Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 15, 1992 (57)ICW CIN OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Policy on Ownership and Maintenance of New Right -of -Way Fences and Landscaping at Reverse Frontage Lots MEETING DATE: April 15, 1992 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council discuss the ownership andmaintenance of new fences and landscaping located near the str et right-of-way on reverse frontage lots and establish a policy B60KGROUND INFORMATION: The design of new residential subdivisions Idjacent to arterial streets often includes the use of reverse frontage lots. "Reverse frontage" means the lot facts the interior of the subdivision with the rear of the lot on the arterial. A fence is usually constructed at the right-of-way line oh the arterial street. Some specific pians require this design (Lower Sacramento Rbad and South Hutchins Street). Some past developments have proposed such fences that have been accepted by the City for ownership and maintenance. Others, mainly those which include landscaping, are under private ownership and maintenance. The attached City map shows existing and proposed reverse frontage fences (Exhibit A). Many of the new developments proposed under the growth management p Ins include reverse frontage lots. These have a number of advantages to the dev6loper and future homeowner. For example, the City's Design Standards require lots on arterials be designed such that exiting vehicles do not back out ontb the arterial. To do so requires a larger, more expensive lot. The fence also, i f designed to do so, provides some sound reduction, and, of course, privacy from busy, street traffic. The General Plan, in the Urban Design and Cultural Resources element indicates the City w i I I develop ". . a street tree program, with an emphasis on nhancing major arterial streets ". The right-of-way provided in the proposed bevelopment plans does not include room for trees, nor do they propose landscaping. Although the Planning Commission would certainly have an interest in the provision and design of fences and/or landscaping. the decision on ownership and maintenahce should rest with the City Council due to the potential cost and impact on the City budget. In order to expedite the new developments, staff is requesting that the! Council provide the Commission, staff and the development community with policy guidance. costs The City presently is responsible for roughly 3.2 miles of reverse frontage fence with no landscaping ercept for the trees in tree wells on South Hutchins Street. The designs are based on grape stakes with block pilasters and returns. They are fairl simale to maintain and remarkably graffiti free, probably due; to the APPROVED. TkiOMAS A PETERSON city Manages CFENCEMT/TXTw.02M (CO.COM) cc -9 Adril 8, 1992 Policy on Ownership and Maintenance of NaN Right-of-way Fences and Landscaping at Reverse Frontage Lots April 15, 1992 Page 2 difficulty of painting on the grape stakes. V* probably averaqe N4 repairs per year at a total cost of roughly 54,000. Most of the repairs are due to vehicle damage and are often reimbursed from the driver's auto insurance. One of the fences have reached an age where total replacement of the wood has been necessary. Our track record with the South Hutchins Street trees has been less satisfactory. Vandalism has been so frequent vie have stopped replacing the trees. Maintaining the irrigation systems is also a significant effort. I The cost of landscaping maintenance depends on the type and age of tl�e planting. Cost of trees alone (in tree wells) would be much less than turf or Shrubbery, assuming root damage is minimized with careful tree selection and installation. Presumably, landscaping along fences would be similar to that i n medians. Present total contract costs for median maintenance are nearly 511,000 per y6ar. This includes the median on Hutchins Street north of Harney Lane, Lower Sacramento Road between Turner Road and Allen Drive, and Ham Lane between Kettleman Lane and Harney Lane. It also includes various islands and other small medians. An approximate average cost per mile for strip landscaping is $5.730 for contracted 1 maintenance. This does not include water, power. supervision and administration and City repairs to sprinklers and trees. For estimating purposes, the total cost is assumed to be $8,000 per mile. (For landscaping on both sides of the street, the cost would be double.) There are roughly two miles of proposed right-of-way fence) and a potential for an additional five miles ifthese were extended with future development. Replacement costs for fences and landscaping are difficult to estimate. Certainly, over the long run, replacement of wood portions w i I I be needed. Shrubbery and irrigations systems w i I I eventually need replacement. On an annual basis per mile, these replacement costs have been estimated at 58,000/year for fences anti $2,000/year for landscaping. All these mileage and cost figures are summarized in Exhibit B. Our present annual cost (including replacement) of approkimately 530.000 per year could increase to as much as $165,000 per year i f a I I new right-of-way fences are landscaped similar to medians. The costs of median landstaping i s also shown for comparison. i Alternatives There are a myriad of ownership and maintenance alternatives for right-of-way fences and landscaping. The applicability and practicality of each i s influenced by the presence of landscaping. The following briefly describes the main alternatives. In a I I cases except as noted, i t i s assumed the developer would pay for and construct the initial fence and/or landscaping as part of the subdivision imprlIbvements. 1) City ownership and maintenance - This is fairly straightforward and the alternative favored by developers. Maintenance standards would be set by the City, although, there would undoubtedly be pressure from )adjacent residents to keep a high standard. Costs could be borne under a number of options: CFENCEMT/TXTW.02M (CO.COM) April 7, 1992 Policy on Ownership and Maintenance of New Right-of-way Fences and Landscaping at Reverse Frontage Lots April 15, 1992 Page 3 a) City cost - Costs for existing median maintenance are born by the City's General Fund. While these could be borne by Gas Tak funds, this would reduce funding for typical street maintenance. In either case, the general taxpayer is paying for the maintenance. b) Property assessment - Adjacent property owners, or others )enefiting from the fence and landscaping, Would be assessed under various State laws. The most practical would be the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. A summary of the Act is provided in Exhibit C. This requires a fair amount of ongoing administrative work and has the subject of scrutiny by the State legislature. The legislature is concerned over perceived abuses and may change the Act to require annual mailings to each property owner and prohibit the Council from overriding majority protests. If this were to happen, the costs would fall under Option a) . c) Lump sum prepayment - The developer could be required to P v a lump sum toward future maintenance and/or replacement. The amount would depend on assumptions for interest, the number of years and estimated costs. Payment could be deferred until lots are sold or developed to ease the developer's cash flow. Exhibit D presents a set of figures for assumptions shown. Note that the lump sum figure inc0eases only marginally as the term increases beyond fifty years. 2) Frivate ownership and maintenance - This alternative would reduire the developers to either place deed requirements on each reverse frontage lot, or establish a homeowners' association to collect homeowner fees and maintain the improvements. The developers generally do not favor forming an association unless it is key to the project such as in Parkview Terrace which has "common" facilities. Standards of maintenance would be determined by the property owners unless there were some typeofagreement with the City providing for maintenance requirements. In either case, City staff has been concerned about ongoing maintenance. Of the 2.4 miles of private fences, the maintenance has generally been good. Hdwever, these are fairly new and a notable exception is the wood fence on Ham Lane. In that case, the property Owners are requesting the City to pay approximately 85% of the cost of a new masonry fence. RECOMMENDATION: The following draft policy statement is recomnende4 for Council consideration. This is a general policy statement. Many details will need to be worked out once staff and the devel pment comnunity have some general direction. CFENCEMT/TXTW.02M (CO.COM) Ap.hi1 8, 1992 Policy on Ownership and Maintenance of New Right -of -Way Fences and Landscaping at Reverse Frontage Lots April 15, 1992 Page 4 D R A F T Policy on Right-of-way Fences and Landscaping 1. 'Where an approved development provides a fence with landscapir 2. 3. the property owner. FUNDING: To be determined. " 'jam Jack . Ronsko ubli Works Directcr Prepared by Richard C. Prima, Jr.. Assistant City Engineer JLR/PCP/lm Attachments cc: City Attorney Finance Director Street Superintendent Community Development Director Planning Commiss ion Site Plan and Architectural Review Commission Developers (those with site plans showing reverse frontage) along the CFENCEMT/TXTW.02M (CO.COM) Apr 8. 1992 CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LoklE . Lim 1 .a RNER LN Exhibit A REVERSE I FRONTAGE... FENCES -- ���������� :PROPOSED EXISTING .........- :PUBLIC (01Y ()1- IU(),, - - - - PRIVATE film R T/8 1/4 3/8 1/7 u11 E mm0 10(10 2000 M ►FET rn Landscaped Wood or Block or Unspecified Landscaping Median Grape Masonry Fence along fence Stake Fence Fence # of miles Existing - Public 1.5 3.2 0 nia 0 Existing - Private 0 0.6 1.8 n/a 2.2 Proposed 0 nia n/a 2.0 2.0 ? Future Additions 3.8 nia n/a 5.0 5.0 ? Approx. Annual Cost per mile Maintenance $8,000 $1,250 $1,250 n/a $8,000 Replacement $2,000 $8,000 $8,000 nia $2,000 (50 years) (25 years) 450 years) n/a I50 years) Total Annual Costs Maintenance Existing - Public $12,000 $4,000 n/a nia nia Proposed $0 n/a nia $2,500 $16,000 Future Additions $30,400 n/a Na $6,2510 $40,000 Total: $42,400 $4,000 nia $8.750 $56,000 Replacement Existing - Public $3,000 $25,600 NO n/a n/a Proposed $0 nia nia $16,0(0 $4,000 Future Additions $7.600 nia nia $40,000 $10,000 Total: $10,600 $25,600 n/a $56,0410 $14,000 Grand Total: $53,000 $29,600 tela $64,750 $70,000 1 FENCCOSTALS Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 The Landscaping and Lig. ' ig Act of 1972 (Division 15, Pert 2 of the Street', and Highways Code, beginning with Section 22500) authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefited property to rinance3 the coristruction of various landscaping, lighting, park, recreational, and apporlepant improve- ments, and the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing (Section 22525). The Act provides for they creation of a district which can be divided into zones. Zones can be exempted from the district or assessed differentlydepending uponthetypeof service lobe provided with in each zone (Section22574). A report must be prepared and a public hearing held for each fiscal year for which assessments are to be levied. The report must include plans and specifications, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the district, and an assessmentof the costs(Sections 22565-22574). A ropy of the Resolution of Intention must be published and mailed to eacl) property owner a minimum of 10 days before the public hearing pertaining to formation of the district (Section 22553). Noticeforsubsequent-yearhearingscan begiven by publishing (Section 22626). The proceedings must be abandoned if a majority protest, by parcel area, is filed at the first-year public hearing, unless the protests are overruled by no less than a four-fifths vote of the legislative body (Section 22593). In subsequent years, an annual hearing must be held concerning theengineer`s report as to the state and future of the improvements. However, the above provisions regarding abandonment and overruling do not apply t D subsequent years. The cost of park or recreational improvements can be raised by an assessment levied and collected in installments over a period not to exceed 30 years, and the cost of all other allowable improvements can be spread ovei-a PeriQd not to exceed five ears Section 22660). The issuance of 1915 Act bonds is authorized to finance park or recreational improvements (Section 22662.5). There is no set term for the life of the district, and it exists until the legislative body acts to dissolve it (Section 22610). Exhibit D Maintenance Costs Right-of-way Fences & Landscaping Lump Sum Prepayment interest (Discount) Rate: 2% Lump Sum (present valuc 4 Number of years Cost per mile 25 50 75 100 Fence Maintenance $1,250 annual ' 524,404 $39,280 53.346 $53.873 Landscape Maintenance $8,000 annual $156,188 I $251,389 $309.417 $344,787 Fence Replacement $200,000 L.S. $121,906 $74.306 $45,292 $27.607 Landscape Replacement $100,000 L.S. $60.953 $37,153 02,646 $13.803 77-W.-im ome W PrNKERMN, Mayor PHILIP A. PEMNINO MINN Fra %rpom D^W M. HIIINCHMAN A" A. WCLOCK KX*4 R. atw do SMMR CITY OF LODI CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET P.Q BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 15241-1910 (209) 334-5634 FAX I" i33 -p5 March 9. 1992 Bangs Ranch, Ltd. Gen. Ptnrshp. Attn: J. J. Kirst, KCF Real Estate -- Post Office Box 1259 Woodbridge, CA 95258 THOMAS & PETERSON Cay man&w ALICE M. REIMCHE CIry Clerk 806 Wt&A1T C+ry AnDrney f � SUBJECT: Policy on Ownership and Maintenance of Neiv Right -of -Warr Fences and Landscaping at Reverse Frontage Lots Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item that will be discussed at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, April 15, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting w i I I be held i n the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. You are welcome to attend. If you wish to communicate with the City Council, please contact Alice Reimche, City Clerk. at (209) 333-6702. If you have any questions about the item at (209) 333- .?'4 � L. Ronsko Public Works Director JCR/lm Enclosure fr. i cc: City Clerk ' NFENCEMMXTW. 02M please call Richard Prima or me &Name &Attn &Add &City Bangs Ranch, Ltd. Gen. Ptnrshp. Attn: J. J. Kirst. KCF Real Estate Post Office Box 1259 Woodbridge, CA 95258 Camray Development 7919 Folsom Blvd.. Ste. 320 Sacramento, CA 95826 Lodi Land Investment Nb. 113 7919 Folsom Blvd., S*. 150 Sacramento, CA 95826 Mr. Delmar Batch 1767 E. Harney In. Lodi, CA 95240 N. Farms 1831 E. Harney In. Lodi, CA 95240 Robert Lee Development Hawaii & San Francisco Development 2200 Powell St., Ste. 1025 Emeryville, CA 94608 Mr. Ron Thomas Thomas Development 1209 W. Tokay St., Ste. 6 Lodi. CA 95240 Mr. Russ Munson, et al. 1530 Edgewood Dr. Lodi, CA 95240 Mr. John Verner. et a. 2707 E. Fremont St.. Ste. 5 Stockton, CA 95205 K Okuhara, et al. 4162 E. Woodbridge Rd. Acampo, CA 95220 Developer/Owner Lodi 'nest 1819 S. Cherokee In.. Ste. 67 Lodi. CA 95240 M. Morimoto 14758 N. Stockton St. N �- �NLE M Lodi, CA 95240 Todd R. Fujinaga, Fujinaga 5 Oshika Capital Towers One 2010 N. First St., Ste. 315 San Jose. CA 95131 Nk Richard Neuharth 3861 E. Almond Dr. Lodi. CA 95240 Mr. Bruce Towne P. 0. Box 185 Walnut Grove. CA 95690 C � J►\ � Yly'�►[�Gv S am cy4 C1e9Wyv rtvjAesko, CIA ets 3sy � Q