Hello, could you guys take a look at this one....owner of Missouri Condominiums purchased the two lots to the south. 153-19-017A south line is the south line of Lot 13. The ten foot strip was sold to the City from the south Lot 12...The north 10'....The warranty deed does not dedicate for r/w. My argument is ....Lot 13 has access from the north, it never had ownership of the 10 foot strip and the strip has not been dedicated....although it is clear what the intention....I believe that no frontage is available to W Georgia from the north and should not be included in a gross area measurement.
Your input would be appreciated....Thanks
You have me befuddled. They own three tracts that are adjoining. One that fronts on Missouri, one that fronts on Georgia and one that touches the other two but doesn't touch either of the streets mentioned. Why can they not go across their own properties to reach the street on the other side of the block? Why would the 10-foot strip have any bearing on anything? Isn't it the West 10' not the North 10'?
Not questioning you thinking, just don't understand the problem.
Thanks...The condo owners are acquiring the two lots(153-19-019a,153-19-017a) to the south. Lot 13's south line from record plat is the north line of the 10 foot strip. The ten foot strip was taken from the north 10 feet of Lot 12, adjoiner to south. Warranty deed to City of Phoenix from Lot 12 neither dedicates nor does have acceptance as a right of way. My question is....does the new owner have the right to claim road frontage and have the area to centerline of road included in gross area calculation. If there was an abandonment, Lot 12 would retain....is that any clearer or does it resemble your response?
okay, that is much clearer, I was befuddled as well. So Lot 12 is now south of W. Georgia and was the original owner of where the road is now located. They also had 10 feet north of the current road that was sold to the city but that separate transaction does not dedicate for public use or for road access.
If I read you correctly, I think all 3 lots must still access only W. Missouri Ave since there is no granted access to Geogia, unless Lot 13 has been granted a driveway access at any time. However, since the land is owned by the city, and a 10' strip is not useful there for anything other than road expansion, If the new owner wants to develop that area I would think they need only petition for access. But I am in Colorado and I am not familiar with the road access requirement in Missouri [that's my cya statementB-)] Also, any easements between lots for access are void of course unless the lots are held by different entities. I say this because I see something on the west side of lot to the north and wondered if that was for access.
I was responding last evening and when I went to post I was told we were being updated. That post went to NeverNever Land.
What had me messed up first was the strip on the west end of Lot 13. Second, there was not a double red line delineating the City's ownership of the 10-foot strip.
Now I get it. Because the action with the City was a warranty deed of conveyance rather than an easement/right-of-way it doesn't matter which, if any, use the City makes of the strip. It still blocks the north from getting to the south and vice versa. Further, there is no reason to add back in an area that was deeded away. That would be theft in my book.
Hello HolyCow, Geonerd,
Sorry about the confusing descriptions, have been working a lot....thanks for your insight, it could be implied the 10 foot strip is intended for r/w but I've not found anything yet that proves it. Trying to proceed cautiously and agree with the premise that the strip is blocking access. The strip to the west is dedicated to the city for road purposes. I have a request into the city for a clarification....will keep you posted.
Thanks again for taking the time. See You, Paul
geonerd, post: 328871, member: 8268 wrote: okay, that is much clearer, I was befuddled as well. So Lot 12 is now south of W. Georgia and was the original owner of where the road is now located. They also had 10 feet north of the current road that was sold to the city but that separate transaction does not dedicate for public use or for road access.
If I read you correctly, I think all 3 lots must still access only W. Missouri Ave since there is no granted access to Geogia, unless Lot 13 has been granted a driveway access at any time. However, since the land is owned by the city, and a 10' strip is not useful there for anything other than road expansion, If the new owner wants to develop that area I would think they need only petition for access. But I am in Colorado and I am not familiar with the road access requirement in Missouri [that's my cya statementB-)] Also, any easements between lots for access are void of course unless the lots are held by different entities. I say this because I see something on the west side of lot to the north and wondered if that was for access.
Hello Holy Cow, Geonerd,
Here are the latest replies from the city....thanks for taking the time and I appreciate your insight. The City owned the 10 foot strip via warranty deed and there would be no way to cross for access. So we are assuming that it will pass and I'm writing gross area to the center of what will be 30 foot r/w with frontage for the southerly lot. Still wondering what use the west 25 for road purposes would have had for the northerly lot. In any event thanks again and hope you have a great day...I'll be out of the office surveying tomorrow in 113 degrees, but it will be out surveying! See You, Paul
Paul,
The property was purchased for right of way so Streets requested to move forward with the dedication. The City doesnÛªt have any street improvement plans for Georgia Avenue at this time. In the event that the property adjacent to the right of way is developed prior to any roadway improvements, there will likely be a stipulation for street improvements by the developer. The plan review and approval is part of the Planning and Development process so I am unable to tell you what will be required.
I will begin routing an RCA for the dedication which should appear on the September 16th council agenda.
Hi Paul,
Streets is doing some research on this. I cannot find a dedication for this either. The property purchased for a Street Improvement project but it appears that the right of way was not dedicated, and the Street improvements were not constructed. Many times, right of way is not dedicated until there are public improvements constructed. Hopefully, I will have additional information within the next couple of days.
Thank you,
Real Estate Supervisor
Holy Cow, post: 328876, member: 50 wrote: I was responding last evening and when I went to post I was told we were being updated. That post went to NeverNever Land.
What had me messed up first was the strip on the west end of Lot 13. Second, there was not a double red line delineating the City's ownership of the 10-foot strip.
Now I get it. Because the action with the City was a warranty deed of conveyance rather than an easement/right-of-way it doesn't matter which, if any, use the City makes of the strip. It still blocks the north from getting to the south and vice versa. Further, there is no reason to add back in an area that was deeded away. That would be theft in my book.
Hello Holy Cow, Geonerd,
Here are the latest replies from the city....thanks for taking the time and I appreciate your insight. The city owns the 10 foot strip via warranty deed. So we are assuming that it will pass and I'm writing gross area to the center of what will be 30 foot r/w with frontage for the southerly lot. Still wondering what use the west 25 for road purposes would have had for the northerly lot. In any event thanks again and hope you have a great day...I'll be out of the office surveying tomorrow in 113 degrees, but it will be out surveying! See You, Paul
Paul,
The property was purchased for right of way so Streets requested to move forward with the dedication. The City doesnÛªt have any street improvement plans for Georgia Avenue at this time. In the event that the property adjacent to the right of way is developed prior to any roadway improvements, there will likely be a stipulation for street improvements by the developer. The plan review and approval is part of the Planning and Development process so I am unable to tell you what will be required.
I will begin routing an RCA for the dedication which should appear on the September 16th council agenda.
Hi Paul,
Streets is doing some research on this. I cannot find a dedication for this either. The property purchased for a Street Improvement project but it appears that the right of way was not dedicated, and the Street improvements were not constructed. Many times, right of way is not dedicated until there are public improvements constructed. Hopefully, I will have additional information within the next couple of days.
Thank you,
Real Estate Supervisor
Holy Cow, post: 328876, member: 50 wrote: I was responding last evening and when I went to post I was told we were being updated. That post went to NeverNever Land.
What had me messed up first was the strip on the west end of Lot 13. Second, there was not a double red line delineating the City's ownership of the 10-foot strip.
Now I get it. Because the action with the City was a warranty deed of conveyance rather than an easement/right-of-way it doesn't matter which, if any, use the City makes of the strip. It still blocks the north from getting to the south and vice versa. Further, there is no reason to add back in an area that was deeded away. That would be theft in my book.
thanks for the update
