ST8804-CS 901130 GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CONFERENCE MINUTE~
Date: November 30, 1990
Time: 10:00 AM
Place: City of Coppell, Public Works Service Center
Subject: Heartz Road Easements
Attendees: Shohre Daneshmand, P.E., Acting City Engineer
B. Stockard, City Attorney
John C. Karlsruher, P.E., Ginn, Inc.
This meeting was called for the review of nine (9) proposed
easements to be dedicated to the City. The Easement documents
and plans for the project were reviewed for conformity of the
easements with the plans, and the language and form of the
easement documents.
The Easements reviewed and their size, type and locations were as
follows:
1. 30' x 110', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 13+00 East
side of R.O.W.
2. 15' x 100', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 13+00 West
side of R.O.W.
3. 20' x 30', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 22+16.5
East side of R.O.W.
4. 20' x 30', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 22+85 East
side of R.O.W.
5. Irregular Shaped, Sanitary Sewer Easement, Southeast corner
Heartz Road/Parkway Blvd.
6. Irregular Shaped, Sanitary Sewer Easement, East, adjacent to
north side of Parkway Blvd. from Heartz Road, 413 feet +/-
east, then north, adjacent to ABQ/City property line to tie-
in at Coppell MUD #1 30' sewer easement.
7. Irregular Shaped, Utility Easement (storm sewer, sanitary
sewer), Northwest corner of Heartz Road/Sandy Lake
Road intersection.
8. 20' x 30', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 22+85, West
side of R.O.W.
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900
9. 15' x 15', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 0+28.87
West side of R.O.W.
After location and correllation of easements with the plans,
Shohre Daneshmand decided that a "key plan" showing the relative
locations of all nine easements should be prepared to assist in
the City Council's review. Ms. Daneshmand will inform the
project engineer of this need.
The proposed drainage channel serving this and other projects was
briefly discussed. ABQ had been required to improve the channel
as a condition of approval of their original plans. It is our
belief that this commitment has been transferred to the current
developer. The channel needs to be improved and dedicated to the
City in an easement in order to insure it's future availability
for its intended use. This channel is currently on private
property and serves a fairly substantial drainage basin.
The language of the easement documents was ~eviewed for Easement
No. 1 and compared with the Standard Form State of Texas
Easement. A synopsis of comments are as follows:
Paragraph 1 - The Owner is granting the City an "exclusive
easement" for a particular use (storm sewer pipe, headwalls,
riprap and apron) and reserving his right to use the easement for
any use he wants. This is not acceptable in that the City has no
control over other utilities or structures placed in the easement
by the Owner or another "grantee".
Paragraph 2 - no comment
Paragraph 3 - This item transfers the responsibility for proper
deed research and field survey reconnaissance from the grantor to
the grantee (City). It is not advisable to accept this term.
There is a great deal of potential liability in accepting
easement dedications with this language included.
Paragraph 4 - This is an unnecessary re-statement of the obvious.
Paragraph 5 - This item is fairly reasonable on its own, but when
taken into the context of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 6, it is not
reasonable in that the gran~ee becomes financially responsible
for unspecified damages to items over which he has no control and
the grantor has all control.
Paragraph 6 - This item is reasonable with the exception of items
(i), (ii) and (iii), all of which allows the grantor to allow use
of the easement for other easements and Rights-of-Way, and for
construction and maintenance of other structures and facilities
which:
1. may hamper access to and maintenance of City
facilities; 'and,
2. would have to be repaired or replaced by the City if
damaged. Under this provision, the City has no control
over the other uses in the easement, or the costs of
damages to these items when performing maintenance,
repair or replacement of its own facilities.
Paragraph 7 - This indemnification provision is unacceptable in
that the City holds the owner harmless from damages except those
caused solely by the Owner (Grantor). Since the Owner has
reserved the right to use the easement for other purposes as well
as for City facilities; the Owner should carry a larger burden of
liability in this case.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 are acceptable.
The City Attorney's office will review this document and compare
it to the other eight and to the Standard Form Easement and
comment to Shohre Daneshmand by mid-week of December 3, 1990.
Ms. Daneshmand will contact the project engineer, and inform him
that:
1. Easement No. 9 is not acceptable and those facilities
shall remain as private property (temporary drop inlet
on private property); and,
2. They shall re-draft the other eight proposed easements
on Standard Form documents without all of the
unnecessary and unacceptable stipulations included in
the document discussed herein.
The response from the project engineer and the City Attorney's
review comments will be forwarded to the City Council along with
the proposed easements in final form for their consideration.
These minutes have been prepared from my notes and my
recollection of discussions which occurred at the time, place and
date indicated above. If there are any corrections or additional
items which need to be included, please call me at 248-4900.
Sincerely,
John C. Karlsruher, P.E.
JCK/dsp
cc: File 90438
Attendees