Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/1963 - Regular Minutes - City Council®l m v W V) Q W 0_ Cb 0 co Uj Q W C1. db 0 M MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING March 25, 1963 Members Present: Mayor Langford; Councilmen Sorrels, Anderson, Landiss, Boyett, Rosprim; City Manager Boswell, City Secretary Manning, City Attorney Sandstedt. Visitors Present: Bob Stewart and Ed Robinson. Councilman Orr was excused from this meeting. On motion by Councilman Landiss, seconded by Councilman Rosprim, the report of the committee composed of Councilmen Anderson and Sorrels and City Attorney Sandstedt concerning parks in College Hills Estates was accepted and made a part of these minutes. On motion by Councilman Anderson, seconded by Councilman Sorrels, Ordinance No. 364, an ordinance ordering the improvement of Ashburn from Lincoln Avenue to Francis Drive and Shetland Street from Pershing Avenue to Lee Street, was passed and approved. On motion by Councilman Sorrels, seconded by Councilman Anderson, the zoning request of Mr. R. H. Clemmons and Mr. Ford D. Albritton, Jr., was referred to the Planning and 'Zoning Commission. On motion by Councilman Sorrels, seconded by Councilman Landiss, the city manager and one councilman were granted permission to attend the Municipal Finance Officers meeting in Detroit June 2-5, 1963, at city expense. On motion by Councilman Sorrels, seconded by Councilman Anderson, the mayor was authorized to appoint a committee to discuss with representatives of the A & M Consolidated School system, the Mothers and Dads Club, and the College Station Lions Club, the problem of traffic safety along Jersey Street and in the vicinity of the high school. The committee appointed is composed of Charles Pinnell, W. T. Riedel, L. C. Grumbles, Freddie Wolters, and Ran Boswell. The council set 4 p.m. April 4 for the hour of canvassing the returns of the April 2 election. At its regular meeting on February 25, 1963, the council requested that Councilman Anderson prepare a general outline for the appointment of a permanent parks committee. After general discussion, on motion by Councilman Anderson, seconded by Councilman Landiss, the recommendation was approved and made a part of these minutes. The following ladies ® were appointed to constitute the parks committee: Mrs. F. L. Thomas, Chairman, Mrs. A. A. Price, Mrs. Ellis H. Smith, Mrs. F. R. Brison, Mrs. R. L. Brown, and Mrs. A. P. Boyett. �W �Q The council adjourned subject to call. 10 APPROVED: Q CL ob Mayor M ATTEST: ry O 0 CY] City Sec etary L101 v W Q W CL cb G D 0 "a 0 w a V.� r V rW V Q W CL Cb 0 0 ca 0 a Y W/� W Q W Q. ob 7- D M 0 0 M Minutes of March 25, 1963 Page 3 To: Mayor and City Council Subject: Legal Status of the Parks of College Hills Estates Addition, College Station, Texas 1. At the February 25, 1963 Council Meeting, the Mayor appointed a committee composed of J. H. Sorrels, John L. Sandstedt and D. A. Anderson to check into the legal status of the parks of College Hills Estates Addition and report back to the Council at its next stated meeting. 2. A report on these parks follows: A. The parks of the College Hills Estates Addition were originally provided and designated as such in the Original Plat and Deed Contract of the Addition (Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, Vol. 96, p. 499; Vol. 100, p. 163; Vol. 104, p. 244) and have been likewise designated in the deed abstracts for lots sold in the Addition. B. In an election by the lot -owners of the Addition on Dec. 2, 1961, in which the Restrictions of the Addition were revised and were per- manently extended, it was reaffirmed by the said lot -owners that the parks of the Addition belonged to all the lot -owners of the Addition and that they could not be used for any other purpose than that of parks (Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, Vol. 216, pp. 92ff.). C. Only the lot -owners of the Addition, voting in an election as specified and provided for in the Revised Restrictions in the Deed Contract of the Addition, can change the purpose or use of the parks of the Addition (Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, Vol. 216, pp. 92ff.). D. Briefly interpreted, the foregoing statements, with their supporting legal documents, simply mean that the City Council of College Station cannot give, swap, sell,or deed in any way the parks of the College Hills Estates Addition, without the approval of the lot -owners, since the parks were designated and provided as parks in the Original Plat and Deed Contract of that addition and in the deed abstracts of that plat and con- tract for lots sold in the Addition and they thereby expressly belong to the Addition and its lot -owners, and since only the lot -owners of the Addition, voting in an election as specified and provided for in the Revised Deed Restrictions of the Addition, can make any change in the restrictions and the plat -layout of the Addition. 3. It is the recommendation of the committee that the above be made a part of the March 25, 1963 Council Minutes. Signed: S/D. A. Anderson_ S/J, H. Sorrels S/John L. Sandstedt D. A. Anderson J. H. Sorrels John L. Sandstedt W'i�i �-2- Minutes of March 25, 1963 j,3 Page 4 Opinions of the City Attorney Number II. City Park Problem I. Facts. Mr. Brayton, of the Culpepper Realty Company, has made an offer to the City Council to trade two (2) acres of land in Carter's Grove Sub- division for certain park areas in the College Hills Estates Addition. Mr. Brayton further takes the position that in the event that the City does not accept this offer, the title to the park areas in College Hills Estates Addition is in the name of Culpepper Realty Company and that ® legal action against the City may be necessary to enforce this right. Councilman Anderson stated that in his opinion, based on consultation a with another attorney, the City has no power to trade the park areas in College Hills Estates Addition to Mr. Culpepper's realty company even in the event that the City desired to do so. The question was then :) referred to the undersigned for an opinion. I II. Issues. Lal QIt appears to the undersigned attorney that there are three (3) W issues involved in the above fact situation. As I see the problem, the C" three issues are: C A. Can the City Council dispose of Park areas as it sees fit? ® B. Have the park areas in the College Hills Estates Addition 0 been validly designated as parks? CC] C. Assuming that the area has been so dedicated as a park, may the former owner of the park area now come in and retract such dedication and devote the park area to other purposes? III. Opinion. A. It is apparent that municipalities are authorized under article 6081 e, R.C.S. to acquire land for parks. B. As a general rule, the municipality has no power to sell or convey land which has been dedicated as a public park or square. (31 Tex. Jur. 1333 citing City of San Antonio vs Lewis, 15 Tex. 388) There is apparently an exception for certain cities under articles 6081 a, R.S.C. ® C. The uses to which the parks property may be devoted depend to a !�1 6679' 8' 3 v Minutes of March 25, 1963`/ :D Page 5 O Q some extent on the manner of its acquisition; that is, whether it was dedicated by the owner or was purchased or condemned. Dedicated property must be used as directed (31 Tex. Jur. 1335 citing Clemont vs City of Paris, 107 Tex. 200; 175 S.W. 672; Harris County vs Taylor 58 Tex. 690). Where a county or municipality holds title, any proper or reasonable use may be made of the park. D. Dedication is the setting aside of land to public use. (19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 178) E. Dedication is a method of creating or transferring interests in land, consisting of an easement only, and no title to the land. It partakes of the character of a trust (19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 180). F. There is a statutory procedure for the dedication of plats and subdivisions (article 974 a, R.C.S.; 19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 181). ® G. There are two classes of dedication: w a (1) Common Law (a) Express Dedication (b) Implied Dedication V (2) Statutory Law W H. In order to have a dedication (common law) certain elements are necessary. They are as follows: W CL (1) An intent to devote the land to public use (19 Tex. Jur. Cb 2nd 189). M (2) Communication of the intent to dedicate by word, works M or act. Cy- (3) Acceptance of the offer to dedicate. O COI. If in a description of land in a deed, plat or other written Instrument the owner designates a portion for use that is ordinarily a public one, such as a street or park, this constitutes an implied representation that he intends that portion to be set aside for the public use (19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 194). J. This representation constitutes a valid offer of dedication when it is communicated to the public, as by recording of the instrument, and being acted upon by the public, it creates a complete and irrevocable dedication (19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 195 citing Shield vs Harris County C.A. 248 S.W. 2nd 510 reh. den., err* ref., n.r.e, also Manziel vs Railroad Commission C.A. 197 S.W. 2nd 490 err. ref.) K. Before an intent to set apart the land for public use may be implied, the designation or description of plat or deed must be so clear as Minutes of March 25, 1963 Page 6 to be inconsistent with any other result. L. The offer to dedicate must be accepted by, or on behalf of, the public in order to constitute a valid or complete dedication. M. The offer may lapse by expiration of the time within which Uj it must be accepted for those whose use it is intended ( Galveston vs Williams, 6 S.W. 860 also Fort Worth and D.S.T.R. Railway vs Judd 4 S.W. 2nd 1032, err. dis. 19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 210). Ld CL C?i N. Anything by the public or its representatives that shows an intent to appropriate the property to the use is sufficient. (19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 211) With reference to this part, it is the position of the under- signed that the renewing of the restrictions by the College Hills Estates 0 Restriction Committee on December 2, 1961, constitutes a valid acceptance. M O. Formal acceptance by municipality is unnecessary where public has acted on the basis of apparent dedication. P. Failure to assess property taxes on land may indicate acceptance of dedication by public authority. Q. Owners of the property can not deny dedication once it has been made (19 Tex. Jur. 2nd 213). R. I take the position that the statutory procedure now under article 974 a, R.C.S. is probably inapplicable to this problem. DATED March 25, 1963. S/John L. Sandstedt ® John L. Sandstedt r City Attorney 3 V ,Ld V I 4 Ld CL J Cy .O py� W 00800 0 0 Minutes of March 25, 1963 L� W Page 7 PARKS COMMITTEE 1. Status a. To be a permanent committee appointed by the city council, similar in nature to the cemetery committee. b. Appointments to be for a two-year period, concurrent with the term of office of the mayor. 2. Make -Up a. To be made up of not more than 6 people, with a maximum of not over ® three from each ward. w b. Committee should be composed primarily of women interested in the upkeep and development of our parks and other city -owned areas. They can seek technical assistance as needed. 1 3. Responsibilities W a. Become thoroughly acquainted with existing park areas and other < city -owned lands within the city of College Station. CU b. Review pertinent information in the Brazos Area Plan as it relates YE to present and proposed parks. c. After a thorough and careful study of existing city -owned areas, make O specific recommendations to the city council for the improvement thereof, msuch as suggestions for landscaping with trees and shrubs or by other improvements that would make the parks or other city -owned areas more conducive to use by the general public. d. Particular attention will be given to present park areas in need of immediate development, with priority given to the parks at the entrance to College Hills Estates Addition. e. Make specific recommendations for the establishment of new parks in areas that will be developed in the future. f. This committee would not be concerned with the city cemetery. 4. Effective Date a. Committee to become operative as soon as possible following approval by the city council. 96 V V