1968-02-05 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES2 60
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PEARLAND, TEXAS, HELD IN SAID CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 5, 1968 AT
7:30 P. M.
A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Pearland
was called to order by Mayor Keller with the following present:
Absent:
Mayor
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
City Administrator
& City Secretary
City Attorney
Councilman
Councilman
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:
D. R. Keller
B. J. Courtright
Gene E. Sanders
E. A. Was ek
Jerry D. Henderson
Cesare J. Galli, Jr.
Dale Watson
A. G. Ellis
To discuss the Barry Rose proposition as given orally to Mayor Keller 7
and drafted by Mayor Keller for Council, also to confer with the
City Attorney.
Mayor Keller's Report
From: D. R. Keller, Mayor
To: Pearland City Council
Subject:Barry Rose Easements
On Monday, January 29, 1968, I contacted'Mr. Barry Rose regarding his
easement re-entry suit against the City of Pearland.
You may have been aware that depositions were to be taken on this suit
on the morning of'Tuesday, January 30, 1968. After discussing the
suit and past events with Mr. Rose, we set up a meeting date for
Tuesday afternoon and agreed to postpone the depositions.
�IThere is a considerable amount of background involved in the road to _..
the sewer plant and easements in question. I will not go into that
background since a large portion of it would, of necessity, be hearsay.
PROPOSAL:
In a nut shell, it.would appear the CityTs position is a defensive
one, and in recognizing this, I simply asked Mr. Rose what it
would take to have the re-entry suit mutually settled.
I will list the proposals by Mr. Rose and elaborate on them later.
261
1. WATER: A six-inch water line with a fireplug to Mr. Rose's
property line.
A. A two-inch water line continuing through the property
to the northern most property line.
B. The right to upgrade the two-inch line to a six inch
line at Mr. Rose's option, and a cost restriction covenant
establishing the maximum to be paid by Mr. Rose and/or
his heirs and assigns at $3.00 per foot.
C. Any fireplugs required after upgrading the two-inch line
(in B above) would also fall in a restricted cost
covenant, holding Mr. Rose responsible for no more than
$50.00 per fireplug.
D. A clause which would free Mr. Rose from any requirement
to loop this water line. (In return for these provisions,
Mr. Rose would agree to lift the original easement re-
quirement of water lines along the northern property
line of his tract.)
2. STREET: Mr. Rose would reserve thB right to name the date that
the road would be improved. This improvement would
be a concrete, paved, and guttered street. Mr. Rose
would agree to pay 113 the cost of such street. The
street would begin at Highway 518 and continue to the
nearest edge of the Rose property.
3. MISCELLANEOUS:
It is Mr. Rose's contention that the sign indicating
that the road in question is of limited access is
detrimental to the value of his property. The sign
would be removed and the barricade at the end of the
concrete street intersecting this road from Regency
Park would be removed right away.
(1) This portion of the condition is pretty well
self-explanatory.
(2) It is Mr. Rose's contention that the Regency
Park Development Company did notcomply with the
stripulations of the original plat; namely, this
road was dedicated as a public street, and,
according to the plat, was t'o be brought to the county
specifications and standards.
Inasmuch as the road would be mutually beneficial, Mr.
A
z'b
Rose sees the cost participation plan to be: the
City of Pearland - 1/3; Barry Rose - 113 and, either
the City of Pearland, or the Regency Park Development
Corporation - 113. ( I understand a concrete street.
of this type would cost approximately $12.00 per
running .foot. )
(3) Mr. Rose takes the position that anyone interested
in purchasing his, -'property would be left with the
impression that the road in question is not a public
street and as such would be detrimental to property
values.
The barricade is at the end, of the concrete street
that intersects this road. It is also Mr. Rosels
contention that this barricade can have a detrimental
effect on the value of his property. He wants this
barricade removed.
SUMMARY: The following comments are, for the most part, my own
personal views; however, I think your research would
bear out the conclusions I have reached in review
of the easement in question, which in my estimation-!
leaves little doubt that the City has failed to comply
with the easement condition.
Should this case continue, and should Mr. Rose win
his re-entry suit, the City of Pearland would be obliged
to condemn the property In question. As you know,
the cost of condemnation proceeding can be high;
Regardless of what you individually, or as a Council
might think of either these deed or the manner in
which they were negotiated, we have a moral and legal
obligation to live up to prior Council's committments.
Mr. Rose has requested that the Council come to an
acceptance or rejection agreement within seven days
of Tuesday, January 30, 1968. Thus, he will expect
our answer by Tuesday, February 6, 1968.
After discussion regarding the propostion, and based on the advice of
the City Attorney, it was the consensus of opinion of the Councilmen
present to reject this proposition.
Meeting adjourned by motion at 9:25 P. M.
Minutes approved as read and/or corrected this the f day of
ATTEST:
Orr
C?* �fy S _fetary
A. D. 1968.
•I Wril' Nil
rA m
wW A r�IA
- -
263