Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous.~ ~ r ~~ ] J r !~ ~ J CONSULTING ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 4444 CARTER CREEK PKWY, SUITE 108 'BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 ~ [409) 846-2688 I40J) 846-3094 December 13, 1995 c Mr. Kent Laza, P.E. \ h~' City Engineer ~J'` Department of Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 RE: LETTER OF IMPACT FOR LOTS,1; 2, AND 3, BLOCK 1- JORDAN SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS OUNTY, TEXAS. Dear Kent, The project co fists of the establishment of three (3) commercial lots ranging from areas f approximately .1.86 acres to approximately 2.00 acres. Frontage along xas State Highway No. 30 (Harvey Road) is approximately 190 feet per 1 with a total of approximately 570 feet of frontage anticipated. (See Enelos Exhibits "A"- Vicinity Map and "B" -Preliminary Plat). SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: Sanitary Sewer Service to subject Lots will be made .possible by extending an 8" diameter line across the rear of said Lots and tying into an existing manhole located at the westerly end of the existing concrete alley running from Woodsman Drive. Construction plans are currently being compiled for same proposed sanitary sewer improvements. Projected loading supplied by the subject development is calculated as follows: TRAFFIC' The project is considered a low traffic generator with access to Harvey Road being via two (2) curb cuts located at the west and east ends of the property. Shared access is anticipated with a 24' access easement across the frontage of said property to allow access to the aforementioned "curb cuts". Highway 30 should have no problem absorbing the .traffic loading anticipated by the project. Site distances are adequate to provide safe entry from the project site onto Highway 30. WATER IMPROVEMENTS' An extension of the existing water line (8") across the project frontage will provide adequate volume delivery and. pressure. ~vo (2) fire hydrants will be installed with construction of this .project. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: An existing 8" sanitary sewer line at the rear of the property will furnish "service" to the project, Service lines will tie directly into same 8" line. STORM DRAINAGE' Detention will be incorporated into the site plans association with the development of each lot established by this project. Discharge will be to the rear of the property into an existing creek that runs east-west to its confluence with Carter's Creek approximately 4000• feet south of said Highway 30. ELECTRICAL' Electrical. service is readily available in adequate supply and should provide no problems or significant impact as a result of subject development. In conclusion, the subject development will generate very little additional loading to the existing City infrastructure and should offer a successful residential development. I hope this letter of impact will meet your needs, however, if you have any questions or problems, please contact me at your earliest convenience (409) 846-2688. P.L.S. ~~~.~,g r'r\i~itr r t rolrl\I~ritlol~' .\.t.t.\.t. ~ ~;;;;:.... CtTI' dF ddLt_EGE~ ~TP~TIdN ;'.:'.::i'.; .`.:`:':'•:::'r:`:`•%i~itf•J t}EVEL(}paiE~;~ ~F Trtii1~~=~~ ~ -~'~;~;::~'''`'°: ;`'~:';';':':q;~~.:j;':':':.J ~.~t.\~\•\.l.\'\.e•1-t-1.1.1.1•\•l•1.1.1•t•1.1•\•\• 1 ifUf TEXr1=~ tati E e.J.J.J.J.!•J•J.J •J•J •!•1'f •f'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J \.l.i.i•\.•~.•~ 1 1.1.1-1.1.1'1'1'1'1 •i•t4 „ .r. J.f.J•JJ• J J J '•J-!•J•!•J•J-JJ•J•J'J.J \ 1 bi•1.1•\•1.1-1.1.1•\•\•1• • (~ ~+ r j{ A, J~ (y q GdL LEtiTL ~TATIt}N, Tt-Xfl~ ~~CT'7© . •1.11 i 1 '0l•1. J r... ~.i.J...f. 7 J J ! !.J•J. e.!•J•J •J•J-1 •f.J.l.J •! t•.-1~\.l•l.i•1•l 1 i l\ 1 \_~•\°1.1.1.1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1' .J.f.J. J. J.J /).J.J...J•J•J•J.:.J.f.J.J.J.J.J-f.J.J.J. J.J...; ... l•1 •t•~•1•\•1.1.1•\•\•\•1•\•\•\•\•\•\-1.1.1.1.1.1•\• ,J.J.J.J.J.J..J.J.J.l.J.1.J. J.J.J.J.J.J.J.I.J.J. J./.J Facsimile Cover Sheet ~__--- To: ~~ ~~2J~~/ Company: Phone: i=ax: ~~3 --7~ ~/ From : ,~~~~ ~ .D~~ Company: _ Phone: - ~ o Fax: ~( Date: Ia ~ ~ Pages including this cover page: ---~- Comments: ~ -~-~ J/JFl,•. J•J•J•f•J•JJ•J•f•JJ•J•iJ t447~~ 7VY-3V7d .~.;.~.;-~•;•t•;•1.1.1•\•1.1•inn-1•la•1.1• r.J.J.J.J•J.J.J•J•J•J.J •fJ •J•!.J•J•f.J. J./.J.J. ';•1•.•t.t.,•1.1•1•i•1.1•t•1.1.4.1•t•."•`•1.1.1-1 t409) ?~4-3496 FAX e.l•f.J.J.I.f.J.l.f.J.J./•f.!•J.J.J •I.JM•J•J-J•J •I•J 4 t•t•t-t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•\°1•\-1•t•t•t-t-t•t-t•ty ).J:J~J.J,J.J-i.J.J.J.l.l.J.f. J.f•f •/•J •I•J•J •.J•J.I •J•f •f \ t t\ t i t t \.\•\ t i t• 1.1.1 1• 1•t t\ t i• t 41 t ,J~I J '•!-JJ J J•I •f•f •l J J h!•1•f•I J / J JJ•J J•J}q . t•t~\ \ t•t•t \ \-\•t•\•t• t t•\•t•t 1 1 l•t•t•t•t•t hj I,J, JJ• ~tv iz~r~-+. ~.i~ ~i E.vit~-~inv ~+v~i..~`.u~ v i i=t ~e ~~..%i`'r t`"' T ~' !' f e~i .`v? a- rt't'1- ~ s "~ s:` ~3 r~-s~ r ~.~i i~ :a.. 1 ~ ~1 e`:wt C~ Y, i s i" i fe l - i l es r=t i`Ai n u i I.e uva~le~o erero a +/ ue a «a+ .1 -b..L 1 ~n Iri-elYe ...% z i i v rv 1 - u i. f ~'~vl''~i-.ri4s~ .~ vsv Eels i"i °s -.~i w~v. v~~ii_i~ v`. ?r~.~~~i rev v°rft-c ~i.~v}v~~s ~v~v rit 7 a~~,,,,. W-' i '~ sa'.7 . s i v;; 9. r~i°e ia% s a: :~ 1 ~ er ° ~ ~.ap v f y ~,.+ ~ . .~°e i ~ i ° i r°-`c v i~~ t~s ~ a~"t+~i ~ i. rte.. °e°-~: '? ~ v.~a.'~~ ia'iL jjtsi iflt'lE'I.i:Tia'b:- s:.e ss-'~ia ~ a r3ali t ~R,i-~ ~~e 1 t,: r'.-%u.',~:V:r1? L J 1 I j~ b L M1J! .'h._d 1 I 1 I t L G.. Is l.i ~~,! J. :mf! ro C~ 6 9 1 ~./ # ~,~ 1:/~E=5 Trv~_'oLi:i~j.Cs4' Lrs i~.~i' ('i:- E e:~-~t" 'z '.i ~eaii~-3 z~-..~i.;;~~. 1 e.l;i"~~.;fii~~ 1 L M L i 1 4 E't 1 4 1 f t~ Tt 9 b/ W Ltd ~/ 9~ L.: ~ y ~;~ vv~uv~ v~_Ti. v.~i +._+el~r l ~v°vv vi ~ .. vi i~l e~'v ~i ii v ~ vf' i v° i i ~i i `I ~~~-t .,"r ~'i°n~ad~ ;... 1°~ i1~'i ~ e`F a..,~S ~.~s.`"i -~•t ~-~r'`~'rts i ~-. ihv r 1~1b SA iii vAY rt`~~ vve `w V - Jr CONSULTING ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 4444 CARTER CREEK PKWY, SUITE 108. BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 1409) 846-2688 t409) 846-3094 December 20, 1995 Mr. Kent Laza. P.E.. City Engineer Department Of Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 RE: Amended Letter Of Impact For Lots 1, 2 And 3, Block 1, Jordan Subdivision, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Dear Kent, The Project consists of the establishment of three (3) commercial lots ranging from areas of approximately 1.86 acres to approximately 2.00 acres. Frontage along Texas State Highway No. 30 (Harvey Road) is approximately 190 feet per lot with a total frontage of approximately 570 feet anticipated. (See Enclosed Exhibits "A"- Vicinity Map and "B" -Preliminary Plat). As can be seen from the above referenced Exhibit "A" -Vicinity Map, the subject property lies in a rural area. TRAFFIC: The project would. allow for the establishment of three (3) commercial lots as previously stated. It is anticipated that the probable maximum building area per lot would be approximately 15,000 square feet. The projected maximum. building area ;111ows for access drives and adequate parking areas as well as required "green space". Since. the proposed structures .would be less than 75,000 square feet the Toning Ordinance allows for l parking space per 150 square foot of building area. 'T'herefore the required parking. allowance would be calculated as follows: 15,000 square feet ------------------------ = 100 ~arking.s~aces 150 square feet Please note that the 100 parking spaces would be the "worst case scenario" with the actual parking demands would be ascertained at the time of the site plan. for each lot, however, based on this scenario the total traffic loading at any one time could be assumed to be 900 cars for the total 3-lot development. Highway 30 could .absorb the traffic loading as presented. Site distances are adequate to provide safe entry from the project site onto Highway 30. Major intersections that would be affected by the project are Highway 3l~ at the Highway 6 East By-Pass near the Post Oak Mall and Highway 30 and F.M. 158 at Harvey Comm~mity, both. intersection locations are signalized. It is my opinion that the actual observed traffic generations associated with the subject project would be far less than the "worst case scenario" presented above due to the location and i 9 nature of the proposed commercial developments anticipated to be constructed on this 3-lot subdivision. Water Improvements: An extension of the existing 8" diameter water line across the project frontage will be required to provide fire protection and domestic .water service to the subject project. It.is anticipated that two (2) fire hydrants will be installed on same extension. The exact locations for the referenced fire hydrants will be determined on the site plan .for each lot, however it is anticipated that the fire hydrants will be located at the front of the property near the common lines between Lot 1/ Lot 2 and Lot 2 /Lot 3. Domestic water usage would. generally be estimated by the square footage of the building as follows: 15,000 square feet x 0.36 gallons per square foot/ day = 5400 gallons per day per building peaking by a factor of three (3) 16,200. gallons per day per building Total domestic water loading for project = 48,600 gallons per day = 33.75 gallons per minute or 0.075 cubic feet per second Sanitar~Sewer Improvements: An existing 10" diameter sanitary sewer line located at the rear of the subject property will provide service to the project. Sanitary sewer loading is directly related to the proposed domestic water usages and from the estimation of the domestic water demands as outlined above sewer loading can be estimated as follows: 15,000 square feet x 0.36 gallons per square foot/ day = 5400 gallons per day per building peaking by a factor of three (3) = 1G,200 gallons per day per building infiltration (10%): 1x,200 gpd/building x 0.10 = 1620 gpd/building Total. loading = 53,460 gallons per day = 37.12 gallons per minute = 0.083 cubic feet /second Storm Drainage: Detention will be incorporated into the site plans associated. with the development of each lot established by this project. Discharge will be metered to the rear of the property and directed into an existing creek that runs east-west to its confluence with Carter's Creek approximately 4000 feet downstream from Texas State Highway 30. rr\;t;t~'rT rolrl~l~~;tl~lr Electrical • Electrical service is readily available in adequate supply and should provide no problems or significant impact to the existing electrical system servicing the subject project and its neighboring properties. Impact Of Ad~ jacent Land Ling East And West Of The Subject 3-Lot Subdivision: 12 96 Acre Tract To The West Of Subject Tract: The property lying to the west of the subject 3-lot subdivision (See Exhibit "B" -Preliminary Plat) is currently Zoned A-O. Same A-O tract is 12.96 acres and is not developed at the time of this letter of impact. With the current zoning designation of the 12.96 acre tract the maximum density would be one (1) dwelling unit per 5.00 acre lot or a total of three (3) single family residential Hots. Assuming the density of 31ots the following estimation of residents can be determined as follows: 3 dwelling units with 4 residents per dwelling unit = 12 residents Sanitary Sewer Loading: 12 residents at 100 gallons per day per resident = 1200 gallons per day peaked 3 times = 3600 gallons per day infiltration at 10% = 360 gallons per day Total anticipated sewer loading for 12.96 acre tract = 3960 gallons per day 2.75 gallons per minute or 0.006 cubic feet per second Water Loading: 12 residents at 100 gallons per day per resident = 1200 gallons per day peaked 3 times = 3600 gallons per day Total anticipated water loading for 12.96 acre tract = 3600 gallons per day 2.50 gallons per minute or 0.006 cubic feet per second Traffic• The traffic generated by 3 residential lots is insignificant. Impact to State infrastructure (Highway 30) as a result of 3 residential lots development would be negligible. rr~;~~tr-r~r rvarl\o~r;~~~ir Electrical Electrical Service is available to the .12.96 acre tract and the demand imposed by 3 residential lots is minimal. Storm Draina~e• The drainage increase associated with the development of three residential lots within the bounds of the 12.96 acre tract is insignificant. Drainage flow would continue to flow away from Highway 30 to the rear of said 12.96 acre tract. It is anticipated that no detention would be required. In general it appears that the impact of the development of three (3) residential lots within the bounds of the 12.96 acre tract would be very minimal and could be readily served by City and State infrastructure. Please note that in the future if the zoning designation associated with the 12.96 acre tract changes an .amended impact statement would need to be prepared. 16 Acre Tract To The East Of Subject Tract (Old Jose's Restaurantl: Lying to the east of the. subject 3-lot subdivision (See Exhibit "B" -Preliminary Plat) is a 1.6 acre tract currently Zoned A-O. Currently the_site is occupied by a concrete slab from aburned-out structure and parking area that once serviced same structure. Until a zoning change or development occurs on same site no impact to City or State infrastructure will be realized associated with the 1.6 acre tract. Based on the A-O zoning designation one (1) residential dwelling could be constructed impact for same one (1) dwelling unit is calculated as follows: l dwelling unit with 4 residents per dwelling unit = 4 residents Sanita_y Sewer Loading: 4 residents at 100 gallons per day per resident = 400 gallons per day peaked 3 rimes = 1200 gallons per day infiltration at 10% = 120 gallons per day Total anticipated sewer loading for 1.6 acre tract = 1320 gallons per day 0.92 gallons per minute or 0.002 cubic feet per second Water Loadin~• 4 residents at 100 gallons per day per resident = 400 gallons per day peaked 3 times = 1200 gallons per day Total anticipated water loading for 1.6 acre tract = 1200 gallons per day cr~;~~~r-r~r roic~~0~r~~~~ir 0.83 gallons per minute or 0.002 cubic feet per second Traffic• The traffic generated by 1 residential. lot is insignificant. Impact to State infrastructure (Highway 30) as a result of 1 residential lot development would be negligible. Electrical: Electrical Service is available to the 1.6 acre tract and the demand imposed by 1 residential lot is minimal. Please note that service was previously supplied to the structure prior to the structure burning and being abandoned. Storm Draina~e• Not impact to the existing drainage infrastructure will be contributed until the time of zoning change and / or development occurs on the 1.6 acre tract. current drainage is towards the east and ultimately to the rear of same 1.6 acre tract to the existing creek mentioned previously above. In summation, the existing 1.6 acre tract generates no impact to the City or State infrastructure unless the 1 residence is constructed or a zoning change occurs. In the event of a zoning change an amended impact statement would need to be compiled and submitted for City review and consideration. 10, Acre Tract To The East Of Subject Tract (Gillispie Tract): Lying to the east of adjacent to the 1.6 Jose's Tract (See Exhibit "B" -Preliminary Plat) is the Gillispie Tract which is approximately 1 acre in size and currently Zoned A-O. Currently the site is occupied by an apartment building with approximately 4 dwelling units. Access to apartment building is by a single driveway and utility service is currently being provided by City infrastructure. Until a zoning change occurs on same site no impact to City or State infrastructure will be realized associated with the 1.0 acre tract. Based on the. A-0 zoning designation one (1) residential dwelling could be constructed which would be less impact than the current developed configuration. 10 Acre Tract Adjacent And To The East Of Subject Tract (Nursery): Lying adjacent and to the east of adjacent to the subject 3-lot subdivision (See Exhibit '°B" - Preliminary Plat) is the Chadbourne Tract which is approximately 1 acre in size and currently Zoned C-3. Currently the site is occupied by a greenhouse nursery. The greenhouse structure is approximately 2800 square feet in size and contains one restroom with water closet and lavatory. An existing parking lot services the existing .nursery .with. 8 parking space provided for vehicular parking. Access is provided to the nursery by a single driveway from Highway 30. Until a zoning rr~~~~~r~r~r r\ir~~i~~;~i~ic ~ o N change occurs on same site, there will be no additional impact to City or State infrastructure as the nursery facility is currently being supplied utility service and access from State Highway No. 30. I hope you will find this impact letter satisfactory. for your review, consideration and subsequent approval, however, if you have any questions or problems with the items contained herein please contact me at your earliest convenience (409) 846-2688. Respectfully Submitted, Donald D. Garrett, P.E., Garrett Engineering r~~r~;t~tlr~r roi~~\i~r;tl\i~ m ,~" ~ 9 a (.N ~ ~ o rn ~' x w ~ it W~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~`~y ~'' +~ ~ Z ~~, cn .~ ~ o w .~ w ~, Ul ~ 0~ V d ~ Q r ~ r ~ ~ `+ --' o ~ ~ w c~ na c~ ~ o -~ ~ i m ~, 0 ~~ ~~. ~ •. [1 ; O' 3' _ f~_ • S° ~ ~' S '~4' l L 407.87 CAZt~t) --- -5' =4 ~ ~ X11, 2 CDee~) c~it w ~, ~~ C!1 ~ 0~ ., n v o~ yo v «° r® a ' su ~~~. r ~ +-~ - i / ~ ~ +~ / ~{ U T1~FD~4~`MENT ~, ,~y ~ • I~ a~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ''' • C -o ~ ~ ~, / w lO M ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ / ; x ' ~ N ~ 0 0 ~/ /; ~ ~ ~.~ Dh f ~ ~~ j f `~ ~ .p., t11 ~~ ~~ ~- ~~ I i ~ ~ A ~~ / ~ /~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ N ~~ ~ S 4(4.'53'55` E~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ -.. ao / 440,3 ( .fin N ~~ a ,~ f 1 ~,--~ ~ I I 11 w N ~ Q / ~ ~ ~ I ~ o I (.!1 W W ~~ N / ~ S 4 ~53'S5° ~ E I ~~ ~ can m~~ / ~ (458,89 ~ ~ N I W ;~ ~d ~ fro/ ~ ~ ~~. x ! ,o / ~ ~. n ~ 1 I ,~~ ~.. , 1 ~ ~~ r 0 ~_ N N .~; v~ A ~- • ~ ~ N ' .-. ~ N ~ ~ ~N N N ~^ r O [~ Regular. Item: Consent Item Statutory I em Item Submitted By: For Council Meeting Of: .Director Approval: Jane R I<ee Cit~Planner 2-8-96 Executive Member Approval Ends Statements l Strategic Issues: Civic Pride. Citizens benefit from well planned, attractive residential and commercial areas. Item: Consideration of preliminary plat for the Jordan Subdivision to reflect existing conditions and subdivide 23.1.1 acres into 3 lots .and 2 reserve tracts. The subject property is located in the Maria Kegans League, Harvey Hillsides area, fronting on the south side of SH 3Q between Linda and Pamela Lanes.. It is adjacent to and on the west side of LaSelva Orchid Nursery. (96-300) Item Summary: Old plats of the Harney Hillsides subdivision refer to this property ,as "Block 4", as if it were platted: Upon further research. it is apparent that subdivisions have occurred on-this property over time without benefit ofi platting as required by the Local- Government Code. Mr. Weldon. Jordan purchased 5:84 acres (shown as lots 1,2, and 3 on this proposed preliminary plat) in 1993.: He is :now wanting to develop or sell his property, but because "B ock 4" was never really legally p atted, Mr. Jordan i required to submit a preliminary plat accompanied by impact studies of the entire "Black 4", with the acreage he currently owns .designated as lots 1, 2, & 3, and the rest of the unplatted .property previously referred to as Block 4 shown as "Reserved for Future Development". Mr. Jordan. will then be able to come in with a Final Plat of only his property at his convenience, and the owners of the remaining property can come in with. either .Final .Plats or additional Preliminary Plats of their properties, whichever applies. The 3 lots shown are zoned C-3 Planned Commercial. A .portion of the small 4.3 acre tract is ai o zoned C-3 while the remainder is zoned A-0. the 12.9 acre tract is zoned A-0. o:dev serv/cvshU96-300 Financial Summary: N/A I Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. P&Z recommended approval at their 1-18=96 meeting. ?~ City Attorney Recommendation: N/A '' Council :Action Desired: Approve Pre iminary Plat as shown. Supporting Materials: 1, Application 2. Staff report 3. P&Z Minutes. 4. Copy of Plat. o:dev servlcushfJ96-3Q0 UNNFRSITy "TITLE COMP,4Ny r Mr. Weldon Jordan PO BOX 10210 College Station, TX 77842 L Gentlemen: Re: GF# 930437 Part of Block 4, Harvey Hillsides J In regard to the above referenced property transaction, enclosed please find: 1. Check No. # , in the amount of $ the 2. Check No. #- , in the amount of $ the survey. 3. Check No. # , in the amount of $ the termite inspection. representing payment of -taxes: representing payment of representing payment of 4. Check No. # , in the amount of $ ,representing payment of the property inspection. _ 5. Check No. # _ , in the amount of $ ,representing payment of the legal fee. 6. Check No. # , in the amount of $ - ,representing payment of the hazard insurance policy premium. 7. Check No. # ; in the amount of $ ,representing the payoff. Also enclosed, please find a Release of Lien, which vve ask you to execute and return to us for recording. The Sellers' forwarding address is: - ~ 8. Please find enclosed the ori;7inal recorded Warranty Deed (Vol 1771 Page 14~) for amour file 9. 10. 11. Thank You. Suzanne Krupa UNIVERSITY TITLE COMPANY .1021 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST P O. DRAWER DT COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77841-5079 .PHONE: (409) 260-9818 CELIA GOODE, PRESIDENT ;; t ~ From: ,Pete Shively To: S~IOLK Date: 12/7/,95 1:38pm Subject: ~ Weldbn Jordan -Reply -Reply In general, I think you have been doing the right thing: Though, as I said to Rox I think that a reasonable '°compromise" solution would be to just require the signatures of the adjoining property owners and not of the entire block. I will send you the revised version of section 12.002 of the Property Code, which is the section that now has the recording requirements for plats. Please note, however, that it only says that a clerk caruiot record a plat unless approved by the City, County, or both. It does not say that a clerk cannot file a deed that uses a metes and bounds description. In fact, the Attorney General has already opined that a clerk must record such a deed even if it effects an illegal subdivision as long as it otherwise meets the recording. requirements:. See Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JM-508 (1986). The statute does make it illegal for the seller to include a subdivision description unless that subdivision is platted, but again, the prohibition and the enforcement is only against the seller, not the clerk. The clerk is only obligated to insure that all plats have the proper certifications priorto filing. Pll send down copies of the 1996 version of chapter 212. »> Shirley Volk 12/07/95 08:54am »> I read your letter to Mr. Elmore, and believe, after reading. all that legalese that we have been "doing the right thing°' in the past regarding our platting requirements. Correct? Also, you refer to an article which prohibits {Section 3 ofarticle 974a) whichprovides in part, "That it shall be unlawful for the County Clerk of any county in which such'1and lies to receive or record any such plan..:unless...approved by the City Planning Commission....". ff uideed that is a state statute, is it possible for oiir city and perhaps evenBryan to get together with Mary Ann Ward to see if she can be convinced to stop accepting subdivision of property by .metes and bounds descriptions which have never gone tluu the P.&Z in the form of a plat. I talked to one of Bryan's planners the other day, and they are rumung across the same problems we are having. When it is allowed to keep happening, someone such as Mr. Jordan finally gets "caught" and it becomes a ', very expensive project for him to sell. a little piece: of property. (As well as making the City staff look like we are:uncooperative.) Suggestions? Another also - if there is a later edition of the Local Gov't Code regarding land use and related activities (Chapter 212) than we have, could you get us a copy. I got an updated copy early in 1995, but I don't know if it's the most recent. Thanks again..:for your help.. »> Pete Shively 11/22/95 11:57am »> Shirley, & Jane, could you give me a "listuig" of the files on which we have taken a similar position. (i.e. you can't re-plat a portion if there was an illegal subdivision since 1970).. What Pm thinking;is that if I can find those other files and look through them, maybe Pll find some legal authority or argument that I can present to Jordan's lawyer that will be more compelling than simply "that's the way we've done it before." I know'in your prior a-mail you mentioned thaYwe ook this stance with the Mcilhaney's. Was there ever a file opened on this (either in legal or in your department)?, What is it called? Also, Rox tells me that we took this position with Culley Lipsey as well. Same questions: was there a file, what was it called; where' is it? Obviously, don't knock yourself out looking this info up. I'm just hoping that we may find the "needle" that we need in the haystack of old files. Thanks. /3/~ `tr~i~/ -~~- ~~ ~ l ' ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~- roi.. `•• CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I ~' Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 December 4, 1995 RECLtV~D p` ~A FEICSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL 5 X995 Mr. Ed Elmore Hoelscher, Lipsey, Elmore & Smith, P.C. 1021 University Drive East, Suite 102. College Station,. Texas 77840.-2120 Fax: (409) 268-3080 Re: Weldon Jordan 5.84 acre tract Dear Mr. Elmore: On Friday, November 17 1995, and again last week, you contacted my office and we spoke about the City's :.interpretation of .the applicable subdivision regulations concerning tha above-referenced tract of land, which is owned by your client Weldon Jordan. Based on the materials. that you provided to me and some additional research into the County ahd City records, the facts that I have been. able to determine: thus far are as follows.. 1. In the 1960's and '70's a corporation by the name of "Harvey Hillsides, Inc." owned.. and developed the Harvey Hillsides. subdivision east of the Highway 6 Bypass and south of State Highway 30. 2. On July 25, 1967, Harvey Hillsides, Inca filed 4 plats in the :Deed Records of Brazos County. The Plat to Harvey Hillsides, Block One is filed at Volume 263,. Page 485. The Plats to Harvey. Hillsides, Blocks Two and Three are filed at Volume 263, Page 487 and 489, respectively. Pages 484, 486,. and 488 of Volume 263 are blank.. The plats for Blocks One, Two, and Three appear to be properly "approved for filing" by the chairman. of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas. These three plats are also appear to contain appropriate acknowledgr~~nts, dedications, and .surveyor certifications. (Copies are enclosed with the regular mail copy of this letter).. Also purportedly filed for record on July 25, 1967 is a so-called "Master Platt" [sic]. For :reasons as yet unknown, however, his plat does not appear in the Deed Hame of TexasA~Ni Qniversity ,% __ Letter to Mr. Ed Elmore December 4, 1995. Page 2 Records until the succeeding volume, that is Volume 264,1 and the documents that appear of record both before and after this plat appeaz to have no connection to either the Harvey ~f-Iillsides property or its owners. This "Master Platt" is not signed by anyone, nor certified by any surveyor, nor .approved by any county or city planning and zoning commission. As you can see from the enclosed .copy (again with the regular mail copy only), the only markings on this map aze the handwritten reference. to "Harvey Hillsides", the scale, .the date, the County Clerk's file stamp,. the Volume. and Page stamp, and a typed statement along the bottom: "This is the Master Platt [sic] of Harvey Hillsides of Block 1, 2, and 3 as recorded in Volume 263, Pages 485, 487 and 489 of the Deed Records." Notice. that. this statement does not make. any mention of a Block 4. The map, however, does show a Block 4, without any lot designations. 3. On October 3, 1972, Harvey Hillsides, Inc. sold a 1.73 acre tract, referenced as being "part of B1ock,Four` (4), Harvey.. Hillsides Subdivision, plat. of said subdivision being recorded in Volume 264, Page. 484" and then being more particularly described by metes and bounds. The Chronology that you:: provided also indicates that 3 tracts (1 of which may:.. be this .1.73 acre tract) out of Block 4, were subdivided and sold "prior to 1970: Locatioh of former .Jose's Restaurant,' Gillespie Rental .Building, and Nursery." I can neither confirm .nor deny the fact or dates of these sales, and I `have. not made any systematic attempt to locate or track the deeds to these sales. 4. On August. 26, 1976, the Boazd of Directors of Harvey Hillsides, Inc. adopted a "plan of liquidation." 5. On June 17, 1977,. the Boazd of Directors adopted a resolution pursuant to the foregoing plan of liquidation. to convey certain real property owned by the corporation to individual shareholders in exchange for the surrender. of their shares. 6. On June 29, 1977, and pursuant to the foregoing resolution, Harvey Hillsides, Inc. executed deeds conveying certain tracts of land, as follows: a. 45 acres to William G. Adkins, Trustee, Phillip B. Goode, the Estate. of M. Lo Parker Jr., Deceased, and the Estate of W. M. Spazks, Deceased. Each to receive 1/4 share. Volume 376, Page 246,. Deed Records. t Please note that the "Chronological Order of Events" that you sent over refers to this Master Plat being filed in Volume 263, Pages 484, 485, 487, and 489." ,, Letter to Mr. Ed Elmore December. 4,1995 Page 3 b. 6.63 acres to the Estate of W. M. Sparks, Deceased. Volume 376, Page 244, Deed Records. c. 6.36 acres to the Estate of M. Lawrence Parker, Deceased. Volume 376, Page 249, Deed Records. - d. 6.89 acres to William G. Adkins, Trustee. Volume 376, Page 253, Deed Records. e. 5.66 acres to Phillip B. Goode. Volume 376, Page 251, Deed Records. This appears to be the subject tract, now described as being 5.$4 acres. The deeds: for the. five smaller tracts (b-e above).. all refer to the property as being a part of Bock 4, but then use a metes and bounds description for the specific property. (I don't believe the 45 acre. conveyance referenced in item a above has anything to do with the subject property.) 7. Sometime. in the 1980's .portions of :Block 4 were further subdivided. This information ~an be gleaned from the adjoining deed references contained in the ]Field Notes to Weldon Jordan's 1993 deed.. For example, the .property to the west along Highway. 30, .which was originally the 636 acre tract was apparently subdivided into a 3.18 acre tract and a remainder by a deed filed in Volume 1245, Page. 758 of the Official Records. Also the property to the east of the 5..66 acre tract, which was originally the 1.73' acre tract, is now referenced as a 0.95 acre tract according to a deed filed in Volume 1166, Page 736 of the Official... Records. To date, I have not acquired. copies of these deeds to check the dates or further explore the subdivisions that may have occurred in this area. 8. On April 15, 1993, Mr. Weldon Jordan purchases a 5.84 acre tract that is described as being a "Part of Block 4 of HARVEY HILLSIDES according to the Plat recorded in Volume 263 page 484, Deed Records ... and being ;all of that 5.84 acre tract (called 5.66 acres).conveyed ... by deed recorded in Volume 376, Page 251 ...." The'description then proceeds to a metes and bounds description of the property, which has somewhat different calls then the 1977 deed. ~_ Letter to Mr. Ed Elmore December 4, 1995 Page 4 9. November. 1.995, Mr. Jordan presents. a subdivision. of the 5..84 acre tract to the City Planning Staff, who advise him that he must plat all of Block 4 that was not already subdivided prior to 1970. Based on the foregoing .facts (and 'perhaps. some. others), I believe that ,your question to my office on behalf of your client was, in essence, will the City maintain this position with respect to Mr. Jordan's proposed subdivision of the 5.84 acre tract, and if so what is the City's legal ..:authority., for this interpretation of the applicable ...subdivision ordinances and statutes? You also suggested that perhaps § 212A14 of the Local Government Code, which` addresses "Replatting", might resolve` this matter.. In order to determine whether this Code .section applies to this tract, I must first determine. whether there was an original plat of Block 4. ' That is, whether the Master Plat is an effective plat of Block 4? As stated above, the map. is filed in Volume 264, Page 484 of the Deed Records, and it does show all the boundaries of an subdivided Block 4 on that map. On the other hand, the map itself states that it is the Master Plat for Blocks 1, 2, and 3. Block 4 is not mentioned in tie description." More dispositive, however, is the fact that the map lacks any dedication,:. acknowledgment, certification by the surveyor, or certificate of approval by the City planning and zoning. commission. At' the time, this property .was not within the City .limits, but it was.. clearly within the 1 mile ETJ required for. platting and City approval by the City ordinance at that time (ordinance noY 690) and within the 5 mile radius area in which platting and City approval were required by Article 974a, §§ l and 3, Texas Revised Civil Statutes, the applicable state statute for that era:2 Aside from the other deficiencies in the map, the absence of any approval by the City planning and zoning commission clearly violates both of the above-referenced laws.3 To date, I :have not located.. any case law or attorney general opinions that determine: the legal' effectiveness of a plat, that. was illegally filed in the land records. Arguably, the plat does provide some notice (for example, the ..county grantor/grantee indices do refer to Block 4 of Harvey Hillsides). Arguably: as. well, however, the complete lack of compliance with the clear. statement of the recording requirements and 2 In 1958, the City limits were several hundred yards beyond the current Furrows property. Without doing an exact calculation of the distance, Lthink that it is safe to assume that the subject tract was within theapplicable ETJ areas. 3 See, for example, section 3 of article 974x, which provides in part, "That itshall be unlawful for the County Clerk of any county in which such land lies to receive or record any such plan,. plat or replat, unless and until the same shall have been approved by the City Planning Commission ...." .~'` Letter to Mr. Ed Elmore December 4, 1995 Page S the absence of any reference to Block 4 in the title to the document could well prompt a court to declare it void, or at least an ineffective notice to the City. My view, at this time, is that the plat:. mightbe effective to estop the parties to the deeds thatreference Block 4 in their legal. descriptions from denying the validity of those deeds and the boundaries of the .property conveyed. thereby. As to other parties, however, and certainly the affected municipality, I do not think that :this map is an effective plat of Block 4. Even if this were an effective plat,. I do nc,t think that section 212.014 of the Local Government Code would be of service. to Mr. Jordan in this case. As .you have pointed out,. this section requires that a replat of a part of a subdivision be recorded if it "is signed and acknowledged' by only the owners of the property being replatted." The problem in this :case is that since there never. was any prior play that showed. the 5.66, or 5..84 acre, lot' or subdivision, the property being replatted includes all of Block 4--or at .least the owners of the properties on either side. of the subject tract since the replat will draw plat lines,.. establishing the boundaries of the 5.84 acre tract, where there were no prior flot lines. 1vlore simply, the prior plat shows only one lot, and now a person wants to replat a portion of that=one large lot. In my view, the:"property being replatted" in such a case includes the'entre lot. The outcome would be'different, however,: if the replat of a part of the subdivisibn`was only reglatting within existing, platted lots. .Texas case law appears to support.. the foregoing interpretation. See Lacy v. Hoff, 633 SW.2d 605 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] .1982, writ refd n.r.e.). The facts of that case appear o be remarkably similar to the instant case. In 1968, appellee subdivided a 2382 acre tract of land located within Hunter's Creek. The subdivision, Soldier's Creek, was platted and filed of record with the County .Clerk of Harris County. The recorded plat of the subdivision reflects two lots, identified. as Lot 1 and. Lot 2. Appellee later .conveyed Lot and a portion of Lot 2 to a third party not involved in the present litigation. On January 9, and February 14, and March 26, 1980_ and January 28, 1981, appellee submitted a lot and. construction plat to the. Planning arld Zoning Commission ... in an attempt. to divide that part of Lot 2 still owned by him into two lots so that a second home could be built on the property. Lacv, -633 S.W.2d of 606 _(emphasis added). The:. Appeals Court, in reversing the trial court, found that the appellee/subdivider had not complied with Article974a §§ 1 and 2 in ~'' .. - ,F Letter to Mr. Ed Elmore December 4, 1995 Page 6 that the plats that he had submitted did not locate the. subdivision "to an original corner of the original. survey of which it is a part. [And none of the plats ... were duly acknowledged by any owner of the land to be subdivided; ...." ~d. at 611.. I believe that 'this language requires a subdivider in this situation to both reference an original corner of the original survey, or plat, of which it is a part and include the owners of the land being 'subdivided: that land being--at aminimum--the tracts immediately .adjacent to the proposed subdivision hrough which the new lot lines, .including the exterior lines of the 5.84 acre tract, will run. As you are probably aware, the requirements of Article 974a §§ 1 and. 2 are now found in subsections 212.004(b)(1), and (c) of the Local Government.Code. In addition, the definitions section of that Chapter states that the term. "Plat" includes. a replat. TEx. 'LOCAL Gov'T CODE § 212.001(2) .(West 1996).. Accordingly, the platting requirements set forth in section 212.004 also .apply to replats. In conclusion, subsections 212.004(b)(1) and (e) require both new plats and replats to reference an original corner and to be acknowledged by the owners of the tract be platted. In the case of a prior, unplatted subdivision and a~subsequent attempt to plat the subdivided tract, the holding in Lacv v. Hoff indicates that the plat must. reference a corner of the original subdivision, plat, or survey, and it must be acknowledged by the owners of the land being platted, which in these cases includes the owners of the original tract, lot, or survey. See also Myers v Zoning_& Plan Com'n of CitX of West University Pl., 521 S.W.2d 322, 325 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [Ist Dist.] 1975, writ refd n.r.e.). Finally,. the-Texas courts have also confirmed that property owner in these cases do have a remedy: ,namely, suit against the party that sold them the unplatted property. See Precision Sheet Metal Mfg v. YYates, .794 S.W.2d 545''(Tex. App.--Dallas 1990, writ denied) (reversing summary judgment for seller, allowing D.T.P.A. and article 974a actions to stand, and applying discovery rule to toll statute of limitations). Since y, ~. Pete Shively Assistant City Attorney Encl. cc: Jane Kee, City Planner ,. FILE NOTE Date: November 17, 1995 Re: Weldon Jordan Tract -subdivision question From: Pete `Shively, Assistant City Attorney I just got a phone call this. afternoon from local attorney Ed Elmore, who indicated that he is representing Weldon Jordan. IVIr. Elmore explained. that Mr. Jordan has had some difficulty with. the City's Planning staff with respect to platting a 5.84 acre tract that Mr. Jordan bought in 1993. According to Mr. Elmore, the crux of the problem was that the planning staff was attempting--as a condition of approving Mr. Jordan's proposed plat. of his tract--to require Mr. Jordan to plat not only his'property but the surrounding properties that were all part ®f a single, "parent" tracf that was allegedly illegally subdivided some years ago by the previous owners. Mr. Elmore explained that he thought that there. might be some. law that would allow his client to plat his tract despite the prior illegal subdivision. He also explained that his client wanted to resolve. this matter in time to place the plat on the December 13th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting--if possible. I listened to the story, told him that I would accept his fax "chronology" on he matter, and that we would look into it. I specifically did not make any representations to him as to what I thought the outcome, legally, would be or when we would get to it. ~~o ~~ a~ ~~~ ~~; p~~~~~~ ~~~ ) ~~~ ~ ~~ . ~ 7 ~,y( ~~ ~/",/"' ~Z~'le~ ' V `2~.e2G~ ~i9-o bComme~ci E~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~" From: To: Date: Subject: Jane Kee SVOLK 11/3/95 9:39am Plumbing Shop in C-3 -Reply As long as there is no storage outs' thin else ou said about the ~h\ ~" ~plumbiz~:-s~~ sounds fine in C-3~ Also, the question rom Roy re: Exxon - the ~ as station/convenience'store is OK but no on premise consumption - no 4 seating. ~~ m »> ~,~' !~~ Shirley :Volk 11/02/95 04:34p h 1 d I got this question yesterday, and thought I sent it on to someone to e p me, but m~ybe that's he one I was working on when my computer locked up! Anyway, I got this call yesterday (and again todag!) from a man who is interested to know if he can put a plumbing contractor's shop in a C-3 district. He would have a small building - probably 1500 sq. ft. - with a small office in front and a storage area for parts in the back. His plumbers would be coming in at various times during the day and he would be working in the office primarily'makng estimates. I didn't know if this was a use which could be allowed in C-3 or not. I thought perhaps it can. Today when he called, I found that the property is the Weldon Jordan property, Land if my memory serves, it will need to be not only final platted, but ypreliminary platted. I think L have a file on that, so will look that up myself . If one of you planner-types can help me out with the C-3 question, I'll be happy to call him back. Thanks. ~ - .. (7 ::_. ~ ~ f p rt p,, ~. D t C ~ ~ _ ~ ` ~ ~ '~ z emu! .` ~_: ~a :~.~ -- t \ ~ a ` '~w.u. ~ l M• ... ~ ~ • m:q~ra~ STAFF PRC .REPORT JORDAN SUBDIVISION CASE #96-300 Show existing sewer easements. _ .Show existing waterlines.. ~' ~S ~~e~~ ~ ~~ t~ ~ -~w ~~'~~" ~~~ 1 vca~ .Fire h drants do not have to be shown on the lat: ~ ~~~ - Y p ~~ s-e5~ -~ q _ Show existing structures lot lines. C~ ~-~~~ ~~-~ Modify application. to show existing zoning. V _ Submit a letter for a driveway variance or show access easements. Show a separate drawing of proposed and existing driveways in relation to existing .drives adjacent and opposite to development.. State.. if none. 5 ~~~ -~-~ ~ ~~ ~~ (.r~ ~- `~ ~~ PRESUBMISSION CONFERENCE REPORT 7anuary 5, 1996 TO: Weldon E, Jordan- P. O. Box 10210, College Station, TX 77842 Donald G. Garrett, Garrett :Engineering 4444 Carter Creek Parkway,. Suite 108, Bryan, TX 77802 FROM: Project Review Committee.. Sabine Kuenzel, Staff Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Wnnie Garner, P&Z Representative Others. Attending Debra Charanza, Engineering & Planning Secret ry Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Tony Nlichalsky, Electrical Operations: Co r nator Laverne Akin, G.T.E. Representative SUB7ECT: Preliminary Plat -Jordan Subdivision; preliminary plat. to reflect the existing conditions and subdivide. a portion` of the 23.11 acres into 5 lots located in the Maria Kegans League along the south side of State Highway 30 betweeh Linda ..and Pamela Lanes, adjacent to and on the west side of LaSelva Orchid Nursery. (96-300) A Presubmission Conference meeting was.. held Wednesday, .January 3, 1996 to discuss the above mentioned preliminary plat. The following is a list of ordinance requirements and comments. identified by the Presubmission-Conference.. This list does not relieve the applicant of total compliance with all current ordinance requirements.. Ordinance Requirements: _ Show all existing and proposed easements, (Include the. existing sanitary sewer easements, a 10' easement for electric along lot 1 and provide a 10' public utility easement along the frontage of the property to cover the electrical, telephone and future water line. Fire'hydrants do not have to be shown on the plat. (Fire .hydrant locations are required at the time of site plan review.) _ Show the existing structures closest to the lot lines. (These structures can be shown on a separate sheet or on the final plat itself.). .Modify the .application to show the existing zoning district. (Use ordinances provided to verify. the location of the C=3 zoning.) Show the shared. access easement for the driveway.. Provide a separate drawing of proposed and existing driveways in relation to all existing drives located adjacent and opposite of the subject property. PRC Report Jordan Subdivision Case #96-300 Page 2 of 2 Comments/Concerns: Coordinate electrical' service details .with. Electrical Operations Coordinator Michalsky at - (409).764-3660. _ Coordinate telephone service details with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723. ~li SUBMIT 13 COPIES OF THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT BY FRIDAY, JANUARY 12 1996 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING `AND ZOI~TING COMMISSION PACKETS. FOR THE MEETING OF 7ANUARY 18, 1996. THE CITY,COUNCIL WII.L CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT ON THURSDAY,;FEBRUARY 8, 1996. BOTH MEETINGS WILL BE HELD AT 7;00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL ROOM OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY HALL LOCATED AT 1101 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH. i i i