Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousFrom:. Steve Homeyer To: City of College Station.City Hall(JSchwartz, SVOLK... Date: 5/20/97 4:35pm Subject: Technology Research Park -Reply -Reply No he has not. The Ledbetters need to submit and easement info sheet for the sanitary. sewer. I have the metes and bounds description in my office but no info sheet. <-~ »> Tony Mchalsky 05/20 97 02:43pm »> I assumed the addtional asements for the Research Park, to serve each lot, would be shown on the F nal Plat of the Property. Now-for the Texas Di ital Building Site, (just that lot) I will need a temp easement. »> Shirley Vol 05/20/97 02:33pm »> Did 'Bill Ledbe ter ever turn in easement information for this. (I must assume Chris Galind s question refers to the blanket easement and perhaps the off-site ea ement for drainage, but since I didn't talk to him,'I really don't know! I'm hoping you will!) C L~ l ~~ ,~,~ ~~~, ~~~c~~, ~~ ~,~~~2s e~ 1/ ~~. ~'4 i f. II ~~,y~ }' 7~ E ~•~ CITY tJF COLLEGE STATION `~ LEGAL. DEPARTMENT. / POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE .COLLEGE STAT10N,7EXAS 77842-9960 (409)764-3507 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Jane Kee, City Planner Skip Noe, City Manager Roxanne Nemcik, Senior Assistant City Attorney TDS Rezoning -Covenants and Restrictions February 15, 1996 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the City can enforce private deed restrictions if the property owner designates and authorizes the City to do so. FACTS: Texas Digital Systems is a company that currently operates a business.. in College Station. tt's owner, Mr. Bob .Bowers, owns a` parcel of property along the bypass of approximately 34 acres and wishes to relocate and consolidate his business at this site. This parcel'is currently zoned R-1 and A-O. Bowers has°filed an application to rezone this property from the current classifications to M-1. The adjacent property owners are concerned about the compatibility of adjacent. uses in having M-1 abut up to R-1. The applicant is willing to #ile deed restrictions on his :property addressing public concern and to leave the creek area as a natural reserve, thus creating a buffer zone. between. the residential property and.: the M-1 zone: Additionally, the .applicant has indicated a willingness to .down zone his property from M-1 to a new district zoning classification that. is .currently being drafted by the. Planning. Department that .would be the substantial equivalent of he M-1 zoning with deed restrictions and would'. be .more compatible zoning district abutting up_to residential property. js/c/feb96ftds.doc ~~ Jane Kee Skip Noe February 15, 1996 Page 2 DISCUSSION: 1. Who can enforce restrictive covenants? Generally, restrictwe .covenants can only. be :enforced by .parties to the restrictive covenant or agreement, or by those who. can. prove thaf the covenant :was imposed on land forathe benefit ofland owned by them. Baker v. Alford, 482 S.W.2d 908, 909 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Houston {1st Dist.] 1972); Davis v. Skipper, 83 S.W.2d 318. (Tex. 1935); ee generally, 51 A.L.R.. 3~ 556,;SECTION 4(a)~. The right of a person not a party to a res#rictive covenant>or agreement'to enforce it depends upon the intention of the parties: -that is, where the restriction is .created by deed,: the intention of the .grantor and the grantee -- in imposing it. Interstate Circuit, .Inc. v. Pine` Forest Country .Club, 409 S.W,2d 922, error ref. n.re. (Tex. Cis. App. -- Houston [1st Dist] 1966, r.n.r.e.). 1n order to confer a right of enforcement upon one other than a party to the agreement, it must appear that it was :intended to create a servitude or right which would inure. to the benefit of the land acquired by #hem. Interstate Circuit, inc. V. Pine Forest Country Club , 409 SW.2d 922, 926-27, citing Davis v. Skipper, 83 S.W2d 318. (Tex. 1935). In the absence of proof either that the plaintiff is a party to the .covenant or that he is an intended' beneficiary because the restriction benefits his land, the covenant is considered a ...personal rather han a real covenant. Id. at 926; Baker v. Alford, 482 S.1N.2d at 909. ll. The distinction between ''real" and "personal".covenants The primary distinction between real and personal covenants is that real-covenants run with the land, binding the heirs and assigns of the covenanting parties, and .personal covenants do not. In order to "run with the land", a covenant must be made by parties in`"privity of estate"? at the time the conveyance of property `is made. Tarrant App. D. v. Colonial Country Club, 767 S.W.2d-230, 235 (Tex. App. -- Fort. Worth 1989, no writ); Clear Lake Apts. v. Clear Lake Utilities, 537 S;W.2d 48, 51 (Tex.. Civ. App. -- .Houston [14th Dist.]), modified on other grounds, 549 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. 1977). in Texas, to establish a covenant that runs with the land the requirements are: Annotation, Comment Note -- Who may enforce Restrictive Covenant or Agreement as to Use Of Real Property. 2"Privity of Estate" means that there must be a mutual or successive relationship to the same .rights of property. Westland Oil Development Corp, v. Gulf oil, 637 S.W.2d 903, 910-11(Tex. 1982). js/c/feb96/tds.doc e'~ Jane Kee Skip Noe. February 1 ~, 1996. . Page 3 1. there must be "privity of estate" between the parties to the agreement; 2. the covenant must relate to somethingin existence, or specifically bind the :parties. and #heir assigns; 3. the covenant must touch or concern the iand;3 4. it is intended by the. original covenanting parties. that the restrictive covenant run with the land;4 5. the successor to the burden has: notice.. Unless aA.of these requirements are. met, the covenant cannot. run with the land and cannot. bind subsequent purchasers. On the other hand,. personal covenants bind only.. the actual parties #o the covenant and those. who purchase the land with notice of thee. restrictive covenants, if the restrictions concern and or its use. Frey v. DeCordova Bend Estates Owners Assn, 632 S.W.2d 877, 879 (Tex. App.`-- Fort Worth 1982), affd, .647 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. 1983). However, the fact tha# restrictions are based upon. personal covenants does not affect their va idity. Tarrant App. D. v. Colonial Country Club, 767 S.W.2d at 235. Rather, it determines who is bound by the restrictive covenant, not whether the covenant is .valid. Id. Thus, in cases where covenants are .personal rather than real, to .ensure subsequent. purchasers are bound by the restrictive covenants, they must take the property with notice' of the covenant or servitude.6 Id.; Co#lum v. Neuhoff, 507 S.W.2d 920 :(Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 4974, no writ). 3The term touch and concern has been interpreted as (1) affecting the nature, quality or value of the thing independently of collateral .circumstances or (2) if it affects the mode of enjoying it or (3) if the promisee's legal relations in respect. to that. land are increased -- Mis legal interest as owner rendered more value by'the promise. -1d. at 911. 4lntent of the parties is determined from the language of the deed itself. Jim Walter Homes v. Youngtown, Inc., 786. S.W.2d 10, 12 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont 1990, no writ). $Inwood Homeowners' Associatiorr_ v. Harris, 736 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex. 1987); Billington v. Rifle, .492 S.W.2d 343, 345-46 (Tex. App.'-- Amarillo 1973, no writ); Jim Walter Homes v. Youngtown, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont,1990, no writ). 6Notice in law, is of two kinds, actual and constructive. Constructive notice is .implied. by law .from duly'recorded instruments or from the possession of land. Sickles v White,° 66 Tex.'. 178 (1886); Westland Oil Development Corp. v. Gulf Oil, 637 S.W:2d at 911. Actual notice can be of two kinds, express and implied.. /d. Express actual notice is express knowledge of a fact. Woodward v. Ortiz, 237 S.W.2d 286 (1951). Implied actual notice or inquiry notice is an inference of fact. When a person has knowledge of such facts as would cause a prudent man 'to make further inquiry, he is chargeable..with .notice of the facts, which by use of ordinary intelligence,: he would have ascertained. Flack v. First NationalBank of,Dalhan`, 226 S.W.2d 628, (Tex. 1950). js/cffeb96/tds.doc, ®' ,, Jane Kee Skip Noe February 15, 1996 Page 4 lll. Exceptions to the General Rule Concerning Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants a. Governmental entities. There are two Texas statutes in which the legislature has recognized public interests in. enforcing restrictive covenants without having a property interest or owning a property that is an intended beneficiary:. The Texas LocAL GOVERNMENT CooE7 and THE GREENBELT AcTB. ' Through these statutes the legislature authorizes. the designated governmental entity the authority. to enforce restrictive covenants on private land even though they do not have a concomitant property in#erest. Consequently, the legislature has carved .out an exception to the common law and allowed municipalities without zoning ordinances with a population of 1.5 million or more to enforce restrictive covenants as if .they. owned benefited property. Similarly, THE GREENBELT ACT affords landowners the .right to have their property tax assessed according to the act ifi they restrict the use of their land to scenic, park and recreational .use and incorporate the language of article 7150n and. subchapter F into the deed. restrictions. .Texas courts have held such 'a reference to the statute. as sufficient to' manifest the parties' intent to create, and the terms necessary to create, a .valid and enforceable legal covenant. See, Tarrant App. ©. v. Colonial Country Club, 767..: S.W.2d 230 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth .9.989, no writ). It should. be noted #hat the. court, without expressly articulating, infers that the state has acquired a right in he property by virtue of affording the owner a reduced tax assessment. This case is distinguishable from our rezoning case for two reasons:. First, the legislature has not specifically authorized a city. of our size the abi)ity to enforce deed restrictions, and second, he GREENBELT AcT does not apply to municipalities. My research `has not uncovered a Texas case :that addresses the issue in this memorandum..-- Does a municipality have egal standing to enforce deed restrictions if they are named as he enforcing party in deed restrictions by parties to the restrictions but do not own benefited property? It is unclear. if the courts decided the issue in the affirmative,. it would be on the theory of giving effect to the intention of the parties. On the'. other hand,. it would be just as likely that the court could. determine the City does not have ...standing: to enforce these restrictions absent a property interest to the property subject to the restriction or benefited by them. TEX. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 230.001 ET SEQ.-- ENFORCEMENT OF LAND USE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN PLATS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS (VERNON SUPP. 1995), $TEX. TAX CODE ANN. SEC. 23.82{C) (VERNON 1.992) js/c/feb96/tds.doc Jane Kee Skip Noe February 15, 1996 Page 5 b. The Texas Property Code SECTtoN 202.004(8) of the TEx. PROP. CODE (VERNON 1995) allows "a property owners' association or other representative designated by an owner of real property may initiate, defend,. or intervene in litigation or an' administrative proceeding affecting the enforcement. of a restrictive covenant or the protection, preservation, or operation of the property covered by the dedicatory instrument . Under. this section the property owner could designate the City as its representative to enforce the .deed restrictions by expressly stating so and referencing the above-mentioned section- of the Property Code. CONCLUSLON:` The City. ..can enforce deed restrictions in this case by being named in the restrictive covenants in one of two ways: 1. Name the City as the designated representative under- the PROeERrir CODE SECTION. 202.004(b) in the restrictive covenants. Under this .method, the Gity does not have to have a property interest. However, the problem with #his option is that until the owner sells or conveys any of the property, the deed restrictions could be considered ex paste. and unenforceable because as sole owner_of the restricted property he can modify or remove :the use restrictions at will. See e.g.,-8urns,v. Wood, 492 S.W.2d 940, 943-44 (Tex. 1973). 2. Name the City as the enforcing entity in the restrictive covenants and either (a) convey a small parcel of land to the City so,that it becomes a party to the restrictive covenants by virtue of the conveyance of a piece of the property or (b) specifically state .that the restrictive covenants are to benefit the adjacent property that the City owns as ..park land. The most conservative method to ensure that the City-would obtain legitimate enforcement authority of the restrictions would be to use method No. 2 above and have the owner convey a small parcel of the property to the ,City. In this way the owner has. made a conveyance of the property;. thus. ensuring that the. restrictive covenants are binding .upon him and the City has a property interest and can enforce the restrictions. Finally, the enforcement of deed restrictions by a municipality is a proprietary and not a .governmental function. Cf. City of Houston v. Muse,'788 S.W.2d 41.9, 422 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st Dist.] ~ 990, no writ). As a result, it would behoove the City to ask the js/c/feb96Rds.doc Jane Kee Skip Noe February 15, .1996. Page 6 property owner to release and indemnify us for the enforcement of the deed restrictions. RN:jls DEC-04-97 THU 12:54 GALINDO ENGINEERS 4098468868 P. 01 f l.7ALINDQ ~NGIN.E~RS ANA P,LA,~i,1VNERS `~~ 3833 South Texas Ave., Suite 213 Aryan, Texas 77802 (aQ9) 846-8868 December 4, 1997 Veronica Morgan, P. E. Engineering Department City of College Station College Station, TX Fax: 764-3496 Ref: Sanitary Sewer Line Technology Business Park Subdivision SH 6 at Sebesta Road College Station, TX 77845 Dear Veronica: At Bill Scarmardo's request and on behalf of Bob Bower I submit the following cost estimate to install a 15" diameter sanitary sewer litre. from Station 0+00 to Station 6+55, within the adjoining Letbetter tract, as compared with the estimate to install an 8" diameter tine: Cost of 8" line 600 I.#. of PVC line and 40' DIP line $ 11,.640 Cost of 18" line 600 I,f. of PVC fine and 40' D1P line $ 23,300 The ~I'~~+Stte cost difference between th®m is approximately $ 11,660. Sincerely, GALINDO ENGINEERS AND PLftNNERS, INC. ~~ a~ _ ~' Christian A. Galindo, P.E., R.P.L.S. Presid®nt cc: Bob Bower, Texas Digital Systems, Inc. (by fax) V11. C: Scarmardo, Architect {by tau} ~a~~s1a~~~~Ot~ -~~ 01` T ~t9~ ~, , ,.,a... ~,~. 3~ .• ' :~ .:~ .............a............_,~~.: :~~~~s~-~~r~ ~. ~.W~.INl~C1 ~•.e+.p~<a•;..a,.a ~ graDia.ss.a..,p.,...aa.ua.a a o 1 ~• ~~G~~'~~G'lS~O~~e`O,~~rer u~ I~~~OBSS~~A1Ak,.•~~~C,~\ ~~-` ~~„ FILE NOTE 1998 ON FRIDAY, MAY 1, WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM A MR CHARLES KNIKER, OWNER OF LOT 13 ON BROOKWATER, WHICH IMMEDIATELY BACKS UP TO THE TDS PROPERTY. HE SAID THAT THE TDS OWNERS WERE ERECTING A SECOND BARBED WIRE FENCE, THUS CREATING A 40'-50' STRIP. THE WORKMEN INFORMED MR KNIKER THAT THE INTENT WAS TO RUN CATTLE ON THIS AREA. MR KNIKER QUESTIONED WHETHER THE CITY WOULD ALLOW SUCH ACTIVITY, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE AREA WAS DESIGNATED AS A BUFFER AS AGREED TO IN THE ORIGINAL REZONING TO M-1 WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEN REQUIl2ED BY THE FINAL R&D ZONING THAT REPLACED THE M-1 ON THE TDS PROPERTY. WE RESEARCHED BOTH REZONING FILES, THE PRELIlVIINARY AND FINAL PLAT FILES, THE SITE PLAN FILE, AND THE R&D BUFFER RESTRICTIONS. LEE WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THE AREA, AND JANE SPOKE WITH BOB BOWERS. BOWERS TOLD JANE THAT THE AREA HAD ALWAYS HAD SOME CATTLE ON IT, AND THAT HE HAS PROVIDED A PASSAGE BETWEEN TWO PASTURES FOR 4-6 COWS TO ACCESS. HE ADDED THAT THE INTENTION IS STILL TO MAKE THE LOTS THAT MAKE UP THE BUFFER ZONE AVAILABLE FOR SALE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ' IN' THE FUTURE, AND THAT THE PASSAGE AREA IS TEMPORARY. WE HAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE WRITTEN REFERENCES TO THE BUFFER AREA IN THE FILES STATE THAT THE AREA IS TO BE MAINTAINED IN ITS "NATURAL" STATE AND THAT THE LOTS IlVIIv1EDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE R-1 AREA.ARE TO CONSTITUTE THE BUFFER 2. THE R&D RESTRICTS ACTIVITIES WITHIN A -BUFFER AREA TO PASSIVE RECREATION, INCLUDING EQUESTRIAN TRAILS. FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT, PROVIDING A PASSAGE FOR CATTLE IS SIlVIII,AR TO EQUESTRIAN TRAILS, PROVIDED THAT THE ANIMAL DENSITY REMAINS LOW. 3. JANE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN BOWERS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS. OUR RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE BUFFER AREA ',WAS TO REMAIN NATURAL, IMPLYING THAT NO ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OR II2RIGATION WOULD BE REQUIRED. IN EXCHANGE FOR RELIEF FROM THE ADDITIONAL COST OF PLANTINGS ANA IRRIGATION, BOWERS AGREED TO A LARGER BUFFER AREA THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER R&D REQUIREMENTS. BOWERS ESSENTIALLY AGREED TO SUPPLYING 4.1 ACRES RATHER THAN THE 1.4 ACRES. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE b~IINIMUM REQUIRED UNDER THE MA~QMUM R&D BUFFER STRIP. THEREFORE, STAFF HAS REACHED THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: BOWERS IS PERMITTED TO R UNA REASONABLE AMOUNT OF CATTLE THROUGH THE BUFFER AREA AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY REMAINS UNDER HIS OWNERSHIP AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE NATURAL I~EGETATION REMAINS INTACT. '~f ~; >~~ w.c. SCAR~o architects interiors December 19, 1997 Veronica Morgan, P.E. Engineering Department City of College Station 1101 S. Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Re: .Sanitary Sewer Line Technology Business Park Subdivision SH 6 at Sebesta Rd. College Station, TX 77845 Dear Veronica: I would like to request, on behalf of the Owner, oversized participation on the sanitary sewer on the above referenced project between Station 0+00 to Station 6+55 to be changed from an 8" to a 15" line. This oversized portion will serve for future development that is being planned to the north of this tract. I would also like to request that this matter be placed on the January agenda of the College: Station City Council. If you have any further questions, please feel. free to give me a call. Sincerely, William G Scarmardo, AIA ~~ cc: Bob Bowers, Texas Digital Systems, Inc. a ~ ~ X402 BroadmoorUt-(0~ • i'O Box:i4i>2 ~ Bryaa,'!'exas 778Q2 ~ (409) 77h-6i7~~ fax 774-461Ei ~. e. January 16, 1998 Bill Letbetter Dear Bill: LLEGE STATION CO P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 At the regular meeting January 7, 1998, of the City of College Station City Council, the approval was given for the request of a 15" off-site wastewater oversize participation for the Technology Business Park. Subdivision. The amount approved was $11,660.00° If you should have any further questions please give me a call. Sincerely, s~~ Veronica Morgan, P. Assistant City Engineer Home of Texas A&M University a...o_a ~\iId~i e~ interi December 19,1997 Veronica Morgan, P.E. Engineering Department City of College Station 1101 S. Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 1Ze: Sanitary Sewer Line Technology Business Park Subdivision SH 6 at Sebesta Rd. College Station, TX 77845 Dear Veronica: I would like to request, on behalfof the ®wner, oversiized participation on the sanitary sewer on the above referenced project between Station O+OO to Station 6+55 to be changed .from an 8" to a 15"line. This oversized portion will serve .for future development that is being planned to the north of this tract. I would also Like to.request that this matter be placed on the January agenda of the College Station City Council. If you have any further questions, .please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, \~ . ~~~~ ~ ~a William C.,Scartnardo, ~ ~ ~. -~~~ `~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ C' ~~ ~~ cc: Bob Bowers, Texas Digital Systems, Inca ~ .,: , ~ _ , ., ,~s . . t ~`~c~ ~ ~\ ^ e ^ 2402 Broadmoor U (- [02 • PO Kox SEiS ~' • l;ryan,1'exas 77K02 • (409) 776-6 i7;i fax 774-4Ei (6 D ^ [7 ~ ~1 ^ L.,i ~\_ ~ G ~ tds C®' ~i n ''~ ~ r.•.. f.,. ~,,, PD ~ Y t~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (i ~ ~ ~"' m ro b C" y Cv '~ <:~ GALINDO ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 3833 South Texas Ave., Suite 213 Bryan,7exas 77807 (409) 846-8868 June 3, 1998 Mr. Jim Callaway, Director Development Services City of College.Station 1101. Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 Subject: Addendum to Revised Drainage Report dated April 6, 1.998 Technology Parkway Stormwater Runoff Technology Business Park, Phase 1 College Station, TX Dear Jim: ~.a~ f=ollowing the meeting .held in your office yesterday I to submit for your review and approval the following changes to the referenced report. 1. Construct berms. on either side of Technology Parkway instead of the originally proposed channels. These berms will prevent. adjoining areas runoff water'from_ reaching the road. They are designed to handle a 100-yr rain. 2. Construct relieve channels on behind the curb on either side of Technology Parkway. These channels will collect runoff from upstream .road surface through at least one 4'-wide curb cut on both sides of the road as defined in the original report. Additional curb cuts may be installed to further facilitate runoff removal from the road. A cross-section of the road surface and .parallel channels and berms is given below. Sincerely, GALINDO ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS, INC. . ~ ~ ~_ Christian A.Galindo, P.E. # 53425, R.P:L.S # 4473. President cc: Robert L. Bower, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. W. C. Scarmardo, Architect 1 .-_,.~. ~`~ aoooa ma¢eom~ eecmaeoaooamaaae¢aaa~ ,l°II~iSsix'~t~ ~. C~~~ i~~?~~3 aaooaamaooea¢oam oooome¢oMOSeo ¢oaomooam¢mo. ¢a.am ~ y _ ~ ~iALIND 0 ~NGINL~`~RS 1fND ~LAN11T,L~l2S 3833 South Texas Ave., Sutte Z13 Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 846-8868 June 3,..1.898 Mr. J1rst Cailaway, Director Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 ~~' Subject: Addendum to Revised Drainage Report d ted April 6, 1938 Technology Parkway Stormwater Runo Tschnology Business Park, Phase 1 College Statlun TX Dear Jim: ~~ (~'~ V~ Following the meeting held in your :office. yesterday I to submit for your review and approval the following cttianges to the referenced report. 1. Construct berms on.either side of 7echnotogyParkway instead of the originally proposed channels. These berms will prevent adjoining areas runoff water from reaching the road. They are designed to handle a 100-yr rain. 2. Construct relieve channels on behind the curb on either side of Technology Parkway, These channels will collect runoff from upstream road surface through at least one 4'-wide curb cut on both sides of .the road as defined in the original report. ~ U_ ABross-section of the road. surface and parallelchannels and berms is given betow. c~.' s#cc~r u~.2~o w- -Geck~.~.c~ ~'It9,, 9,, e ~~ - ~~ ~ - - •S'p___,l 5.0, l ¢.0' ~ 25.0 i ~ - 60.~.Q ~ _ Sincerely, GALINDO ENGINEERS AND PLt1NNERS, INC. c_~- C isttan ~A. •Galindo, P.E.. # 53425, R.P.LS # 4473. President cc: Robert L. Bower, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. W. C. Scarmardo, Architect .~~'.O ` ~~k~ V\ L_ ~ ..~y...K.. ~.,... QX Consent Item Statutory Item (1. ~ ~.e- I d ~~ Item Submitted By: Veronica Morgan, Asst. City Engineer /`~ For Council Meeting Of: January 7 1998 Director Approval City Manager Approval: Item: Consideration of a request for Wastewater Oversize Participation froi Technology Business Park Subdivision (SH6/East Bypass at Sebesta Rd.).' Item Summary: This item is a request for oversize participation in the construction of a 15" off-site sanitary sewer extension for the Technology Business Park subdivision. Technology Business Park is located along the east side of the. East Bypass ~t,ci includes the site. for the Texas Digital relocation. The Technology Business Park development requires the capacity equivalent of an 8" line. The off-site extension will be constructed as an 8" line to a point where it turns and then continues down the routeof a future 15" fine. Only'the portion of the line that runs .along the route of the future 15" line will be considered for oversize participation. Policy Issue Statement: Item Background: Council approved the zoning for this project in June, 1996, rezoning the tract to the new R&D classification. The final plat was approved in February, 1997. The developer must extend sewer off-site in order to provide service to his development. The developer has attempted to secure off-site easements for the sewer line necessary for the project. The owner of the adjacent tract has refused to grant the easement unless the line constructed provides for the overall area development. ~ The Technology Business Park developer has requested oversize participation. ~~ A 15" line will provide adequate service to the area. x O- and Financial Summary: The estimated amount of the oversize is $11,660. ere are sufficient funds in the Wastewater CIP to accomodate this c~'y 1:. PRESUBMISSION CONFERENCE REPORT February 6, 1997 TO: Bob Bower, Texas Digital Systems 512 West F.M. 2818, College' Station, TX 77845 W. C. Scarmardo, Scarmardo Architects 2402 Broadmoor, Bldg. D-1, Ste. 102, Bryan, TX 77802 Christian A. Galindo, Galindo Engineers & Planners 3833 South Texas Avenue,. Ste. 213, Bryan, TX 77802 FROM: Presubmission Conference Jane Kee, City Planner. Kent Laza, City Engineer Steve Parker, P&Z Repr tative~ Others Attending Natalie Thomas, Planning Techni Shirley Volk, Development Coor i ato r v Tony Mchalsky, Electrical Operations Coordinator Laverne Akin, GTE Representative George. McLean, CSISD Representative SUBJECT: Final Plat -Technology Business Park; proposed subdivision totaling 20.77 acres divided into 23 Research and Development lots (only six lots are buildable) located at the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6. (97-206) A Presubmission Conference meeting was. held Wednesday, February 5, 1997 to discuss the above mentioned final plat. The following is a list of ordinance requirements identified by the Presubmission Conference. This list does not relieve the applicant of total compliance with all current ordinance requirements. Ordinance Requirements: _ Submit the $200 application fee. The. "access & utility" easement, that provides access to the subject property from the Frontage Road, must be 'a .part of the plat. The applicant also has the alternative of obtaining this easement by metes & bounds description and noting the volume and page number on the plat. However, the easement must be constructed with this phase. _ Label the detention pond and common area on lot 3, block one. _ Provide a wider .public utility easement along lots 21, 22 and 23 for the proposed sanitary sewer line. (An additional 5' should be adequate.) _ Note the volume and page number of the 20' public utility easement located along the easternmost property line of Phase IL _ Note the volume and page number of the 15' public utility easement located to the east of Phase One on the adjacent Letbetter property. s' PRC Report Technology Business Park Case #97--206 Page 2 of 2 Comments/Concerns: _ Coordinate electrical service details including additional utility easements with Electrical Operations Coordinator Tony Michalsky at (409) 764-3660. _ As each commercial lot is developed, conduit will be required. Coordinate telephone service details and. necessary easements with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409). 821-4723. SUBMIT THE MYLAR'ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES OF THE REVISED FINAL PLAT BY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING OF THURSDAY,. FEBRUARY 20, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M. Ilv THE CITY HALL COUNCII. ROOM AT 1101 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS. l ~ ~.,, , ,, .~° STAFF PRC REPORT Technology Business Park, Phase I Case #97-206 Ordinance Requirements: ~~r Sign the application submitted. Submit the $200 application fee. The "access & utility" easement that .provides access to the subject property from the .Frontage Road, must be a part of the .plat. The applicant also has the alternative of obtaining this easement by metes & .bounds .description and noting the volume and page number on the plat. However, the easement must be constructed with t~iis p ase. It~~f~~he detention pondand common area on lot 3, block one. ~ ~~~~.~ .Provide a wider public utility easement along lots 21, 22 and 23 for the sanitary sewer. _~ Note the. volume and page number of the 20' public utility easement located along the easternmost property line of Phase II. Note the volume and page number of the 15' public utility easement located to the east of Phase One on the adjacent Letbetter property. Comments/Concerns: Coordinate electrical service details with Electrical Operations Coordinator Tony Michalsky at (409) 764-3660. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~` ~~--- ~.~~z~~-`~-- `~'~~~~ Coordinate telephone service details and necessary easements with G.T.F/: Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723. 4~/yam/~K l„i'c'~~4,.% ~~~~~' ~/`~I l`^~`~'~-L... / ~-~' ? SUBNIIT 10 COPIES OF THE REVISED FINAL PLAT BY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING & ZONING COMIMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1997.