The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneousPrinted by Jane Kee 12/22/94 8:13am From: Ed Hard To: Jane Kee, Kent Laza, Veronica Morgan Subject: CP Lane/Taggert ===NOTE====------=====12/21/94==4:29pm= I estimated the future traffic on CPL assuming build-out per our LUP. Taggert over estimated traffic for Windsor Point. I also looked into the use of center 2-way left turn lanes. There is no "warrant" or any other established criteria to determine at what point a C2WLT lane should be provided. This is something lift to "engineering judgement". V and I discussed this at length. Arguments could be made either way so we decided to err on the conservative side and require the turn lane. We also talked to Elrey about this...he agreed. He thought we should go with a 47 PS in a 70 ROW and that Taggert (or whomwever) could ask for oversize for the diff. btwn a minor art. and a collector. I have not yet heard back from the TXDOT on using bike grant $'s to pay for addt'1 paved section for the bike lanes. However, this will be mute (for the developer) if they get oversize because they would be required to build a collector street at a minimum anyway. The City could possibly get reimbursed with bike $'s if we participate in oversize. Paae: 1 ~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE ® COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409764.3507 MEMORANDUM TO: Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer FROM: Roxanne Nemcik, Senior Assistant City Attorney RE: Phoenix Addition DATE: January 11, 1995 Q~~ Thank you for providing the information for which 1 asked concerning this ques#ion. As we discussed in our meeting on January 9, 1995, my review of these documents does not support the premise that aright-of--way or easement was dedicated when the church platted their property. To the contrary, the information reveals that the church did not own d noajdedictatelthe property to~theac y. ~tTherefore,Atheredwas no dedica- parcel, it cou tion at that time by the church. The minutes of that council meeting in 1982 do not indicate that a dedication was made at the time the property was subdivided and platted by the Phoenix brothers. What it does indicate is that Mr. Phoenix agreed to dedicate the right-of--way at some future date. Because the owner did not dedicate the right-of--way at the time of platting, there is no effective dedication of this property by that plat. pT pe ~inutes do state that Mr. Phoenix agreed to execute a contract to dedicate this roe at a later date when the city wished to build the road or Mr. Phoenix developed this tract. However, you informed me that Mr. Phoenix did not execute a contract to this effect. Moreover, since 1982 this property has been conveyed from Phoenix to Mr. Jones. Since nothing was ever recorded in the deed records (contract or plat indicating an easement or right-of- way had been dedicated) effecting a valid dedication, the city cannot enforce any dedi- cation against Mr. Jones. CONCLUSION: There has been no dedication of the right-of--way or an easement on this tract of land. RN:jls cc: Kent Laza js/~an95/phoenix ,.r~-r-r-,y~ - - --~a OIT1' OF COLLEGE STATION ~`;.;~;~;~~~:~;~;~;';•;,;•;:;:;.•; . ~~~~ '~'.'„~ [7E4'ELOPMENT SERUI~ES •--~„- . ; , , ,.,., , , , , , ~ 1101 T E X A 5 AU E f: ~ : ,.,.,., ,.. ,.,.,., , ::`,.,` ..,.,.,.,., ,., ` ,. , COLLEGE NATION, TEXAS 77840 •:,`,"•,,,,,..,`: `\.,••"•` Facsimile Cover Sheet • ,,,,,.;, ,,,,:,, ;';., C409) 764-3570 ',,, . ~\ \_,.,.,.\".\.'.\.,.'.\.\.,".\.`".,".\.'.'.\'~ C409) 764-3496 FAX ~~.,.,......~.~^.,.,^,,., ;.,,,,, ..., ®ate: Pages including this cover page: G~Jr- ~O MEMORANDUM TO: U~d' G- DATE: Your request has been received by the Legal Department. We have numerous requests pending at this time. In order to accomplish all the work we have, it will be necessary for us to prioritize departmental requests. As of this time, the status of your request is as follows: Yo r request has not been assigned to an attorney, but will be assigned as soon possible. Your re uest has been assi ned to If the attorney needs more information, you will be contacted. If you feel that the Legal Department needs more information to prioritize your request, please make sure that information is noted on the request or provide further written support. We will provide .you with the .legal support you requested as soon as possible. Please understand that there are numerous competing needs. CL:js cc: js/c/winword/regresp 08/18/94 g5-~ MEMORANDUM TO: Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer FROM: Roxanne Nemcik, Senior Assistant City Attorney RE: Phoenix Addition DATE: January 11, 1995 Thank you for providing the information for which I asked concerning this question. As we discussed in our meeting on January 9, 1995, my review of these documents does not support the premise that aright-of-way or easement was dedicated when the church platted their property. To the contrary, the information reveals that the church did not own the adjacent 5.14 acres when it platted its parcel. As it did not own this parcel, it could not dedicate the property to the city. Therefore, there was no dedica- tion at that time by the church. The minutes of that council meeting in 1982 do not indicate that a dedication was made at the time the property was subdivided and platted by the Phoenix brothers. What it does indicate is that Mr. Phoenix agreed to dedicate the right-of-way at some future date. Because the owner did not dedicate the right-of-way at the time of platting, there is no effective dedication of this property by that plat. The minutes do state that Mr. Phoenix agreed to execute a contract to dedicate this property at a later date when the city wished to build the road or Mr. Phoenix developed this tract. However, you informed me that Mr. Phoenix did not execute a contract to this effect. Moreover, since 1982 this property has been conveyed from Phoenix to Mr. Jones. Since nothing was ever recorded in the deed records (contract or plat indicating an easement or right-of- way had been dedicated) effecting a valid dedication, the city cannot enforce any dedi- cation against Mr. Jones. CONCLUSION: There has been no dedication of the right-of-way or an easement on this tract of land. RN:jls cc: Kent Laza ,i ~~ ~ ~ CIPI~'Y F COLIrCi~ ~I' ~'Il~I LEGAL ®EPARI'MENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE ~~ COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 J (409) 764-3507 ~.y., ~ ~ ..,.. d..:` ' tug, a 3~,• 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer () w, FROUI: Roxanne Nemcik, Senior Assistant City Attorney ~t~ RE: Phoenix Addition -Phase One DATE: December 28, 1994 Your Request for Legal Assistance was received in the Legal Department on December 27, 1994, and assigned to me for a response on the same date. I have reviewed your question which is: "Whether an area designated on the 5.14 acre "future. lot" as "60' right--of-way reserve" and "20 foot utility easement" are areas that have been dedicated by plat to the City. In order to answer your question, I will need additional information. Specifically, will need the following: 1. Is the 5.14 acres owned by the church which platted the 3.00 ,~ acres? ~~t~G~C~.~.,o ~ ~~~. ~e~ ~ ~ 3 , a ~o ~o 2. The minutes from the P&Z and Ci Co~i"cil m ing at ich the plat was discussed and approved. 3. Any minutes from the P.R.C. meeting at which this plat was discussed. 4. Any records of staff recommendations and reports concerning n~o ' this plat. ~"'`" Thank you for your assistance in this matter. RN:jls ~ ~ ~~~J cc: Kent Laza C ~~ ~"~,Q._ Tom B mer a~ rY i js/c/dec94/phoenix MUM I C I P~1L DEk+ELdP Gf2dUP 4Cn'~6~934~43 P. d i m MUNI~'l.~'.~1L J~.~`YELDJ~°1.EN~' ~.R~~I.I" 203 Holleman Drive East • College Station, Texas 77$40 •.409-b93-5359 • F,4X.~ 409-693.4243 Engineering, Surveying, Planning and Environmental Consultants FAX # 76~ r 3 `~ 9 y NO. PAGES TO FOLLOW z- DATE ~ .~-~-~- ~~ TO J . ~c l~~ ~ g ~/ ~~ ~ ~e ~ FROM ~ If there is a prablem with this transmission, please call us at 409-693-5359. CONFIDENTIALITYNOTICE: This facsimile message and accompanying communication and/or documents are intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual ar entity to which the message is addressed COMMENTS ~. ~-t- ~ ~ r MUhIIiGIPAL DEk~ELOP GROUP #09694243 P. E~+2 1~ ~ -~ ~ ~a 6 l ~` r.1J a ~a: y ~// ~ , , ~'e ~Q~ ~~~ar vi Te ~Ya~ ~ ~/ ~CCaWJ~~1~'/rt, .~~~~~~ _ /~ I f Y~ c. T -~'7 b ~ -~ c, ~ 'e ~t T , j t'~ `S ~J ~' l l ;eX~~~~~'/~ Cep ~~~( t'ar~. ~~t~I ~e f ..'~t -2.- C o dvI vN Cl?~l ~ O U n o~a r W ~j •-e- ': ~O~S ~2 r/! ~~ ~-~ ~~ ~+~~ Q~ !<~~~e~ "~ ~ ~O S a~Q ~1 ~-~ ~'le ~ ~ -~ l~ / r1/t ~ Y ' ~ c~LLJ '_' w e ~ r -~ .. ~egr ~~.v! i'`~- ;5 f,~e c 7~ ~'PSr ~ ~ . _ o. ~ .. o rr ,!:._ coq y_ f U _~o~ . ,.; . . ~- ~ `1 l`1 :~ u h1UNICLPt~L DEVELOP GROUP 40~0934~~3 ~` `~ n N 7 Pa a~ x ~'