land because of the imposition of the dedication of the row for the street (extension of S Kyle). He recalls a meeting with staff at which time staff talked about a possible future extension of a street in that location, but with the understanding (at least on their part) that the location would be identified and value of the property would be determined with a purchase of the row to follow. I don't remember being in a meeting with that particular conversation - all I remember is that they were urged to work with Taco Bell to get the existing drive to that business closed, so the 2 businesses could share a drive which would be directly in line with the existing street & traffic signal at S Kyle & Harvey.. He says this will undoubtedly cause the project to be scrapped. This is FYI. I forgot to cc Elrey on this. Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======2/06/95==4:03pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Jim Callaway, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................. Just got off the phone with Greg Taggart. His ? was whether we could delay the ROW dedication from the bank until after the plat has been filed.. I told him as part of the Dev. Agremnt. we could probably put a time frame (6 months after plat is filed) on the bank to dedicate. The problem is the stockholders have ok'd buying a certain amount of land for a certain price. Apparently AFTER the sale has taken place the bank can go ahead and dedicate the additional land for ROW. I guess maybe the stockholders don't know then, I don't know! Anyway it sounds to me like the project is still a go. Shirley, I don't remember any mtg. like the one Robert is referring to either. So as far as I know all our conditions are still on the table. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=2/06/95==5;14pm=______________________________________ Fwd to: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk ............................................................................ ok, guys i hope I'm just in the loop and don't have to do anything with this mess at the present!!!!! pane 1 G~ oy ~i~ ~- yam.- ~ ~ ~...~.,e;i _ _. ,, ----~~ ~~ ~~ ~,o G ~~ / J ~° /, /,%~ ~ ~~ ~- ~~~-e Printed by Shirley Volk 5/10/95 --------------------------------------- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: LaCour Dev. Agreement ===NOTE====------=====5/02/95=11:41am== CC: Legal Temp Development Agreement Costs: I have asked Regina to add up my LaCour hours and give me a total times my billable rate. I will forward this information to you as soon as possible. Billing procedure for costs: Rox tells me that the entire concept of recovering these costs is relatively recent. She advises me that two years ago or so she suggested an initial $500.00 deposit and payment of additional costs as you go--on a monthly basis at least. More recently, on Begonia, she spoke with Veronica and suggested that Planning, as the administrator of these agreements, develop a procedure with accounting for the production of bills to developers. With respect to this specific development agreement, I agree that in light of the work and the information that the Buyer still might back out, it is totally appropriate to inform the developer that the costs to date are X and that we are not going to put this matter on the Council°s agenda until Developer deposits his share of X with the City. LaCour's revised form: attached hereto is the latest revision to the development agreement (draft no. 6). This draft excludes Austaco and changes many of the land/lot references. I will not be sending it out to LaCour until we confirm that the City can force Austaco to close the curb cut (see other e-mail of this date to Jane and Connie). In the meantime, please review the attached for substance and typos and let me know of any corrections or revisions that you see a need for. Thanks muchly. --------------------------------------- __-__=====ATTACHED=FILE(S)_____________ File(s): LACOUR6.DOC Detach to:C:\WINDOWS 3:55pm ~,~ c~_..._ ~ ~,; i~ f , <' ~ t ~ 1 ~~~ Donn . 1 Printed by Jane-Kee 5/16/95 9:43am From: Pete Shively To: Connie Hooks, ,Jane Kee Subject: LaCour - Taco Bell curb cut --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====5/16/95==9:42am== Yesterday, between misinterpreting the Voting Rights Act, I listened to the audio tape of the City Council's Workshop meeting from 2/22/84, which is the meeting that Connie identified as having something to do with that curb cut. On item 2 on the agenda, the CIP report, there was considerable discussion about the plans to install protected left turn lane from eastbound Harvey road into northbound Kyle South Street. Much of this discussion involved the objections to such a proposal that were brought by the owner of the Taco Bell site. The tape is very difficult to hear--I had to turn the volume on my box all the way up and even then I could barely make out what people were saying (Is it like this on all tapes?). From what I could make out, it sounded as though the site plan for the Taco Bell site had already been done--in fact the restuarant may have already been in use. Various members of ,the council suggested that he "re-do" his site plan and there was discussion about how this would affect his drive thru. In the end, however, the Council voted to approve the submission to the Dept of Transportation of a plan to install a left turn lane with a median divider. As to the effect on Taco Bell, they putted. It sounds like we may want to do some paper searching through planning's records, if available, and attempt to determine when and how the site plan (with the curb cuts) was approved. Elrey was at the workshop meeting and spoke about the curb cuts. Perhaps, he has some recollection of how much earlier the site plan had been reviewed and how it was approved. --------------------------------------- Paae: 1 March 24, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Shivley FROM: Jane Kee RE: LaCour Development Agreement In general the development agreement has three major areas where there is not consensus (if we use INIr. Roup's FAQ: 1. KYLE ROW DEDICATION -Staff recommends that ALL the Kyle ROW be dedicated. There is no problem with delaying the dedication of the portion through the Bank until a later date. This is how the current development agreement reads. 2. TACO BELL ACCESS LOCATION Staff would not recommend that the Bank (Buyer) be given control over the Taco Bell access location. City has driveway access ordinance that should be used to determine this location for safety reasons. 3. FUTURE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS -Staff recommends that future maintenance or reconstruction costs related to Kyle be assessed as in any other similar situation. In general the following are areas of agreement between stiff and Mr. T Robert LaCour and Mr. Roup 1. CAP ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COSTS -Stiff has no problem with-this and will determine an amount. Staff recommends that developer pay one half the costs-and applicant needs to understand that development agreement will not be filed (thus plat. will not be filed) until development agreement costs are paid. To date we have received no monies. 2. OTHER MINOR WORD CHANGES AND ITEMS AS NOTED ON THE COPIES OF THE EMAIL NOTES ATTACHED. ~$ 806 792 6160 P. D. 1. 03~21~96 10:32 PO1 parch 21, 1995 Shirley Yolk City of College Station Fax 409-764-3496 Re: Proposed changco to College Station draft nevelopment agreement Dear Shirley, I believe these changes vill be necessary for our deal to proceed smo+othly. Th® changes addrosa too areas. First, the Bank must control the future ~® ~xyle right of vay, until the city is ready to commence construction. Second, the city should pay for the Kyle right of vay fronting on Harvey road, from the east line of the right of vay to the property line with TdCO Bell. I baliova these changQS and those Pete Shively discussed vith T. Robert t,acour yesterday gill make the agreement acceptable to all parties. Y have not spoken with the banks architect, or attorney. They may have additional comments. Para 1. Accepted .Para 2. Remove Developers add, over Buyers access when improved by buyers nt a location acceptable to Buyer. Para 3. Accepted Para d. Acid, once Buyers acces8 is developed. Fora 5. Replace with- Boyar agrees upon cities readiness to commence construction of the Kyle Road kxtension to sell the property, from ~~(( the east line uL tltrs Ryle Road right of vay vest to the proporty lime 9~'~ vith Auotaco, to the city for the appraised value of land and improvements. C~ era 6. Taxes xill be paid by Developer out of proceeds from the sal+e o th property. rr AA Para 7 Delete the second sentenca.C,ht•~ 1U~t~~~• ~~~ 6' ~ Para 9. Refer to phvtte conversation betven fi. Robert Lacour and Pete ghively(for City of College Station) March 20 1995 phone conversation. Para 10 The city ayrEes to naive nll costo of preparing the development reeme t not approvod by the Developer. The remainder of the development sgreetaent to be amender] as pet phone conversation between T. Robert Lacour and Pete Shively on tiai~ch 20~ 1995. Pleaao let me sae a reviRPd agreement if one is ready this afternoor-. Sincerely, 1 ~~~ ~~~~` Gary [coup Broker Phone 806-792-5131 Fax 806-?9~-516U vPrintecl by Jane Kee 3/23/95 10:18am From: Pete Shively To: ,lane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: LaCour --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====3/22/95==3:54pm== CC: Legal Temp ....................................... T. Robert has called me thrice today (I really want to thank "ya-all" for giving me this project). The first phone call was to acknowledge Roup's fax: let us know that he didn't object to any of the chances y Roup: However, he was not ushin the necessaries ei e Actually, the only on~hab a was interested in and vtqu~~d "re st" or "prefer" were items (" 6r~`7,~ and 10 n Roup' s fax. Translated, `th'is means that he woul ike a Q statement in paragraph 6 saying that ~/ ,J( taxes will be paid out f the sale proceeds. I asked him if they were h Q really going to have sufficient funds / ~•`~ after closing to pay off the $274,000 ~ (~l~' some that is owed. He told me that yes, cert y, they would. In paragrap T he would again "request'° /°~~j ~C that the ty agree not to waive all ~,,,~/ ~/~' future assessments against the property (J"'~ ~ a for everyth' Same thing with ~~,1 paragraph 0• he is "requesting" that ~}~" we waive .costs of the development agreement. In general, I got the sense that he knows that he doesn't have much bargaining position and he will accept whatever we put our collective feet down on. I don't have a problem with adding a "proceeds" clause to paragraph 6, in fact it would probably be better for the City. As for the rest: that is up to you. I did take the opportunity to tell him that Roup was probably not his best negotiator right now in that he had burned more than a few bridges with his harassment of City staff. He didn't argue the point. His second call, then, was to ask me to tell Shirley that it was ok for her to talk to Roup. That is, LaCour is authorizing it. I again reminded him that Roup may not be helping his cause any at this point, but said that I would nonetheless pass along that authorization. His second concern was when this was going to council. He said that the closing on the property was scheduled for the end of this month and that they need the plat in order to close. In his 3rd call, he asked whether we had to have the development agreement in place as a condition tom` approving the plat, I said I wasn't l sure, but that I thought so. ry~1- .~ rA ~~~Fv l ~~d~~ al~i~'~~'li~" ~ ,~~~` ~G a~ I~ Dano• 1 "Printed by Jane Kee 3/23/95 10:18am That is all for now, I am coming down to talk with you all. Pa~e_ Printed by Jane Kee 3/21/95 4:lOpm From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: Lacour ===NOTE====------=====3/21/95==3:58pm== CC: Legal Temp ....................................... The following are the issues that I discussed yesterday with T. Robert Lacour regarding the proposed development agreement. 1. The correct name of the developer is "Lacour Investments, a Louisiana Limited Partnership". I don't think that this is a controversial change--or at least I don't have any objection to it. 2. Mr. Lacour said that he felt that the verbs "grant" and "convey" in paragraphs 2 and 5 would be better if they were "dedicate". Again, I don't have any objection to this either. 3. He wanted to know what the agreement was in paragraph 7 regarding tn.-' subsurface improvements for the ~Q "~'~ rt right-of-way (sewers and drainage) . I ~ w.L~ ~'!~!' l~rt Q.~.~/ ~'~ said I didn't know what my client ~ I wanted with regard to that, and we would have to get back to him. 4. In paragraph 9, he said that he would prefer that the specific citation to the City Ordinance No. 1638, subsections 7.21D & E be changed to "all applicable city ordinances and laws." His explanation was that the specific citation references could well change over time. I said that conceptually, I didn't see this as a problem. My preference would be to word it as "all applicable laws and O`,~j City ordinances, including without limitation the dedication and development requirements for drainage and pedestrian access in the City's Zoning Ordinance." 5. In paragraph 10, Mr. Lacour wanted to know how much the costs of preparation would be. He would prefer to put a number in the agreement or at ~ ~ ~Pw „ ~ least a cap: they cannot exceed X 0~ (~~ ~""`'^~ amount, e.g. I don't have a problem with this, but we are going to have to come up with some number. How much have we charged in the past for development agreements? 6. In paragraphs 17 & 18, Lacour would like to add the Buyer so that / they are also responsible for indemnification for anything arising out of lot 1 (the 4.339 acres). I don't object to this at all: the more parties that we can get to indemnify the City, the better. We will probably Pacse: 1 Printe'a by Jane Kee 3/21/95 4:lOpm want to word it so that the Buyer's indemnity dates from the date of the sale of the property. More problematic is that the Buyer may not want to agree to this, and I don't necessarily want to do the sale negotiating for LaCour. 7. Finally, LaCour requested that we insert somewhere a termination clause that terminates the effectiveness of the agreement in the event that the sale does not close: that is, make the agreement conditional upon closing of (~ the sale. I don't necessarily have a v problem with this either, except that I would prefer that the City's release and indemnity provisions remain effective, the rest of it can be worded to automatically terminate if this is ok with you guys. I just read and re-read Roup's fax. It is not at all consistent with ether the content or tone of my conversation with LaCour. We need to tell Roup to go find a deep hole and throw himself in it. Once you've had a chance to review the above and decide what, if any, changes you are willing to agree to, please let me know so that I can make those changes and fax it on to LaCour. n~~~m ~ From: Pete Shively To: CLOCKS Date: 10/18/9.5 10:02am Subject: LaCour Tract in the Wolf Pen Creek District 10/1!3/95 10:00 am Cathy, remember this tract? It was the one owned by the LaCour clan .from Louisiania that they attempted to sell to an S & L last year but couldn't manage to work out the details--including paying the hefty back taxes and complying with the terms of .a development agreement that we worked out. In any event, the property never sold, the development agreement was never consumated, and the LaCours currently have another potential buyer "on the hook." In the meantime,. Planning has determined that this tract would be a good one to acquire as part of a project to build a pond/hake to retain water and silt in an effort to keep the ampitheate:r lake/pond from re-silting. Veronica, Jane, and Shirley called yesterday and alerted me to the fact that on one hand they were working with the potential buyer for the tract and on the other hand, they wanted to acquire the same tract for the City. I asked if they wanted to condemn the property and they didn't know--they just want to find out how and whether they could acquire it most inexpensively and efficiently (I assume). I asked them to proceed to do a RFLA, which should appear shortly, and I told them that I would alert you to what they were contemplating. That is all. CC: VMORGAN, JKEE, SVOLK • CITY flF C(~LLECiE ~TATi4I~I LEGAL DEPARTMENT ® POST OFFICE BOX 9960 7101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, City Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator FROM: Pete Shively, Assistant City Attorney RE: LaCour Development Agreement DATE: March 14, 4995 COPY TO: Jim Callaway Attached hereto is a draft copy of the Development Agreement that you requested in your R. F. L.A. dated February 21, .1995. Please note the following issues and terms: We need to find out what state(s) Austaco, lnc. and LaCour Investments, Inc. mot,, ~-° ~~--~e incorporated in. c~. ~ =2. We need to confirm that Austaco, lnc. is still the record owner of the adjacent } commercial property. ,, n ~. 3. Pursuant to `sion yesterday, I have omitted any reference to who will pay fort a deco struction Taco Bell's existing curb cut and drive and who .will pay for the cons a new 30' wide drive from Taco Bell's property .through the lot to be purchased by Texas Aggie Credit Union. As you suggested, I think tha# it .would be advisable for the parties to work that out themselves. 4. In drafting the agreemen#, 1 have made. certain assumptions about the time limits and in some cases even the exact terms that you may want. For example, assumed that you wanted to waive only the assessments for initial street construction of Kyle South, not subsequent maintenance assessments or' other assessments such as sidewalks. In any event, these and other assumptions should be reviewed to insure that this is what you really want. PS103/14i95 Memo to Jane Kee, March 14, 1995 Page 2 Veronica Morgan, and Shirley Volk S.~~We need to verify the legal street name of Kyle South: is it "Kyle South treet" or "South Kyle Street"? y 6. In the bold-face release provision, i have worded it so that all three other parties, LaCour, Austaco, and the Credit Union, will release the City. Iln the indemnity section, however, I have only .required that LaCour indemnify thE; City. I figured that LaCour was the party."most" in interest--particularly with respect to the taxes and the future .Wolf Pen Creek dedication requirements. Nonetheless, this indemnity is only as good as the financial wherewithal of LaCour, which if it is just coming out of bankruptcy may not be all that great. Also, and with rE;spect to the release, I would anticipate "hearing" some flak from Austaco and the Credit Union about having to release the City. In light of the potential for litigation and confusion regarding Taco Bell's access easement, 1 don't believe that requesting them to release the City from any potential claim is unreasonable. Undoubtedly their counsel will think otherwise. 7. Shirley, you were correct when you. wrote in the R. F.L.A. form that LaCour's letter regarding the back taxes "is difficult to understand." I suspect that this difficulty was not unintentional on LaCour's part. He refers at one point to payment of aN current taxes {right .after saying that the sale will "pay off all outstanding obligations"). The. use of "current" could mean that he only intends to pay the taxes for the current year out of the sale proceeds and not the back taxes as well: Regardless of what the court-ordered plan or LaCour says, I think that we would be better off to just dictate that he pay off all the #axes (current and prior years) out of the sale proceeds. {1 suspect that this will be required as a condition of closing by the buyer anyway). This is what I have done in the draft of the Development Agreement: he has to provide certificates showinig that the taxes are paid within 7 days of the sale or within 12 months of plat ap~~roval, whichever occurs firs#. However, this provision is another one that the three of you may--or may not--wish to refine, negotiate, or just change. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please just let me know. cc: Jeff Kersten PS103/14~35 March 24, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Sluvley FROM: Jan ee RE: LaCo e opment Agreement In general the development agreement has three major areas where there is not consensus (if we use Mr. Roup's FA3~: 1. KYLE ROW DEDICATION -Staff recommends that ALL the Kyle ROW be dedicated. There is no problem with delaying the dedication of the portion through the Bank until a later dates This is lhow the current development agreement reads. 2. TACO BELL ACCESS LOCATION Staff would not recommend that the Bank (Buyer) be given control over the Taco Bell access location. City has driveway access ordinance that should be used to determine this location for safety reasons. 3. FLTT[TRE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS -Staff recommends that future maintenance; or reconstruction costs related to Kyle be assessed as in any other similar situation. In general the following are areas of agreement between stiff and Mr. T Robert LaCour and Mr. Roup 1. CAP ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COSTS -Staff has no problem with this and will determine an amount. Staff recommends that developer pay one half the costs and applicant needs to ~~ understand that development agreement will not be filed (thus plat will not be filed) until development ~{ agreement costs are paid. To date we have received no monies. ( 2. OTHER MINOR WORD CHANGES AND ITEMS AS NOTED ON THE COPIES OF THE EMAIL NOTES ATTACHED. °''`~ ~~_~ ~.- ~ ~l( ~ v~~.l_5 C ~ ~i ~ .~ {~L,~~-'U ~~ ~1c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ G~~ (~~ C~ ~~{ I March 24, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Shivley FROM: Jane Kee RE: LaCour Development Agreement In general the development agreement has three major areas where there is not consensus (if we use lv[r. Roup's FAQ: 1. KYLE ROW DEDICATION -Staff recommends that ALL the Kyle ROW be dedicated. There is no problem with delaying the dedication of the portion through the Bank until a later date. This is how the current development agreement reads. 2. TACO BELL ACCESS LOCATION Staff would not recommend that the Bank (Buyer) be given control over the Taco Bell access location. City has driveway access ordinance that should be u:>ed to determine this location for safety reasons. 3. FUTURE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS -Staff recommends that future maintenance: or reconstruction costs related to Kyle be assessed as in any other similar situation. In general the following are areas of agreement between staff and Mr. T Robert LaCour and Mr. Roup 1. CAP ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COSTS -Staff has no problem with this and will determine an amount. Staff recommends that developer pay one half the costs and applicant needs to understand that development agreement will not be filed (thus plat will not be filed) until development agreement costs are paid. To date we have received no monies. 2. OTHER MINOR WORD CHANGES AND ITEMS AS NOTED ON THE COPIES OF THE E-MAIL NOTES ATTACHED. ~~ `; 6 r ~ , ~, , I :~/ ' ~ as ~r6..~~. , r lp~/! r~ a'/~ ae S ' ~ `gg '°~~6 ' ' JI'~" ~; ~ . ~ ~ f ^ V! .~Ys Y...G.. : .. ~ +;..d.~ d. a i ~ ~.g.+~,, f ~ %~ ~~ r ~` "'' ~ 9 ~ f d 4 ~8" 806 792 6160 P. D. (. 03~21~96 10:32 PO1 !larch 21, 1995 Shirley Yolk City of College Station Fax 409-764-349G Re: Proposed changco to College Station draft nevelopment agreement Dear Shirley, I believe these changes will be necessary for our deal to proceed smoothly. Tho changoa addross two arose. First, the Bank must control the future ~® Kyle right of vay, until the city is ready to commence construction. Second, the city should pay for the Kyle right of vay fronting on Ila::vay road, from the east line of the right of vay to the property line vit:h e'„ Tdco Bell. N`° I boliovo those changes and those Pete Shively discussed with T. RobE~rt Lacour yesterday viii make the agreement acceptable to all parties. I hnve not opoken with the banks architect, or attorney. Thcy may have additional comments. Para 1. Accepted .Para 2. Remove Developer, add- over Buyers acceaa when improved by buyers at a location acceptable to Buyer. Para 3, Accepted Para a. Acid, once Buyers acceaa is developed. Fora 5. Replace with- Buyer agrees upon citieR readiness to commence construction of the Kyle Road >;Xtension to sell the property, from ,~ the east line ut tl~e Ryle Road right of vay vest to the property lime "'~ with Auotaco, to the city for the appraised value of land and improvements. /ara 6. Taxes xill be pnid by Developer out of proceeds from the sale o th property. r A Para 7 Delete the accond eenteneo.C-k~.~ ItJ~ta~J~• Qy'~'f~ ~~~ Para 9. Refer to phone converoation betven T. Robert Lacour and Pete ~ Shively for City of College Station) March 20 1995 phone conversation. r - Para 10 The city ayrres to naive all costo of preparing the development teems t not approved by the Developer. The remainder of the development agreement to be amenriet3 as pet phone conversation between T. Robert Lacour and Pete Shively on Mac•ch 20, 1995. Pleaoc let me see a revised agreement if one is ready this afternoon. Sincecly, Gary R®up Broker Phone 806-792-5131 Fax 806-797.-5160 "Printedoby Jane Kee 3/23/95 10:18am fihat is all fog now, I am coming down to talk with you all. ®®_~_~----®~o®®~---------------------- P~ae: ~Printed~by Jane Kee 3/21/95 4:10pm From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: Lacour ===NOTE====------=====3/21/95==3:58pm== CC: Legal Temp ....................................... The following are the issues that I discussed yesterday with T. Robert Lacour regarding the proposed development agreement. 1. The correct name of the developer is "Lacour Investments, a Louisiana Limited Partnership". I don't think that this is a controversial change--or at least I don't have any objection to it. 2. Mr. Lacour said that he felt that the verbs "grant" and "convey" in paragraphs 2 and 5 would be better if they were "dedicate". Again, I don't have any objection to this either. 3. He wanted to know what the agreement was in paragraph 7 regarding subsurface improvements for the ~® ~~' n right-of-way (sewers and drainage). I ~ w.(,~ ~~d/OS-~•+~~n 4~ ~'a said I didn't know what my client ~ t wanted with regard to that, and we would have to get back to him. 4. In paragraph 9, he said that he would prefer that the specific citation to the City Ordinance No. 1638, subsections 7.21D & E be changed to "all applicable city ordinances and laws." His explanation was that the specific citation references could well change over time. I said that conceptually, I didn't see this as a problem. My preference would be to word it as "all applicable laws and O Uj City ordinances, including without limitation the dedication and development requirements for drainage and pedestrian access in the City's Zoning Ordinance." 5. In paragraph 10, Mr. Lacour wanted to know how much the costs of preparation would be. He would prefer to put a number in the agreement or at ~ ~~.,,,,0 least a cap: they cannot exceed X ~~ V~`~' ~`^""' amount, e.g. I don't have a problem with this, but we are going to have to come up with some number. How much have we charged in the past for development agreements? 6. In paragraphs 17 & 18, Lacour would like to add the Buyer so that / they are also responsible for indemnification for anything arising out of lot 1 (the 4.339 acres). I don't object to this at all: the more parties that we can get to indemnify the City, the better. We will probably Uann• 1 ~Printed~by Jane Kee 3/21/95 4:lOpm want to word it so that the Buyer's indemnity dates from the date of the sale of the property, More problematic is that the Buyer may not want to agree to this, and I don't necessarily want to do the sale negotiating for LaCour. ~. Finally, LaCour requested that we insert somewhere a termination clause that terminates the effectiveness of the agreement in the event that the sale does not close: that is, make the agreement conditional upon closing of (~ the sale. I don't necessarily have a v problem with this either, except that I would prefer that the City's release and indemnity provisions remain effective, the rest of it can be worded to automatically terminate if this is ok with you guys. I just read and re-read Roup's fax. It is not at all consistent with either the content or tone of my conversation with LaCour. We need to tell Roup to go find a deep hole and throw himself in it. Once you've had a chance to review the above and decide what, if any, changes you are willing to agree to, please let me know so that I can make those changes and fax it on to LaCour. n7~A: ~ /~ M~~VI~'~P~4L D~Y.~LQR~~~' C~RO ~I' 203 Holleman Drl« East • College $tado~a, Terns 77840.409-693-5359 • F.~lX: d09-693-41a3 Enginxring, Suneymg, P1~aing and Environmental Consultants I March 21, 1995 Natalie Thomas City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: LaCour Subdivision Phase I Ms. Thomas - 4~~~ `' ~~ ~ , ~ ~~v ~, y As we discussed', this is a formal notification that we contemplate no public infrastructure consttucf~on for Phase 1, (as we stated con the face of the plat we submitted ). The Reserve 'tract, which is specifically excluded from inclusion in this phase, wi11 be provided with water~servic~e when it is platted. As you are aware, it already has sewer service. We propose to pro de future water service to the reserve tract by one of two possible routes. Our currently preferre route will extend from the line located on the J.C. Noonan property north across that tract to th south boundary of the reserve tract. The other route will follow the proposed street right-of- ay a:; depicted by the approved preliminary plat. If anyone has any problems with this from regulatory standpoint, I point out that we are not platting the reserve tract now, and any future developer of the reserve tract will have to plat before they develop. It is logical and reasonable that a water line service be extended then at the time of platting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, T art 1~ Gregory agg Yice President lY^i jla=,. 3 ,/ _ e F J~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~~ v ~J 000581-c.05-11(2573) T T POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764.3507 MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, City Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator FROM: Pete Shively, Assistant City RE: DATE: March 16, 1995 COPY TO: Jim Callaway Attached hereto is a revised draft copy of the Development Agreement for LclCour Subdivision, Phase One. I have made the changes that you requsted yesterday. Also attached is the marked up original draft that you left with me yesterday. Please review and let me know if or when additional changes are needed. ®®pp Postpt-it'°routing request pad 7664 6JT1~~ E~C.BE~T Please ^ READ ^ HANDLE ^ APPROVE ana ^ FORWARD ^ RETURN ^ KEEP OR DISCARD ^ REVIEW WITH ME Date To ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- PS10~16~J5 r ~.s From Printed by Jane Kee 3/29/95 1:44pm --------------------------------------- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: LaCour ===NOTE====------=====3/29/95=11:02am== CC: Cathy Locke, Legal Temp T. Robert LaCour called this a.m. and told me that the Credit Union absolutely does not want to give up the ROW area through the tract that they are buying. (You would have thought that this would have been addressed earlier?!!). LaCour's proposition "in lieu" of that is as follows: 1. LaCour would dedicate the .558 acre tract to the City (though if we can't get the ROW through the top half of the tract, I don't know why we would even want the .558 acres: but this is what they are proposing. 2. LaCour would also dedicate the 7.333 acre tract to the City. 3. The credit union would dedicate the .295 acre tract out of the 4.339 acre tract to the City. 4. They would, they think/hope, then be in compliance and would not need a variance or development agreement at all. He says that Roup has faxed a letter to this effect and that he has had some discussions with Jane, who he says, recommended this course of action. As always, I don't care how this works ~ ~ out, but you will have to let me know ~~' what, if anything, is acceptable and if ,~, you still need a development agreement. ~°"° l Have a nice day. ~~ . ®i. q~,/ Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======3/29/95==1:37pm== ~ ~.e' Fwd to: ~= i r~ Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Pete Shively ~ Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee_______________________ Fwd to: Pete Shively ....................................... You like getting blank messages? I've known all along that the bank did not want to dedicate that top portion of Kyle. This has been what LaCour has been trying to get out of all along. They made a deal with the bank before finding out that the Kyle dedication would be an issue if they did not want to meet all of our ordinances. Even if Prinked by Jane Kee 3/29/95 1:44pm they decide now to dedicate the-WPC area, they are stilling asking for 3 other waivers 1. waterline 2. impact studies 3. taxes being paid. Any of these requests will require a development agreement. I say we go with the same one and let Council decide whether to give on the Kyle ROW thru the bank lot. If they choose to give that up then staff would recommend that the City be allowed to assess the bank tract for the-Kyle construction as we would in any similar situation. Page: 2 Printed by Jane Kee 3/29/95 1:44pm --------------------------------------- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: LaCour --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====3/29/95=11:02am== CC: Cathy Locke, Legal Temp ....................................... T. Robert LaCour called this a.m. and told me that the Credit Union absolutely does not want to give up the ROW area through the tract that they are buying. (You would have thought that this would have been addressed earlier?!!). LaCour's proposition "in lieu" of that is as follows: 1. LaCour would dedicate the .558 acre tract to the City (though if we can't get the ROW through the top half of the tract, I don't know why we would even want the .558 acres: but this is what they are proposing. 2. LaCour would also dedicate the 7.333 acre tract to the City. 3. The credit union would dedicate the .295 acre tract out of the 4.339 acre tract to the City. 4. They would, they think/hope, then be in compliance and would not need a variance or development agreement at all. He says that Roup has faxed a letter to this effect and that he has had some discussions with Jane, who he says, recommended this course of action. As always, I don't care how this works out, but you will have to let me know what, if anything, is acceptable and if you still need a development agreement. Have a nice day. Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======3/29/95==1:37pm== Fwd to: Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Pete Shively ....................................... Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee_______________________ Fwd to: Pete Shively ....................................... You like getting blank messages? I've known all along that the bank did not want to dedicate that top portion of Kyle. This has been what LaCour has been trying to get out of all along. They made a deal with the bank before finding out that the Kyle dedication would be an issue if they did not want to meet all of our ordinances. Even if PanP• ~ Printed by Jane Kee 3/29/95 1:44pm they decide now to dedicate the WPC area, they are stilling asking for 3 other waivers - 1. waterline 2. impact studies 3. taxes being paid. Any of these requests will require a development agreement. I say we go with the same one and let Council decide whether to give on the Kyle ROW thru the bank lot. If they choose to give that up then staff would recommend that the City be allowed to assess the bank tract for the Kyle construction as we would in any similar situation. ~~~®® Printed by Jane Kee 3/30/95 1:29pm From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: LaCour ===NOTE====------=====3/30/95=11:16am== CC: Legal Temp ....................................... Mr. Robert LaCour just called and told me 3 things: 1. the offer to dedicate the 7.333 acre tract refers only to that portion of the tract that falls within the flood plain--whatever that acreage amount is. The offer is not to dedicate all of the tract. 2. he is assuming that with respect to the .558 acre tract that the City would agree to the same terms as originally discussed: namely that the City would pay for the costs to pave it and construct any drainage improvements. I went ahead and told him that this was my understanding as well--but only with respect to that tract. 3. He is going to fax my latest letter to all the interested parties and add on that he clarified the offer with respect to the 7.333 acre tract. That is all--for now. _. _ ~ _ ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 7643500 March 30, 1995 V/A FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL ~~~vE~s _._~~ ,. - ..~- Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. 3220 Williams Blvd. Kenner, LA 70065 Re: CoNege Station Development A~reemenf Dear Mr. LaCour: This is to confirm the substance of our #elephone conversation yesterday .morning. You indicated #hat the Texas Aggie Credit Union, the prospective purchaser for Lot 1 of LaCour Subdivision, Phase One, was absolutely unwilling to dedicate the seventy foot (70') proposed right-of--way through lot 1 for the planned extension of Kyle South Street. As you know, the City had requested this dedication as a condition for waiving a number of the City's development ordinances for this subdivision. In order to proceed with a .sale of the property to .the Credit Union, you then proposed the following: 1) taCour Investments would dedicate the .558 acre tract for the extension ofi Kyle South Street (as originally planned); 2) LaCour Investments would also dedicate the remaining 7.333 acre tract #o the City in compliance with the Wolf Pen Creek zoning ordinance; and 3) the Credit Union would dedicate the .295 acre tract Ito the City, also in compliance with the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning Ordinance. You also suggested that no .development agreement would be necessary at all because L~aCour Investments would be in compliance with all the dedication requirements of the ~:oning ordinance. - Pursuant. to your request, I have passed along this information to the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. The City .Planner, Ms. Kee, has confirmed that this scenario has been previously contemplated or discussed or both by the City and Mr. Roup. She also informed me, however, that under this plan LaCour Investments would still need at least 4 waivers or deferrals of the following City ordinance requirements: 1) construction of the water line; 2) submittal of impact studies; 3) submittal of tax certificates with the application for plat approval; and 4) constructtion of sidewalks. Assuming that this is the case, some form of a development agreement would still be required in .order for the City to waive or defer these development requirements. fie~~a~ of T~c~s ~~ t~eae~aersit~ Letter to Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. March 30, 1995 Page 2 In addition, Ms. Kee pointed out that the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning ordinance does not require dedication of the entire 7.333 acre remainder tract. Rather, the ordin<~nce only requires dedication of the .295 acre tract discussed above and that portion of the 7.333 acre tract #hat falls within the "approximate floodplain lines" on the proposed plat. The property south and east of this line is not required for dedication. Accordingly, we are asking for a clari#ication as to your intent with respect to the 7.333 acre tract: are you proposing to dedicate all of it or just the portion required by the WPC zoning ordinance? Sincerely, Pete Shively Assistant City cc: Ms. Jane Kee, City Planner Ms. Veronica Morgan, Assistant City. Engineer Ms. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator ~f~ : A ~ CITY OF COLLEGE ST1~'T'~®I`I f- k~ F a ' [ Post QffFice fox ~~6~ S f o3 '€'~xas ~veratt~ ``~„~~ Cofliege Statiorn, 'i"exas '77~~2-~36fi (~~9} '~6~--~ aE~~ March 28, 1995 V/A FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Mr•. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. 3220 Williams Blvd. Kenner, LA 70065 Re: College Station Development Agreement Dear Mr. LaCour: Please find enclosed herewith two copies of the proposed development agreement, draft no. 3. The first copy is a "redline" copy, showing the additions since draft no. 2 in italics and the deletions by strikethrough. The second copy is a "clean" copy without the revision marks. Also enclosed with the hard copy, regular-mail copy of this letter are the subdivision regulations that. you requested last week. Specifically, !have enclosed a copy of the City of College Station subdivision ordinances and a separate copy of a portion of the state of Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 212, which addresses the powers of municipal government in regulating land use and subdiivision development. With respect to-the revisions to this draft of the development agreement, II have met, repeatedly, with other City of College Station staff to work out the City's position on the terms and revisions that you and Mr. Roup have requested. In substance ;and in form, we have .agreed to nearly all of the changes that you and 1 discussed over the phone last week. With respect to the additional changes requested in Mr. Ftoup's facsimile letter dated March 21, 1995, and also discussed by us over the phone last week, the City has agreed to his suggestion for paragraph six Ghat the taxes be paid ou# of the closing costs. We are unable, however, to support the other revisions that Mr. Roup has requested. Specifically, for example, the staff is not willing to recorrrmend that the City waive aN costs associated with the preparation of this development agreement. 1n conjunction. with our discussions, however, I have inserted a $2,500 cap on LaCour Investment's fifty percent share of these costs. In addition, the staff is not able to recommend that all future assessments for maintenance against the property be waived. I have .been informed, however, that no sewer construction will be required for Letter to Mr. T. Robert LaCour March 28, 1995 Page 2 the extension of Kyle South Street and that the City will pay for the initial design and construction costs of any drainage improvements required by the street construction. Based on a letter from your local engineering firm, the s#aff has agreed to insert an additional deferral term. !n paragraph 11, the City proposes to agree to temporarily defer the required construction of a wa#er line across the 4.339 acre tract to thE; .558 acre tract. Last week, you also requested a "listing" of any required submittals to the City's Planning Department that were still outstanding. As of this morning, staff infornns me that the following items are needed: 1) a request for a variance .regarding sidlewalk construction; 2) a requesf for a variance. to the water line construction and the required submittal of construction documents for the water line; and 3) the required plat documents by tomorrow's deadline for the April 20th meeting of the Plannin+~ and Zoning .Commission.: I'm not sure exactly what is encompassed by item #hree above, but I believe that your local engineer, MDG, understands what is needed. With rEapect to the water line and sidewalk variances, 1 believe that MDG has already sent a letter no#ifying the City. that you do not wish to construct any infrastructure in this subdivision a# this time. !t is my supposition that clarification :with the City's Planning staff is all that is needed here: i.e. something in writing to indicate that you are requesting a variance to those requirements. 1 also asked staff to tell me what the current schedule was with -respect to Planning & Zoning and .City Council approval. I have been informed that this project is tentatively scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on .April 20, 1995 and, if approved,'will go on to the next scheduled City Council meeting on May 11, 1995. hope ..that the foregoing addresses your requests, questions, and concerns regarding the proposed. development agreement and this project. Y~ Pete Shively Assistant Cit Attorney Encl. additional enclosures with har~'copy only) cc: Ms. Jane Kee, City Planner ,,// Ms. Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Ms. Shirley Voik, Development Coordinator Printed by Jane Kee 5/08/95 3:09pm From: Deborah Grace CONFIRMED To: Charles Cryan Subject: fwd: I see that your at ===NOTE====------=====5/05/95==8:24am== I see that your at your desk this morning so I send a quick note. Are you still working on the salary stuff or Jane? Fwd=by:=Charles=Cryan=5/05/95==8:26am== Fwd to: Deborah Grace ....................................... Yes. I'll try to have something to you this afternoon or Monday at the latest. Fwd=by:=Deborah=Grace=5/05/95==8:29am== Fwd to: Charles Cryan ....................................... Thanks much sir. Fwd=by:=Charles=Cryan=5/08/95==2:19pm== Fwd to: Deborah Grace ....................................... Full cost recovery for the individuals you provided will require charges of the following: )) Person Charge/hr m - - -- - E. Ash $121.82 ?~°~ " ~` ~~-~`Crt J. Callaway 80.19 ~'~' --°.:~ a `~ ~ J. Kee 70.96 ~r1... . ®._..p ~ °~ 3. ~~ S. Volk 31.20 ~ ~~"' ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ N. Thomas 17.46 ~ ~ ~ ~"~~" V. Morgan 47. 56;~ ~ --t, ~>`1 ~P ~ ho e this ets ou set for the e ar. ~ ~ <~°'° °~ ~~~' You can compute any others by the following: E.D.C. Admin Sal x 3.8970 Planning Sal x 2.9797 Bldg Insp Sal x 1.6151 Engineering Sal x 2.2143 Fwd=by:=Deborah=Grace=5/08/95==2:30pm== Fwd to: Charles Cryan CC: Jane Kee ....................................... Thank you so much for your time. --------------------------------------- ~~no• ~ CITY F C LI/GE ~TATI®I®I LEGAL ~EPARTNfEN1' POST OFFICE BOX 9960 7101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 j409~764-3507 MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, City Planner FROM: Pete Shively, Assistant City Attorney RE: LaCour Development Agreement -closure of Austaco curb cut DATE: May 11, 1995 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In conjunction with the eventual extension of Kyle South Street south of Harvey Road, can the City force Austaco, Inc., the owner of the Taco Bell site, to close its most easterly curb cut on Harvey Road in exchange for granting Austaco a new curb cut on the newly- constructed portion of Kyle South Street, which will abut the Taco Bell site on the east? 2. If the City can force the closure of Austaco's most easterly curb cut on Harvey Road, what damages,. if any, will the City have to pay to Austaco? FACTS PRESENTED LaCour Investments ("LaCour"), a Louisiana Limited Partnership, currently owns the property along Harvey Road through which the City intends, eventually, to extend (Kyle South Street. LaCour is in the process of platting this property in anticipation of selling a portion of it to Greater Texas Federal Credit, d/b/a Texas Aggieland Credit Union (hereinafter "Buyer"). In this proposed platting and sate, however, LaCour has kieen unable or unwilling to fully comply with a number of the requirements of the City's platting ordinance and the City's Wolf Pen Creek parkland dedication ordinance, which applies to this property because it is in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning Ordinance "Zone." Over several months now, the City and LaCour have been engaged in a lengthy negotiation process to work out the details of a "development agreement" whereby the City would waive or defer certain ordinance requirements in exchange for LaCour's dedication to the City of certain property for the future extension of Kyle South Strreet. While negotiations have progressed now through six drafts of the proposed PS105/11/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 11, 1995 Page 2 development agreement, the parties still have not reached a final accord on all its terms and conditions. One of the principal issues has been the City's desire to have the abutting propE=rty owner to the west, Austaco, close one of its two curb cuts on Harvey Road. The City's rationale being that the most easterly curb cut is currently not in compliance with the City's development ordinance and is a hazard to traffic using the now controlled "T" intersection of Harvey Road and Kyle South Street. It is supposed that with the extension of Kyle South Street through this intersection and south of Harvey Road irhat (1) this traffic hazard will increase due to increased traffic through the intersection and at the traffic light; and (2) the opening of the new roadway along Austaco's easi:ern property line presents an opportunity to equitably "re-locate" the problematic curb cut from Harvey Road to this new side street. Originally, the City proposed accomplishing this "re-location by including Austaco in the development agreement with LaCour. Subsequently, LaCour has informed the City that they have been unable to contact or negotiate any agreement with Austaco. Accordingly, LaCour has requested that Austaco be eliminated as a party from the development agreement. The City will only agree to do this if the City has the capacity, independent of any agreement with Austaco, to force Austaco to re-locate the curb cut. The problematic curb cut on Harvey Road was "permitted" by the City and constructed by Austaco in 1984. It is my understanding that this was before Kyle South Street was extended through to Harvey Road and hence there was no intersection or traffic light at this intersection. When Kyle South Street was subsequently extended and the light installed, the easterly curb cut was too close to the intersection to conform to the City's ordinance. Rather than force the re-location of the curb cut at that time, however, the City apparently chose to leave it and wait until the further extension of Kyle South Street to the south of Harvey Road. Although it is pure supposition on my part, this decision to delay the re-location of this driveway may have been prompted by the dimensions of Austaco's site and the likely fact that there was no location further to the west that the new driveway could be installed that would be in compliance with the City's ordinance. That is, there was no place to which the curb cut could be re-located. Cathy recalls some degree of discussion at the time the City Council approved of the site plan and second curb cut in 1984. She recalls that the staff and Council may heave even conditioned approval of the curb cut on Austaco's compliance with certain conditions, including a promise to move the curb cut if Kyle South Street were ever extended across Harvey Road. Unfortunately, neither the City Secretary nor the Planning staff have yet been able to locate any such discussion or conditions in the Council's meeting minutes from that era. Finally, it is also my understanding that the second curb cut was originally approved as part of Austaco's site plan review based on Austaco's representations that the second PS105/11/95 Memo to Jane Kee May 11, 1995 Page 3 driveway was necessary to accommodate the large delivery trucks for the Taco Bell restaurant and to allow for a more "efficient" use of the drive-thru window that Austaco constructed on the east side of restaurant.1 SHORT AtVSWERS 1. While the law on revocation of curb cut permits and relocation of curb cuts is something less than pellucid, it appears likely that the City could force the re-location of the problematic driveway either by (1) revoking the permit for the original drive on Harvey Road and issuing a new one for Kyle South Street under the terms of the City's ordinance and the City's inherit "police powers"; or (2) condemning the Harvey RRoad curb cut at the same time as the condemnation or purchase of the right-of-way fc-r the street extension. 2. Under either scenario, the City will probably have to pay for the design and construction costs of the new drive and curb cut. In the event of condemnation or an inverse condemnation suit by Austaco, the City may also have to pay for any material or substantial impairment, if any, of Austaco's "access" rights to the property. WhilE: this impairment should not, in the City's view, be considered sufficiently material and substantial to warrant inverse condemnation damages, Austaco should be expected to argue that the loss of the easterly exit on Harvey Road for the drive-thru makes thf~ use of the drive-thru much more difficult for customers and that, accordingly, the value of Austaco's property has been diminished. ~ Though it is not clear to me exactly how this second curb cut is of any great advantage to the drive-thru. If I understand the site configuration correctly (a big "if'), cars that are exiting the drive-thru window could still exit the site by turning left in front of the building and exiting out the same, westerly drive through which they originally entered. This is similar to the current traffic pattern on the new "Red Line" restaurant site. Arguably, it is "easier" to separate the entry and exit points, but in light of the traffic patterns at other drive-thru's in the City (see also McDonalds on Texas Ave), I'm not sure that this "2-drive" configuration is "necessary." PS10 5/1 109 5 . 8 ,. u ®~ CITY OF COLLEGE ~TATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 ; 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 7643500 May 10, 1995. V/A FACSIMILE Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. 3220 Williams Blvd... Kenner, LA 70065 Re: Colleae Station Development Agreement Dear Mr. LaCour: ~~fs~p Tomorrow evening, the College Station City Council will be considering the final plaf and the development agreement for LaCour Subdivision, Phase One. Members of .the City's Planning Department will .provide an initial presentation to Council of this plat and .the proposed development agreement. Currently, I am still researching the issue as to whether the City can force Austaco to close its most easterly curb cut on Harvey Road. Assuming than the City can do this, the Planning Staff will: be asking for Council direction as to whether to proceed with a development 'agreement .that excludes Austaco. If the City cannot force Austaco #o close the curb ciat, the Planning Stafff will explain this fact to the Council as well as the rationale as to why closing this curb c:ut is desirable from. a traffic sa#ety viewpoint. One issue that is certain to arise as part of the Council's deliberation is why Austaco is simply not included in the development. agreement. In order to fully brief. ouncil on this matter the Plannin staff .have asked that ou provide them with the C g Y some written statement that briefly describes the efforts #hat t_aCour Investments made b to contact Austaco and the results of those con#acts.: Accordingly, please fax to me y 5:00 .m. tomorrow a brief letter-that outlines _aCour Investments' efforts. to work. with p uld #hink that a ara ra h describen the number of after.' Iwo Austaco on this m _ p g p g fan discussions with Austaco should n the results o contacts or attempts at contacts a d y ~` be sufficient to demonstra#e to the Council that Austacowill not willingly participate in the development agreement. Siny, ~ Pete. Shively Assistant Cit Attorney cc: /~Ms..lane Kee, City. Planner Ms. Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Ms. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator home of 'Texas A~Ni tLniversity CITY. OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 April 4, '! 995 VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. T. Robert LaCour, Esq. -3220 Williams Blvd. Kenner, LA 70065 Re: College Station Development Agreement Dear Mr. LaCour: Accompanying this letter is a fourth draft of the proposed development agreement for LaCour Subdivision, Phase tJne. I have attempted to incorpo~~af~~ the terms that we discussed last week and that I have discussed further with the City's Planning Department. While some sections of the agreement remain unchangeel, nany other portions have been extensively revised. This draft of the agreement has no# yet been reviewed by the City's Planning Department. In the interest of expediency, that review will occur simultaneously with your. receipt and review of this draft. ` Accordingly, you should be advised that yet additional revisions maybe necessary. Sincerely, Pete Shively Assistant Ci Attorney cc: Ms. Jane Kee, City Planner Ms. Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Ms. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator ~iar~ae ®f "l"~~ ~~ ~~~i~e~sit.~ 10I20I1995 14:02 4093614487 BUDDY WINN PAGE O1 VOTER REGISTRAR "! encouroge eoeryone to resister and vote" 361.4492 DATE: Gerald "Bt,ddy" Winn Assessor and Collector of 'faxes Brazos Counfy 300 Eas# Wm. J. Bryan Pkwy. Bryan, Texas 77803 FAX (409) 3bI-487 FROM THE FAX LINE A,TTN: !~ ~ ~ CI I ~ ~ FAX ~1 C~ ~ - -S~L~! ~. PH: RE: MOTOR VEHICLE License and titles For Information 361-4470 a-__... ~.. ~~~~ ~ ~ Number of pages ,including this. pace: 10!2011995 14:02 40936144E7 BUDDY WINN PAGE D2 :~;.T t~ "f E; ra 1°. ~! "i" fi 1` t~ C C D U r~.~. ~, TI~~...::, ~.~~ ~ t~t~rn~n'~ o`i~ t,~~ct~ pwr~,~ & du~~ ~~s ofi' %~1 OCT ].995 b~~~d upon fTl~~~ Ce~)~ r•PCOr°d~ of ~h~. ~R~7Q8 COU!'~TY TFAn GIFPZCE T;,i~, cvc4,i~r~.,~t .1~ ,..rot a 'C~x c~,rt;S,fic~t'~ ~anc1 da~w; not. 2~b~,o],v~ ~, C~r~;~~~~~r.r- from t~rx li~bili.ty 3. r, ~n~, t~~~y4 .5hotr).d ~Cl~is document b~ fauna ~Q bw S_7 c~rro., i~ rn~y b~~ cor•rC~ct~d Lsy t~~s e:oi.l~.cL',an o~f~fi~:~. ~~spor~r=;ibil,i,Ly try Pay r~ac~:~ rem~ir~~~ ~~i~rh~i ~'h~ L~xp~~YQr ~s o«t1i,~~t~ .gin r_>~,s T~x~ s~r•apsrt~ ~`~x Cody . LF;cQtJP Ira~1tM5Tr~~rJTd, (1:,227 ) CJtC TCtM MCLr'iUCrl~,IN ~//'C~hh~~n~11GX 113hh ~yry,y, ~1 ~ IV IV E l~ p L 1~ J V 1:l 813227 f4~?46~'7.~a04.7~~r~s~~t~) A~'~4r~s1 r4 RCCTOR {ICi_ j, TRACT 47, r'+GR~B~ 1?_.1~3 B#VTS DE';CRIPTIOIV 6Xi~h11''TIQ~lS TgXAl;LB C~1. 8F?A~C1S CrJUM1IT'f X315, C54~ S2 CO!..i_EGL ST~T~C?~ I3D Q1B,~84 C'l. srT.TY 0~ C~7>vLEC~ ~TPrTIOr~f S1b a Ca8Q T%:J. tJNICN01~11~ BrJI'ITY 9].~.~,6r'_c0 BILL ID C7.. E6 , c3~953 //C2a8i a3~y Cryy}J LrF o ~~ o ~.JL~1 C2e89.31{.3 C2:;3~.42~16~ C2a33.45Eb5 l~rl a BED. 32`9~se 61.S7a3Q57 C1,88m3~s?..31 C1.a$ga3173 ~~]...90.4=~p54 C~1 a 93 • ~+6;SS6 RD. a6.3~~53 S2aa6.32~5rs E~,$7a3~57 S2 09.317? S2. 9~ a 42p5'4 ~2.9:~.45€3C~a SILL ~:Q ~:2 a 86 a 3?958 %a X37 a 3~'~57 ~~a 4'~+~1.F J l,~`yF3TIl'tiLL.Y n~,IQ E~ILL;; L~'~I~!~ TAX ~P#~ ~Pb P~IFJ TA, ?C ?4Sr~2~S6 1~t ~3 2,1.5„ 1 8 , ~ j, •~ g fJ 1 'W / ~ V YI ~ a YJ V 3,474.72 ~i ~ ~a+~d 4, q8~f a 13 39 1. "1 ~ 5S@.0E 2,Q6fla7? 7~4 8 ?g1nw.1~3 i b :~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ r ~ } ~ t / q / ~, 7 .~ p J O 3 a YJ h. ~ t'.7 V 6V YJ :~p1z3+~.9'J. ~:~~? 1 3.,51>73 :t.5~5~ 74 7 1.1~4A c~,179aQ5 74 a ~,~~S4a6:t. 8,~41.2.9a 0 rd ~>~~r~ i ]. ,11 ~ . c~ 3 c ~ ~ ca ~ a r~ ~ 77 ,, / ~ // ~ f, ~ y 13,2~8aeJ9 0 Q ~>~9~i 14,3?~2.4E 3~ ]. 5,767.5Q Amor,.inr P2~id on F'FhR"{7Al,.LY PF;ZD RATS:: LE`~rTEr~ TAr. 4~ . 36'47 2 p 962 . g~i ~°ja~~t~J~'~ 3,8r4.T2 SI,JMr4F~R~f DISC PSI 1 , 5 ~~ ~ a ;5}},~ /9}}~~ ~n~7,~ aV CJ ~MJ ~~^,n ~7 < W C~ p<D~ 3.47>kn~1 rnrna~~ YJ .~ ~ 4l t:'i > D Qf ~~f~ '.339 , 1~a ~ . ,~~ ('~.L~~i ~! a Q! ~ G~<~Q ~~rt~~1J_}r 4J ~ L U E ,^~ Lund F;0 Pali<~ ta~,'id `+~(~ t)k63 Land iiS l~w~~~d r5l~;~ "):rnp Ml; I rsl p !~~ N . ~i~~~s:~sd ~~TT ~~ m. 5 61 a 3 ii77,, ~Gryry~~ c ~ CJ tJ ~ (~ ~~ Ir'J a~ a ~i ~ ~~}9.1~i ~;~~ a ~ ~~ r~.~~ ~.~~o L1 a Q 4~ 0 .. ~ ~ 2 . ~i ~ ~'..~6J O~u~i ~1 ~ d 0 . D ~i 1, nag. 1.5 P~~id 0i.11~; c3TLL0 OFaLANCB DUF SUh1P~IG~R`f Tr~X DUB: DISC P&I ATT "~:` ?87 a 68 X321.. 5~3 ~,~,~ a 3~: 2,96~a8e~ 3p1't1.131 5:~.:faa4'~6 3,~190'.D~; Ws,2=1Sa~r1 1,~10<E4 3,b74.72 2,9T~..5' 9Diab~ COraTIPdt.rE:i7 biV P1 87~T PF1GE ~',~,ti~.*' P~3~E ].. ~) ~+ 91R,6~3~ 0 9~~JP68~ ~1 i+1 T i~ !~ ~~;7 n~ c ~~}, Q ?tyi, o /Gff,, ~}, `~ a VJ ~,+ ~:~ "J ~,?liiaC~S q , a~~ ~ 1 . ~a :~ Y~}J, v C(m~+ (~t~ c K/ Q 7_ , 1s53 ~ ~4 <a G5 11p~~9a;17 ~l.~~ Cr . t%3 ~"'i +b . ~ k9 . ©V~? 0,1'~~~11 ~:;2 , S~iF~ . ~iF7 AM~t' I„1~1fi 9..,5';:x,55 7,7~c.,2.;+ 1012011995 14:02 4093614487 BUDDY WINN PAGE 03 y t ~T n T ~ rYi r= h! ~• (~ o F~ r>, c c: a ~.! ~~ ..!t. M ~ !Y I'~ ~ ~ 1 J GS ~7 ~e ~ 4. ~' r~r~ ~ ~~ h, E7 I i.. C~ ~ ~~~ ': ti ~~ l"~ .4 ~ 4` C~ ~~ ~~ ~ 4'Y V 2.~ OC~T 7,496 b~s~d upon tl~z~ ~`~:t>< r°~~:;ar°d.~ w't' tt'~~ r3F~~~:~p5 COUPJTY TAX CFFIfE "1"I-ra•~ dOCUr71~f1T; a,.~, rlot ~ r_~x c:r r•~„~~~,C~,ta ~i~~ dc)~4+ nv~ ~,b e7a.1~~~ ~ t:;,xp~y~, r• ~'rvm 'r_ux l,i~bila.~::y zn any way. 5hv~~.ld t1-,15 dncum~nt >~s faur,d to !~a a,n ;~r'rvr° :t~. v~~~Y L~ cvrr•~c:tad by t:p~~. c-.c~.l,l~r;~.1.an of-f'lv~. Rw~~pvr~~,.lt~il.~.'Ly iW4~ day t_~j~c~~ r~~m~~i,r~~~~ ~~.itl~~ ~„h~ r_~~hp~~r~r a:~ o~a~.Lirred in •~h~~ T~h,~ ~i°apar~~r T~ Gods. !~~cou~ xr~~~sTME1~IT,'? (1322; ~ Gltl T(JM I~iCLAU86tiLIi=J ~Q r~0;~ 15:.~ KFFyr'J~r~p Lug ?~L~63 R,gRTIAt.I.'r P,A:Cp ~TLLJ Qr1l_AhdGin f]U~~ SUl1A1R~`r $ILL Io r,~Te !,.~«~F:f3 Tfi~ T~~ ~u~ r?I5C ~:c ~•,~r~r r~~ ~~rr!Tr.,u~ c~.~•.~aa4~n~4 s~n~1~~~ ~as~~a.~z sys~4.~~ 2,5:.5,50 Qa1as~ ~a:~~a.~;~~ C2<93,456~5 ~7.~!45~} ~p'UJ^.13 2,~~F~$.•Q5 827.6G S~L~.."45 3.,$+3~.~7 C71.S~.~29`rE3 ~a36o9 ?,3~@.7~2 ?'b~1n53 Ba~n32 4.55 l.yn97a9e'] 8 1., F 7, S ~ i `3~ 7 X 1 ~ n 4 1 .3, ~~1 .. ;~5 ;, 7. 5 1 • 3 5 ~~p413 3 2 . 99Q e'9 i ,5 a >~i 6 5 ~~ ( '~ l ! '~ { l"!, ~ e J 7~ n ~J •J !~ .~5 !. ~, ~ j q ' j 7 'W c •.J L} 2 ! •~ ? ~ ~ ~ a .~ ? ~~ !!~~ ~e , .~{ p ~ 4 O •7 ~ / ~ T 7 ? ~ ? J a _"} .~ ~ .!r S.. a IL2 ~ ry ~~ ~ ` g ~ V p ~'F %'i !' s r7 G1 ., s~9.:~1~3 rD n 3~i89 .3 y 3~9. ~q1 ,A I, 3,y •=> g S . 1+~ ?_ y ' 4 5 ?~ , 1.2 9 ~ , 2; , ~3 ~ 7 s 4l ~ o ~ ~ a ~ ~ •V ~ ~{ ~ n •`Y 1 ~ ~ ,.~ , ~ ;~ .L a .~ C~j 1 . { ~ :~ , ~ I J.. n .6. ~ , 81 7 ~ , ~ l'! C a 1 7- ` ~ / 5 5 a ~ ~ 7 ~ 7 ! , ~? G ~~ ~ 1,1 G1..93.4~g6$ ~.4s42 3p93r3:91 ~,AA7>].~S ~.,rb1,57 X135...'.1 w~,74:'.96 RO.a^s.~~295r3 ~n~~24 :16.~~ 4.15 4~$6 a.<35 'l~.36 95 +3 ~~?~w^ ~~n$ ? A .} 1.4 ~ 0 5 5,1~~.u~1' ?_~] _l 4.14 ;~,5 ~1nc~'~ 4 r4 ~:~.7' $ ;~in ~Q 2~i.:~1 y ~ / ~ J C e fj F . ~ +1 ~ J p ~ ~ { ry 1 0 +:+ f ~ 41 ( ~ 41 p A .C ~ e ~ V ) / y "9 1 ~I.?, 0 9 ~ p! ~ ~ p CJ •JJ ~ .1 a ~ } ~ , ~ `..7 ~ c uN 7 1 ~ 1 J_ ~ p „ w' ~~ n ~ (} :ti?.~38.:~32;37. 1.21~~ ?.7,y116a~3 11,11.~Q~i,s 1~,39x,~1. ?,21$.9 ;i4,5',:;.~:~ ~2.r,9.:1'173 1a3D©`~ 11.,92>:~4 11,942.84 A,6?3.'s~ 3,242n~c'S 24,Si~~.~ ~:7 5?.._~E1,4<Q54 1.444~G~ 1."~,~'25.~~3 I.3,'2c3~9S 9,1?5.~~ ,ap~:353n~:~5 25,?1~+,"s~d ~2.93~4~a$65 1.6;]4] 14,9%4,45 9p:186.5 3,~31<65 :1.,53'2,7 '14,,351..22 ~"a>~ 0~r~ vri F'~rr'l'..i,~x.l,l.y~ ;'~~ .id E?.i.l.l.~ ~'1.~3A,565.52 ~' ~'~ :t [] [3 I L L ':; ~~ U hi h1 A r~ 'r t{7!_l..nIf_1 T AX F'~,It~ DI,C ~~I t~?'T FEE ~D CJttiT~ RU }?r~OUNT F~~ID Tn't~l. s3~~S.d an ~'~i.d R'C1I~; :i;a.~'J~3 UNFaATD f3Tl_1.:;~ SUM~a+1RY Si~T YF~ S"r,~T~~lr iVT R~T6 ~ Tl~X SUE PFrd ~ T,r~1T ~iTT ~E~. Far+iDUr~T flU C2 91 4024 47aX1~i~Q 3,c•~4n72 ~{~.yl'1~V,•;}~ 565.41~~ i~pu:a4.11 C2, X32 439? fln412'~} ~3,'T~a~,F>6 1,7t95,3~i ,;;C4.?_' /j~n P v,~i ~ ~ . W 7 C2 9A 4r3c5i ~nA1454 4;~n$.:13 85$n51 ~4~`.~ti~ "a, 638.64 G2' 95 c7144S u.44~`7G3 7,p$$.1.s ~n~s~i 4,9$,1.3 E2 9.1 4224 O.~t~,~ 7,166,.7v~ n,~~3aa~G 1,5$1'n 52 12,.1$1>~~ E:? 92 4;592 ~.85~~3 7, s~1~3.18 3,513.9~i 1,695,.41 1.:ti,9,"..?:l..i~~ 81 91 42924 4~a.4f~da~ 4pQ47.a'.1.9 2,3~t4,f;~5 95:1..94 7,2~'°r.:1.S C1 92 43~3~~ ~a4399 aPp41<?.7 1,$i~345$ i_37S.9S 6g7;3S.u='; G1 94 4$257 x.4154 :~ y x+43 ~ i 6 8~7, 1.9 697.64 5 ~ 3~~3. "~~; C7. 95 ,~•a],~A~, ~.41.~d~i 3, 766.aq OsD~ 3,I5~.59 S2 91 42ti324 ~n76v3~i 6,981,^7 3,a7Q~f3 1.pri44.26 1'1_,c50~.9t: ~2 9?_ 43Rd ~ 4~a$;,~~3 7p525.t~4 3,431<'r.'.6 1,65~t.~1~i 1?.,f14,75 S2 ~4 4825. ~4v7. {~~~ 14•yr9t~.7S $,105.05 ~, a$4a52 23,5$10•? *~ °"~"~ TAX TT1;:r4w GC7NTIi'~UFD 4Tr~ fVF_XT ~~Gr *~•^~~~k~' P~ P~ Cr ~` I 10!20!1995 14:0? 40936144E7 EUDD'Y 4~tINN PAGE 04 ~f' ~ "i` ~ Ni E iV "1" 1.1 i'" FA C C: 0 tJ fJ "I" , w ~ ~'i 1 & :J<.:~ c"~ ~ ~: c? ~ ~ fit C t'1 't~ p 'j f; °! X ~i' c i•S ~ ~ c~ ~; d U ~: ~ ~ D 1° 1~ C~CT 1n~5 !~~~ed upon h. l•,~a C~~x ~°~CCtrd4 ~~~ the c~RA~OS Cf3sJPd'i"Y T"F~X Uf f~:~L`F ~Nt,ka doLusrt~.t'3~r Y.s not G~ ~'~x cet•-tI.~F.~.oz~tc. «nd ,do~:~.a r1L~ ubeo.l.v~c ~ t.w~xpa1~~r Prom; tax li~b.i.ls.ty in pan}f ~a~~. ~1?at.~J.d t:h,7.~,~ rJocur,~~ntp be °rnun~:; t'a b£~ In ~r•roi'~ it ma~~ be cot°rect~d b~ t~'r~e o.ol.:l.c~c~tian o~~f~.ce< F~c~sj~rJr,ai,bili~.~ ~o ~,~~, r~x~.~, r~~ma.in~ ~~!3.ti~ the r~xp~~~s~r ~s ou~_lin~zJ :i~7 'Cher Texe~s Properry~ Tex Cacla> i_~~cgU~ ~:~~~.1~~Ti~l~fl(TS (J.322~} C/q T01'~ I+'iCL~UDMLxN ic~r~r~~~, ~_~ ~o~~ >,fNPAIf1 g:l:i_CS SUi~fh3~~F2Y EP~l~' Yid ~°I°H~,TEi'R~f+ll" ~>4°fE Tr'aX DUE I~EN ~ Ti'~T A7T ' FEE Ah~lOUNT CLUE S~ 45 62~~l6 1.4C~1~0 ~.4~7'9~i.7."~ a.t~~i 1Ro7~~.76 T~7t~,~, Dine ors Ut~~i~~a,d L~.il].~a ~1<32,C~+3~4035 Tote Due 'for F'rop~ri_y "r~13~?~" $f P~~i.d n~~ore t :t,'P.,:1~9a> ~;51~„ l,~^d.1? ~ ~ ~~ /99s s8 osG as J . ~~ ~-~ ~c~ ~~~C,4 Printed by Jane Kee 5./02/95 2:08pm ;- -- From: Pete Shively To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Subject: LaCour Dev. Agreement ===NOTE====______=====5/02/95=11:41am== CC: Legal Temp Development Agreement Costs: I have asked Regina to add up my LaCour hours and give me a total times my billable rate. I will forward this information to you as soon as possible. Billing procedure for costs: Rox tells me that the entire concept of recovering these costs is relatively recent. She advises me that two years ago or so she suggested an initial $500.00 deposit and payment of additional costs as you go--on a monthly basis at least. More recently, on Begonia, she spoke with Veronica and suggested that Planning, as the administrator of these agreements, develop a procedure with accounting for the production of bills to developers. With respect to this specific development agreement, I agree that in light of the work and the information that the Buyer still might back out, it is totally appropriate to inform the developer that the costs to date are X and. that we are not going to put this matter on the Council's agenda until Developer deposits his share of X with the City. LaCour's revised form: attached hereto is the latest revision to the development agreement (draft no. 6). This draft excludes Austaco and changes many of the land/lot references. I will not be sending it out to LaCour until we confirm that the City can force Austaco to close the curb cut (see other e-mail of this date to Jane and Connie). In the meantime, please review the attached for substance and typos and let me know of any corrections or revisions that you see a need for. Thanks muchly. nano• ~ L '...~`~- ~~~ ~~~ .. ~., ~`+ ~~~~- ~' ~..~~~ -~ ~~~ ~~ -~ ~~ L ~ ~ ~_ `. ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ti ~ ~J, ~ l~ ~~~ IIi III' 1~ ~ ~', From: Pete Shively To: CLOCKS Date: 10/18/95 10:02am Subject: LaCour Tract in the Wolf Pen Creek: District 10/18/95 10:00 am ---~`-' -._. Cathy, remember this tract? It was the one owned by the LaCour clan from Louisiania that they attempted to sell to an S & L last year but couldn't _ manage to work out the details--including paying the hefty back taxes and complying with the terms of a development agreement that we worked out. In any event, the property never sold, the development agreement was never consumated, and the LaCours currently have another potential buyer "on t:he hook." In the meantime, Planning has determined that this tract would be a good one to acquire as part of a project to build a pond/lake to retain water and silt in an effort to keep the ampitheater lake/pond from re-silting. Veronica, Jane, and Shirley called yesterday and alerted me to the fact that on one hand they were working with the potential buyer for the tract and on the other hand, they wanted to acquire the same tract for the City. I asked if they wanted to condemn the property and they didn't know--they ,.just want to find out how and whether they could acquire it most inexpensively and efficiently (I assume). I asked them to proceed to do a RFLA, which should appear shortly, and I told them that I would alert you to what they were contemplating. That is all. CC: VMORGAN, JKEE, SVOLK Econolnic and Development Services Department Building a Better City in Partnership With You Memorandum Via Email October 24, 1995 TO; Elrey Ash, Director of Economic and Development Services Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager -Community Services FROM: Jim Callaway, Asst. Dir. of Economic and Development Services SUBJECT: Wolf Pen Creek Silt Basin. Although the silt removal at Wolf Pen Creek Park is not complete, we need to move on the development of silt removal/prevention improvements to reduce future sedimentation. I received a briefing from Planning and Engineering staff regarding a potential settling basin project. This project is based on an idea of Veronica Morgan's that relates to a proposed development along the Creek. You may recall that Council recently discussed a plat and development agreement for the "Lacour" tract. T'he development agreement included dedication of Kyle St. ROW, deferral of a waterline and other items relating to development of the property frontage. The development did not occur and the agreement was never executf;d or filed for record (and is "dead"). Development Services staff have met with a new group of potential buyers for the property. If this new project proceeds we will have some issues that need to be addressed through a development agreement. We can start all over with the development agreement, negotiating different terms where it would be in the City's best interest. The developer of the Lacour tract will have to dedicate the minimum reservation area to the City. If we were able to obtain additional property adjacent to the reservation area, we could construct a settlement pond or basin and silt drying area. The drying are could be near the pond and near the same grade or elevation as the pond, avoiding the transport of wet silt uphill (a factor in the dredge pump failures). The pond and drying area could be accessed from Holleman via the 35' wide ROW recently dedicated through the J. C. Noonan tract. A settlement basin on the Lacour tract could work in conjunction with a pond or basin on the City's tract at Holleman and Dartmouth. As a part of the development review process Planning and Engineering staff will investigate the possible acquisition of 2D5+/- ac. adjacent to the minimum reservation dedication. Possible negotiating points include waiver of some or all of the $58,000 in past due City taxes, the waiver of some development requirement or some combination of both. The owners of the Lacour tract are in bankruptcy proceedings -this may impact the feasibility of the concept. In addition to the above, Engineering staff will make a preliminary analysis of design considerations and fuinding possibilities. Pete Shively sat in on the staff discussions as the staff attorney that worked on the original development agreement. We will not submit a formal request for legal services until we have further investigated the feasibility of this proposal. TEL Feb 10,95 405 N~~.006 P.01 ~~l.~rvr~vy dGP 1yi~d/ ~/~ Rpn, c~ /~~or~A~d+1 /~ssi'y~~~rt ~r~y ~nyi/lee,2 PRr /~-5' 17'IOry /fin! Post-it® Fax Note 7871 Dute~ / P ~@~- To'.Jf~j~7tfGA /Y~© /~ From ~!~ e4~I~Gd c:L Co.lDopt~n r ~/~ ~P1.'/'! ~~ Co. "7 Fax ~ `~! y 2 Fax A Am GvRr~f'f~~y Gov f~! RPya~f ~o /4 true. f of ~~+x~ ®r,~~hoc( ley ~~c~o~~ ~nv~sfm-c, ~-~ ~o ~1~~ e Sf~~~o~n , T z~ s• ~~f of ~ ~~?~ is C'vt'r~~r-f(Y Unc1tR ('a,~ frRe-~ Tvr Safe subs<<-f fo ~e. Re-~/A>f~~y v/= •I~rc. -~-rne-~ ~ uJhr~~+ !2e- l'l~~r"ny r"s Pvr/'Prtt~y b~,'nq ~rvt~wr<J by ~/o~~i CjP~r~jmG'rvt1~ r ~' S S« /c p 4Jh +Gjt, w,-!! ~F~y OFF a/1 ouf5 fl~~cl~~~ ~l~i~'~r~..'~, ei;3 ~o n ~ e ~ n ~`n r~ ~--~+ e ~ ro p-~t ~7° r ~ C /~~l ~'~ y fie ~ f~+( 5 ~4 ~ is r"d~ ~ r~i o-,~ ®~' tj~_ CtJ1l'~~1~ ~~x~s ~ /+s well ~}ct 'f~ Q~~-yov~ Q~~«vra~y~f J~5 ci R~sv1~ ot= f~l~e C'©~r~f orc.I~rPr1 2eoryA~'n~2li~d'v~, ®F ~ae°mv~. .~n~os-~„~~~fs~ ,'S ,~.lP~.l~l~a~ jaDR fade Prl~Qe1~, ~ ~~f 6'S rnY UnG~Pr'S'~RvrUc'ac~ T+'~u1t' f~ro~~i~ Somt f-ec~in~'c•~1~~'~y ya„ a't~~e Una•~~e. fo Fr~~- ~u pln-f r-~,~ R~'~or~~ vn,/~ 1 c/vv ~ee~r'~,e ~tl.~ ~Q.,•~t ~r+a c.PY~'~t~'r'C llfp=' ~ GJ~~CI~ Under ~•t /'POty~•Yt~~Z.cc.~lOn ~~r~-'! lut'Il 6CCu~ OvpR ~~ 1~~K•f S~,(~vr5 0~' Fra-r~ ~'~e ~roe.oP~ D~ flu Su!'~e. d6 !-}lI or ~>ue~ eF' TIU ~Q!'vQ ~ r ~•~ , ,sd'nc~e. ~ .s-a T~ [°fi-$ e.. 1 t4-m Iemy JeS dot fort ?~!.!t v!t-~ a ~. ~'7~ ~Du- a r C J'1 t9 K~ p/~'L-.l C~ t G , l~ ~' t s• ~S,S~f'71 ~..~ r 0 / A I ~ 1"~• ~a~ ~ S l~Onl'rtr-..olf~ 't'D C'd~rn(~ ~,°"f e. ~~ Pt~7C.t? S5 r'~ Ilt.t l'Ydc9d'~AI•'I•11~P (y Y1? 11~san-~ af~ ~o~s-.bf~ i S~'nee. a~n .L f,~v~ ~r~~~ovs,Y 11'I~~lvr-fc~< ~~z~ 5~/da t'S C~o v r ~ s S ~ 5 ~-Y, ~ e i ~ Try i S /1? ft f ~P R.. i s ~ ~Pa f/Y R P>' ~r P e r'~-~ ~, c. l~ L ~4 ~'o ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~i5 a~ CITY OF COI~GE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 Mr. Fred J. Heyne, III SCC Development Corporation 2121 Sage Road, Suite 380 Houston, Texas 77056 RE: 4.339 acre tract in the Morgan hector League, Brazos County, Te:~as, better known as the LaCour tract Dear Mr. Heyne: I received your letter dated 10-24-95, regarding the development proposal by the SCC Development Corporation to be located on the above referenced property. Staffwill be reviewing the contents of your letter and meeting to discuss those in more detail next week. I will contact you with comment and response as to what items we feel we can support before our Council. I feel sure that we will be able to work with you towardithe development of this property. Thank you for your interest in our community and I will be in touch as soon as possible. Sincerely, Ja e R. Kee, AICP ity Planner cc: Tim Callaway, Assistant Director of ESDS Kent Laza, City Engineer Nome of Teacas A&P~i CIniversity ~~ ~- ~. \~ ~, ~~ ~' °~~. r~.~; i~~m_~~ i ', ~ ~. ~' ~ ,~4, _ ~~ ~~,, z~ ~, `; P~ (\~\~~ r`\ V . ~' / / ~ t J _ ~~ 03/28/95 16:56 FAX 409 693 4243 M D G ~ 001 Municipal Development Group ?03 East Holleman Drive College Station, TX 77840 409-693-5359 Far: -~09-693-4243 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: March 28, 1995 To: Natalie ?Thomas City of College Station Development Services ,Fctx: 409 764-3496 Re: LaCour Subdivision 11~,UG Job#ODD5SI -2573 Sender: .Greg Taggart Natalie: This is notification that our client, LaCour Investments requests the following variances. on this f nal plat: 1. That construction of sidewalk along I'(ighway 30 be deferred until Lot 1 is developed, as part of the Bank site plan. 2_ That Design. and Construction of the proposed 12" Water Line be deferred in a similar manner. Thank'You, G ~ ~/^ C=rego I~. "aggart /tm rr- Ctarv Rntm 11~lUNI~`~RA~ D~~~LQ~'~~~' ~R~ ~R 203 Ho!lcmaR Drt-~ East • College 5'ratlon, Te~ras 77840.409-693-5359 • F.~lX.' d09-693?43 Enginccring, Sui+reymg, planaing and f.uvaroamental Consultants ~~ 1~llarch 21, 1995 Natalie Thomas City of College Station P,O. Box 9960 CoIIege Station, Texas 77842 Re: LaCour Subdivision Phase I Ms. Thomas As we discussed, this is a formal notification that we contemplate no public infrastructure con5truct~on for Phase 1, (as we stated con the face of the plat we submitted ). The Rese~e tract, which is specifically excluded from inclusion in this phase, will be provided with water~servic~e when it is platted. t1s you are aware, it already has sewer service. 'we propose to pro de future water service to the reserve tract by one of two possible routes. Qur currently preferre route will extend from the line located on the J.C. Noonan property north across that tract to th south boundary of the reserve tract. The other route will foIlow the proposed street right-of- ay as depicted by the approved preliminary plat. If anyone has any problems with this from ~ regulatory standpoint, I point out that we are not platting the reserve tract now, and any future developer of the reserve tract will have to plat before they develop. It is logical and reasonable that he water line service be extended then at the time of platting. Please tail me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /~ -ter Gre o .T art ~~ g ry ~g Yce President ooo~sl-c.os-~ 1(2s73} f ~,. ~pl~ 4 ,. ~ E ~ _ «.:. t Y- ' '~ i ~Cj~,c~ ~ ~ (j""'~' Ar--~ w*~1 't ~j U y 7 ~XX/1 ., ~'' °~1 s ~_ • ~... .. ~ r ~ ~ ~:. , 4 F~ _~E Y ~~,r.'~-.~ G-~ x`61 ~ ~~r ~~ ~~ ~ ~• -~-.~ - ~--c ~~- F' ~ ~1~~ ~' ~ i r' \/L~ ~ W ~ ~~.s ~~ SS ~ ~~~fC ~~ _ ,~. J , ~~ ,.. t ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~~ , t~.~~,x~ *.. '' ~P.t W~~~ Gotµu. QI.bJCXe~ItA~v~. -' ~, j~~c,)~ PaXti~Ee,~,rcw~" C~!a~o~Q~n~ -Gr ~,~ w ~ U ~ I~~ ~ ~' I~~,~~ u~~c ~,, '', ~~ 4/ ~~, ~~ ~+~ ~3-~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~/k~~ p ~. November 15, 1995 Ms. Jane R. Kee City Planner College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Ms. Kee: VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS In response to your letter, enclosed is information for your review. I will give you a call tomorrow to discuss this and the other issues in your letter. Thank you for your generous assistance and cooperation in the handling of this matter. Very truly yours, SCC DEVELOPMENT, LTD. ,~ `9;, ~By: ~4~... n FRED'~J. HEYIVE, FJH:bdw 2121 ~a~e load, ~tli~e 380 Telephone (713) 62`7-'7460 ~1o~~s~on, Texas 77G56 Te4ecop?e~~ 0713) 965-9345 kee.wpd Economic and Development Services Department Building a Better City in Partnership With You 4 Memorandum Via Email October 24, 1995 TO: Elrey Ash, Director of Economic and Development Services Tom Br}~ner, Assistant City Manager -Community Services FROM: Jim Callaway, Asst. Dir. of Economic and Development Services SUBJECT: Wolf Pen Creek Silt Basin. Although the silt removal at Wolf Pen Creek Park is not complete, vve need to move on the development of silt removal/prevention improvements to reduce future sedimentation. I received a briefing from Planning and Engineering staff regarding a potential settling basin project. This project is based on an idea of Veronica Morgan's that relates to a proposed development along the Creek. You may recall that Council recently discussed a plat and development agreement for the "Lacour" tract. 1'he development agreement included dedication of Kyle St. ROW, deferral of a waterline and other items relating to development of the property frontage. The development did not occur and the agreement was never executed or faled for record (and is "dead"). Development Services staff have met with a new group of potential buyers for the property. If this new project proceeds we will have some issues that need to be addressed through a development agreement. We can shirt all over with the development agreement, negotiating different terms where it would be in the City's best interest. The developer of the Lacour tract will have to dedicate the minimum reservation area to the City. If we were able to obtain additional property adjacent to the reservation area, we could construct a settlement pond or basin and silt drying area. The drying are could be near the pond and near the same grade or elevation as the pond, avoiding the transport of wet silt uphill (a factor in the dredge pump failures). The pond and drying area could be accessed from Holleman via the 3S' wide ROW recently dedicated through the J. C. Noonan tract. A settlement basin on the Lacour tract could work in conjunction with a pond or basin on the City's tract at Holleman and Dartmouth. As a part of the development review process Planning and Engineering staff will investigate the possible acquisition of 2.5+/- ac. adjacent to the minimum reservation dedication. Possible negotiating points include waiver of some or all of the $58,000 in past due City taxes, the waiver of some development requirement o:r some combination of both. The owners of the Lacour tract are in bankruptcy proceedings -this may impact the feasibility of the concept. In addition to the above, Engineering staff will make a preliminary analysis of design considerations and funding possibilities. Pete Shively sat in on the staff discussions as the staff attorney that worked on the original development agreement. We will not submit a formal request for legal services until we have further investigated the feasibility of tl-is From: Jane Kee To: PSHIVELY Date: 3/18/96 10:54am Subject: lacour I just called Heyne and told him was approved and reiterated 4 things that still need to happen. 1. guarantee for waterline -bond from SCC and cash from Lacour. Agremnt, says plat won't be filed until this occurs. The $ will actually come from lacour out of the closing proceeds so we need to time the filing of the plat with the closing. Shirley and Nat, keep this in mind once the FI' is approved by CC. 2. Access es. to WPC -this may be on the FP but I don't recall at the moment. If it's not we can have it as a condition or get some sc;parate instrument. Pd prefer it be on the plat. 3. back taxes -within 7 days of closing. 4. eng. grade study. This will be done at site plan but Heyne wants to get lacour's 25% at closing so it won't hold him up. That's fine with City as long as our amount doesn't exceed 3,750 and SCC picks up any amount over the est. from Greg of 7,500. Heyne agrees to this and will woik out the specifics with Lacour. Heyne thinks we're all great. Obviously he's very intelligent. CC: JCALLAWAY, SVOLK, NTIiOMAS ~•~ c~°r~ of coL~.~~~ s-rATlon . j DEPARTMENT ®F PUBLtC SERVICES pOBTOFFlCF 8QX99BQ 2618 TEXAS A1I~HtlE COf.L.ECaE STATION, TEXAS 77842.998iD (~09) 764.3690 Phone: (409) 7d4-3b90 Fax: {409) 764-3489 ~o Fax Number: ~ ~ Date:. ~~ Business Vendor: ~ t; t/ C ~ v s _ 1~ttention:_ ~~ ,s ~~ ~ ~ l~ From: ~ ~ ~~ . Extention:. ~ 3 ~~~ c~ ~ ., . No. of Pages ~ {I~acluding Cover Sheet) CvrIII~.2ents: Cost Estimate For S. Kyle & Harvey Signal Conversion Material. Needed to convert signal from Tee to Cross intersection: (3) vehicle detection loops ~3, 000.00 (1) 30ft signal pole "not streetscaped " $2, 000.00 (1) 30ft mastarm "nat streetscape " ~1, 500.00 Signal foundation ~ 1, 200.00 (.~) signal heads and brackets $', 000.00 (2) pedestrain signal heads & brackets ~ 500.00 7/c cable 300ft $ 600.00 2/c Belden cable 200ft ~ 200.00 trenching & 2"conduit 100ft ~ 200.00 I Sft luminaire arm and head $' 500.00 signs & pavement markings S~ 00• ~0 X11,200.00 Labor Estimate $~-10.000.0_0 Engineering & Surveying $2, 500.00 Total signal conversion estimate= $23, 700.00 07/18/96 LMR p o __ ~~ i _~ _, ~, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 4.339 Acres Kyle Street @ Harvey Prepared For: Ms. Jane R. Kee City Planner College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Prepared By: SCC Development, Ltd. 2121 Sage Road, Suite 380 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 627-7460 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Section ~_ Economic Model 1 Tax Model 2 City Revenue Model 3 ~_ _I '' __ -, i ~_, ~,__i ,_~ i PROJECT: LOCATION: LAND AREA: LAND SQUARE FOOTAGE: BUILDING AREA: 4.339 Acres Kyle @ Harvey College Station, Texas 4.339 Acres 189,007 square feet 29,500 square feet COST SUMMARY: LAND COST - IMPROVEMENT COST - SOFT COSTS/OTHER COSTS - TOTAL PROJECTED COSTS: TENANTS: Box User - 23,500 S.F. Restaurant - 6,000 S.F. ECONOMIC MODEL $ 950,000 $2,075,000 ~ 600,000 $3,625,000 TAX MODEL PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION: School $1.61 Coun $.41 Land Value 950,000-100 x ~~ Improvement Value 2,075,000 =100 x ,_. TOTAL 15,295 33 ,407 8,507 $48,702 $12,402 3,895 C~ Total $.445 $2.47 4,227 23,417 9.234 $13,461 51,148 $74,565 - SALES TAX ALLOCATION: _i Tenant Projected Sales Sales Tax Allocation Total Box User $4,500,000 8 1/4% 1 1/2% $67,500 Restaurant $2,000,000 8 1/4% 1 1/2% 30 OO~i ~~~ ~._ TOTAL SALES TAX: $97,500 -, NOTE: These tax rates and related information were obtained from City of College Station Tax Assessor°s Office. ,~ _. _' '; __, _, ;, ~_; !J CITY REVENUE MODEL PROJECT: LOCATION: LAND AREA: LAND SQUARE FOOTAGE: BUILDING AREA: 4.339 Acres Kyle Street @ Harvey College Station, Texas 4.339 Acres 189,007 Square Feet 29,500 Square Feet TOTAL ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX: TOTAL ESTIMATED SALES TAX: TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY PERMIT FEES: C~ $13,461 Total ;74,565 $97,500 ;97,500 '~- CUMULATIVE TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE: $110,961 ;172,065 * unknown at this point College Station FAX TO: Robert LaCour 3220 Williams Blvd. Kenner, LA 70065 Date Tuesday, April 23, 9996 Number of pages including cover shee~F 7 FROM: Peter Shively City of College Station - Legal Dept. P.O. Box 9960 College Station, 1~C 77842-9960 Phone (504) 443-1353 Fax Phone (504) 443-1354 CC: Jane Kee Phone (409) 764-3507 Fax Phone (409) 764-3571 REMARKS: ^ Urgent ® For your review ^ Reply ASAP ^ Please Comment spoke with the City Planner, Ms. Kee, this a.m. about the curb cut matter that you discussed over the phone with me. She informed me that the issue is not the curb cut for Kyle street or the curb cut onto the future Kyle street (as I had first thought), but rather it is the location of a second curb cut off of Harvey Road onto the lot. In general, the exact location of curb cuts is a "site plan" issue that is not normally addressed until now. In any event, Ms. Kee is meeting with the City's transportation planner this afternoon to discuss this issue and determine if thiere is an acceptable location or compromise location along Harvey Road for this 2nd curb cut so that it won't conflict with other traffic patterns. ®epending upon the results of their conversation, It is my understanding that there should be some resolution of this matter--one way or another-- eitherthis afternoon or tomorrow.