ST8804-CS 901130OONFI'.'RENCE 141NUTES
Date:
Time:
Place:
Subject:
Attendees:
November 30, 1990
10:00 AM
City of Coppe]l, Pul) Ii(: Works Service Center
IIeartz Road Easements
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', D~ainage Easement, ai)pt"oximately Sra. 13~00 East
side of R.O.W.
2. 15' x 100', Drainage Easement, approximately Sta. 13q00 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, approximate]y Sta. 22+85 Eas~:
side of R.O.W.
Irregular Shaped, Sanitary Sewer Easement, Southeast corner
Neartz Road/Parkway Blvd.
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 o
Irregular Shaped, Utility Easement (storm sewer, sanitary
sewer) , Northwest corner of t{eartz Road/Sandy Lake
Road intersection.
8. 20' x 30', Drainage Ea~'mment, approximately Sta. 22+85, West
side of R.O.W·
17103 Ih'cslo. RImd ~* 5, LIhc I00 ..' lB Ill; ~ I);,IIw,,'Icx;LS75!4}{ "' Iq.mt:21-1/2,18.1900
9. 35' x ]5', Drainage Easem~:nl , al~ptoxim~t:~ly sra. nt~{.~/
West side of I{.O.W.
After location and corre]]ation of easements with the plans,
Shohre Daneshmand decide(] that a "key plan" showing the relative
locations of all nine easements should be prepared to assist in
the city Council's review. Ms. llaneshmand wi]] inform the
project engineer of this need.
The proposed drainage channel set'ring this and other projects w~
briefly discussed. ABQ had beell reqtli~'ed 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 iusure it's future availability
for its intended use. This channel is currently on private
property and serves a fairly substant:ial drainage basin.
The language of the easement documents was reviewed for Easement
No. 1 and compared with the Standard Form State of Texas
Easement. A synopsis of comment~ are as ~ol]ows:
Paragraph 1 - The Owner ] s g t'~ut i ng the C i ty an "exc I tls ivc
easement" for a particular' use (storm sewer pipe, headwal]s,
riprap and apron) and reserving h~s ]:?ight to use the easement fo~
any use he wants. Thi. s is not dc:c~[)[.ab]e in that tile 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
the grantee (City) . ft is not iidvisable to accept this term.
There is a great deal
easement dedications with this lang,lage inchlded.
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 tile grantee becomes f.~nancia]ly respons:ible
for unspecified damages to ltems over which he has no control dnd
the grantor has ali. 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, o__r the costs of
damages to these items when performing maintenance,
repair or replacement of ]ts 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:
Easement No. 9 is not acceptable and those facilities
shall remain as private property (temporary drop inlet
on private Droperty); and,
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