HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 1, 1993 (53)� os
CITY OF LOD1
°+cisoa��
00
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Ownership and Maintenance of Lower Sacramento Road Fence at Towne Ranch,
Southwest Quadrant Lower Sacramento Road at Turner Road
MEETING DATE: September 1, 1993
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review supplemental information concerning the request of Bennett &
Compton made on behalf of Towne Ranch Associates, developer of the
Towne Ranch subdivision, regarding the reverse frontage fence along
Lower Sacramento Road and take appropriate action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following is a brief recap of the information previously provided to
the Council at the August 18 meeting:
The Towne Ranch subdivision, as submitted by the developers and approved by the
Planning Commission, includes reverse frontage along Lower Sacramento Road and
Turner Road (see Exhibit A). Along the reverse frontage, the developer planned to
build a fence or wall along the right-of-way. The design was to be approved by the
City and ownership and maintenance responsibilities were to be approved by the City
Council.
On July 12, 1993, the Planning Commission approved the design of a red concrete
brick fence (3 color exhibit was provided with the previous Council Communication).
The ownership and maintenance responsibilities were to be decided by the City
Council.
In April 1992, staff presented various options to the Council on how to pay for ongoing
maintenance of reverse frontage fences. Options included continued City
maintenance, establishment of assessment districts, payment of a one-time
maintenance fee, or establishment of private maintenance associations. The
development community objected to the high cost of districts and associations,
particulady if its sole purpose was fence maintenance. Staff was directed to work with
the development community to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.
After a few meetings, a proposal was made by Jeffrey Kirst who was developing the
first subdivision (Bangs Ranch) affected by this issue. He offered to pay the City the
difference in cost between a masonry fence and the combination masonry/grape stake
fence ($7.00 per lineal foot) if the City would accept the masonry/grape stake fence for
ownership and maintenance. This was approved by the Council and has been used
for one other subdivision since then. (Nots: Since the initial approval, Mr. Kirst has
received Planning Commission approval for a solid masonry fence similar to the
Towne Ranch fence. Thus, the decision on tho Towne Ranch fence will affect other
projects as well.)
APPRGVFD
THOMAS A. PETERSON recycled oaoer
City Manager
UL; 1
INAl1AANN.DOC Oa/2". 3
Ownership and Maintenance of Lower Sacramento Road Fence at Towne Ranch, Southwest Quadrant
Lower Sacramento Road at Turner Road
September'l, 1993
Page 2
With the Towne Ranch project using a solid masonry fence and using the above logic,
the maintenance fee would be zero. However, there are bound to be some
maintenance costs, mainly graffiti abatement and repairs from vehicular accident
damage. Staff also intends to purchase small identification markers to place on the
property side of the fence describing City ownership and landscape easement
information.
Staff felt that the dark color of the proposed fence would discourage graffiti damage
and that the appearance of the fence and the lack of other maintenance needs was a
reasonable trade-off for graffiti abatement. Costs from vehicular accident damage,
therefore, became the main concern. Staff had been provided with an estimate of
$620.00 for repairing one 14 -foot panel and one pilaster by the developer's contractor.
Using this estimate and assuming a 50 -year life, a 2% discount rate, and a repair
interval of once every 5 years, an economic analysis was prepared to estimate the
appropriate one-time maintenance fee to be collected. Based on this analysis, staff
recommended a one-time maintenance fee of $2.25 per lineal foot be established for
the acceptance of masonry reverse -frontage fences.
After some discussion at the August 18 Council meeting, Council expressed concern over the
seemingly low maintenance fee and referred the matter back to staff for further study.
Knowing the City would need repair costs on the proposed fence, staff had asked the developer to
obtain repair estimates at :he same time they obtained quotes on their fence construction. The low bid
and second low bid on the masonry fence repair are at#ached. The lower repair bid, $620.00 or $40.00
per lineal foot, was used in our original estii late. Staff conversations with this contractor indicate that
he hao assumed that the foundations would be undamaged and that some fence materials could be
salvaged and used in the repair. If only the foundations could be reused, he estimated that the repair
cost could increase approximately $100.00. The second low bid cited a repair cost of $907.00, or
approximately $59.00 per lineal foot. Again, the assumption was made that the foundations would not
have to be replaced. It is staffs opinion that the assumption that the fence foundation will be
undamaged and reusable is reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION: As mentioned above, staffs original recommendation of a one-time maintenance
fee of $2.25 per lineal foot was based on a repair cost of $620.00, a design life
of 50 years, a maintenance interval of 5 years and an interest rate of 2%. If a
repair cost of $907.00 is assumed and all other assumptions remain the same,
the maintenance fee would increase to $3.30 per lineal foot. While repair cost estimates are certainly
important in establishing tree maintenance fee, the other assumptions made in the analysis can also
have a profound effect on the fee calculation. For example, if the maintenance interval is assumed to
be 2'/z ye2rs, the appropriate maintenance fee would increase to $4.05 and $6.40 per lineal foot for
repair costs of $620.00 and $907.00, respectively.
G&2F,93
?a�
Ownership and Maintenance o► Lower Sacramento Road Fence at Towne Ranch, Southwest Quadrant
Lower Sacramento Road at Turner Road
September 1, 1993
Page 3
Since the bids for repair are only rough estimates, staff recommends that the Council examine all the
assumptions made in the analysis and adopt a fee in the range of $2.25 to $3.30 per lineal foot. This
decision should also appy to other solid block fences. If Council would still like more time to evaluate
the one-time maintenance fee issue, staff recommends that a decision be made concerning the
ownership of the fence, subject to the fee determination, so that the developer may proceed with the
project.
FUNDING: Special Development Fee or General Fund.
aRonsko
ubli Works Director
Prepared by Sharon A Welch, Associate Civil Engineer
JLR/SAWAm
Attachments
CC. Robert Batch
Lodi Home Builders
Bennett & Compton
Jeff Kirst
Baumbach & Piazza
Street Superintendent
WALuwN.00C oer'" I
•• CITY OF L DDI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT "TOWNE RANCH"
I ,I
Li1li `
o �
i C p • u
V Y
I•�
s Wr—
I rl'
TM
a
I � •
t I 1 to
Y1 -\
LEGEND:
t
■vm�w 3'0" HIGH REVE-RSE FPONTAGt WALL T
11111111111111 7'0" HIGH REVERSE r IF'O^ TAG` `v:ALL
iiN.T.S.
r NkUPUbAL
LAHMAN MASONRY
Lic #437411
5311 West Kale Road
Lodi, CA 95242
(209) 794-2119
Proposal Submitted To:
Name Bennett & Compton
Street
P.O. Bc.x 1597
cityity
State Lodi, CA 95241-1597
Phone
Work To Be Performed At:
Town Ranch
Street Lower Sacramento Rd.
City Loa i State
Date of Plans
Architect
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perfor;ii the labor necessary for the completion of
14 Ft Long By 7 Ft High brick wall section tear down and replace
$30.00 running foot Total$420.00 for 14 loot section
16 n':: by 16 TMs: brick Pillitster tear down and replace$200.00
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and
specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantia. workmanlike manner for the sum of
Dollars ($ I
with papnents to be made as follows:
Any alteration or deviatinn from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders. and will
become an extra charge over and above r.'ie estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our
control. Owr;er to carry fire. tornado and other necessary instranop upon above work- Workmen's Compensation and Public
Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by
"NOTICE TO OWNER"
(Section 701e.5—co tractors License Law)
Under the Mechanics' Lien Law, any contractor, subcontrac-
tor, laborer. materialman or other person who helps to improve
your property and is noC paid for his labor. services or material,
has a right to enforce his claim against your property.
Under the law. you may protect yourself against such claims
by filing, before commencing such work or improvement, an
original contract for the work. of, improvement or a modification
tfier'MrIfi tM'office of the county recorder of the county where
the property is situated and requiring that a contractor's
payment bond be recorded in such office. Said bone shall be in
ar amount not less than fifty percent (50%) of _he contract
price and shall. in addition to any conditions for the perfor-
rnance of the contract, be conditioned for the payment in full
of the claims of all persons furnishing labor, services, equip-
ment or materials for the work described in said contract.,
Respectfu.ly s•jbinitted
Per ( (A i1
State Lirense No. 4 37 411
Note -This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted
within days.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified.
Payment will be made as outlined above.
Signature __....._.. .
Date..
Signature, _. ... .
Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractor's State License
Br --d. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State
License Board, [9835 Goethe Road,] Sacramento, California. [Mailing Address; P.O. Box 26000,
Sacramento, California 95827.]
t"_`
CARRONLE55 NEI
FORM 38V, Cal. GARP—IN
TTIPS Mr, REOL -ED
PROPOSAL
GIBSON MASONRY
Lic#600608
P.O. Box 416 RECEIVED
Clements, CA 95227
Pn**9W Submitted To.
ot
N,WBENNE-M DEVELOP
P. Box 1597"-1
CA 95241-5.97
State
j
PROPOSAL
TRIPLICATE
CALIFORNIA
111111milt To Be Perft"wed At:
Tq!tnq, Ranch
... .......
Lgwq r. -•
Sac , ra - manto , Road_
d
City State__
L*w at Plans - ------- --
ArchiLecc
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the Labor necestory fior via corr*tion of
Repair wall 14' section $38.00 per running ft.
----------- ... ...
r
............. ---- ----
AN nviterini is omranti!�-z to be as sper-ified arid the work to be performed in accm-de�'Aitl`iX 4 . a. draMnand
__.. . .. .. - - ,
specifications subm.zted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of
pollees ($ 1
with payment3 to ba made as
Any alteration or deviation from above spaclications iivolving extra costs. will be executed only upon written arders. and will
beconniii an axtre charge Over and above the est;mate. AN agreamento contingent upon strikes. accodcma or delays beyond our
control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other nacesswy insuminnp upon antwe, wnrk Warkmen'r, Compensation and Public
Liability Inswance an allum woft to be Ld= out by—
wv
your raw'.
by MOW-1111r6ft PC
the pvpemy w. %;M-Aaced wWWAMM"
d. cNien
law
of A 121101106i
RespectfiAly submitter
Per Gipson. kW......nr
1-1. _k1 _-1 .. --
State License No- 600608
Note—This prigasal may be Athdrawn by us if nct accepted
'Within __ ...- jays.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROP05AL
T -le WxNv price:. iip*;AX6tionS &W cond.tici�s are satisFact00%j and are hereby Accep:;ed. You are ductuirized to e -o the work 90 6P061`10d
Payment will bko made as ai-th-iied dbc"
cawrame".am F"isirled.bV law to be Itne"Od.#W-reaul2ted by ttw Cmitiar-tarop. State license
goaM. Any questL*ins concer�iitnv a coatractoi "'I. bi'rofermd to the. 9
"Ntractort Stata
Liceme Baariil. (9835 Crecoe Road, [Moiling -Address: P.O. Bex 28000.
Sacramento, Cali$ornia 1552.7.1
CIT'r COUNICIL
PHIL LIP A PENNING, Mavn+
JACK A Sti�:LO( K
Matior Pro Tempore
RAY G DAVENPORT
STEPHEN I .`1ANN
JOHN R ',Randy) SNIDER
CITY of LODI
LITS HALL, 121 4% EST PINE STREET
VO BOX 3006
LODI CAL IFORNIA 95241 1410
209) M-5634
August 26, 1993
THOMAS A PETERSON
City Manager
JENNIFER \t PERRIN
Citv Clerk
HOR MCNATT
Gtv Attorney
SUBJECT: Ownership and Maintenance of Lower Sacramento Road Fence at
Towne Ranch, Southwest Quadrant Lower Sacramento Road at
Turner Road
Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item that is on
the City Council agenda of Wednesday, September 1, 1993, at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum,
305 West Pine Street.
This item is on the regular calendar for Council discussion. You are
welcome to attend.
If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to
City Council, City of Lodi, P. 0. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910.
Be sure to allow time for the mail. Or, you may hand -deliver the letter
to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street.
If you wish to address the Council at the Council Meeting, be sure to
fill out a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately
prior to the start of the meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you
have any questions about communicating with the Cou;tcil, please contact
Jennifer Perrin, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702.
If you have any questions about the item itself, please call
Richard Prima or Sharon Welch at (209) 333-6706.
ack . Ronsko
bli Works Director
JLR/lm
Enclosure
11
cc: City Clerk
LLSRFENC/TXTW.02M
BENNEIT& COMPT ON
July 13, 1993
Mr. Jack Ronsko,
Public Works Director
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
On behalf of Towne Ranch Associates, the developer of the Towne
Ranch Subdivision, I would like to request that the City of Jodi
assume ownership and maintenance of the reverse frontage wall to
be constructed along The project border of Lower Sacramento Road.
As the project develops to Turner Road we will construct the same
wall. Therefore, we are asking for the City to take ownership
and maintenance of the reverse frontage walls along Lower
Sacramento Road and Turner Road as they are constructed.
Condition 115 of the Conditions of Approval for the Towne Ranch
Unit No. 1 project state, (in part), "...The ownership of the
reverse frontage fence has not been determined. Policies con-
cerning ownership and maintenance of fences along reverse
frontage or restricted access lots are currentll being developed
by City staff. These policies will be presented to the City
Council for action in the very near future. Ownership and main-
tenance of the proposed fence along Lower Sacramento Road and
Turner Road should be required to conform to the policies as
adopted by the City Council. Unless otherwise determined by the
City Council, the fence will be privately owned and maintained."
It is my understanding the City Council recently approved taking
ownership and maintenance of 2 other proposed reverse frontage
walls, also approving the one-time collection of a $7.00 per
lineal foot maintenance fee. The wall we are proposing is an =.L
masonry, (brick), design, which will result in much lower on-
going maintenance costs as compared to the grape -stake & masonry
wall design approved for other projects in the City.
Upon resolution of the ownership and maintenance issues, I would
be happy to discuss the specific alignment and height of the wall
to insure safe sight distances for Tejon Street and Lower
Sacramento Road traffic, as well as structural engineering
specifications you may require.
i.7 tit 11 III 11:11111 :In!`, Gfill ' I • I ' I I Id 1t 1-A 17 • I 1 -1 Ii. I :0if, tlni:I II,,,.I II • f.'1 u:} I I I (; IR'; • Elf 10) 1r7 R.1 N 1t1 +'ZI. 11C 1 11 0'I P:,' Nn 1 I�itl�?moi
ft
I have enclosed a color illustration of the wall, as well as the
portion of the Conditions of Approval containing Condition 115.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or
wish to discuss this issue.
Sincerely Yours, R
Dale N. Gillespie,
Project Coordinator
Enclosures
cc:_Dennis G. Bennett, Towne Ranch Associates
Jennifef-Perrinf, City- Ciera"
P. S. Upon* request, I would be happy to provide additional color
illustrations of the wall design and area map for Council
members review.
DNG/gnd
N
O
J
133HIS N0r31
O
Qi
0
CCI
w'
t7
Q
z
O
Cc
LL
w
J
Q
U
N
O
0
z
Ii
H
ae
w
M
O
OC
a
U
i 1
1
1
LLJ
W
1 \ LW
-
� 11--
1
1
I 1
N
O
J
133HIS N0r31
O
Qi
0
CCI
w'
t7
Q
z
O
Cc
LL
w
J
Q
U
N
O
0
z
Ii
• .- __.. ._tea-. _ -, � .... _ � � ... '
77
e:
• - 1 11 � •`i'f •-7�'i�a3�7tt#�►1•..
L+�iai7i 8�73iii'+:�;1f-::::1.1.+1iYP1U:Sri.i�: :.�•
.
yl J wl :t i i J � "\'.✓� ..�� M•' -l•, wy
r.� '.�-"�41'A�',j� T.?'oa .� 'r,s• �� .F y ' ar �-• <�
I--�.tA:.a •�1 dit�J3��']SVH�wMI«'
,'„t.:.:�StJ.si:.:l�:7']:��4-s:.:.J:7.iMA.'. I.Idr1 •S :""^1�
• - � ,_. •_.+.;.ar..y, ...
+wrr.avns r'7�1lOw+.�.n !'v `r �`7R„•.-. r..n•-t .; ..t ...... vi':
• .- __.. ._tea-. _ -, � .... _ � � ... '
77
e:
CITY COUNCIL
J
MES A O
W. INKERT N• May- CITY OF LODI
P
Mayor Pro Tempore
CITY I TALI, 221 WEST PINE STREET
DAVID M. FIINCIIMAN
BOK 3006
JACK A. SIEGLOCK 95241-1910
)0114 R. tRandyl SNIDER LOUT, CALIFORNIALI
(209) 334-5614
fAX 1209) 333.6795
May 29, 1992
13aumbaclr - Piazza
Attn: Steve ftchin
323 West Elm Street
Lodi, CA 95240
SUBJECT: Tctllativc Subdivision Map, Towne Ranch, Unit No. 1
398 East Turner Road (APN 029-030-01 and 029-03042)
File 192SO08
,..I I Ul/
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCI IE
Clly Clerk
BOB MCNATT
City Attorney
The Lodi Community Development Department has completed its review of your request on behalf
of Bennett and Compton/Bruce Towne for the approval of the tentative subdivision map of Towne
Ranch, Unit no. 1, a 21.4 -acre, 107 -unit residential project located on Ilio west side of Lower
Sacrarncnto Road, north of Lodi Park West Subdivision Units 5 and 6.
At a special session of the Lodi City Planning Commission, called for 7:30 p.m., Tuesday.
May 26, 1992, the Planning Commission approved the tentative map with etre following conditions:
1.That sanitary sewer, domestic water, storm drainage, and electricity be connected to existing City
of Lodi systems.
2.That the air quality mitigation measures outlined on the enclosed Community Development
Department memorandum be met.
3. Engineering and preparation of improvement plans and estimate per City Public Improvement
Design Standards for all public improvements prior to final map riling. Plans to include:
• Approved tentative map, signed by the Community Dcvclopmcut Director;
• Detailed utility master plan for all phases of tic devclopincrrt;
Soils report;
Grading, drainage and erosion control plan.
4. AbandonrncnUrcrnoval of wells, septic systems and underground tanks in conformance with
applicable City and County requirements and codes prior to approval of public improvement
plans.
5. Inslallal:on of all public utilities and street improvcmcnts within tic limits of fere map, including
installation of conduit from the water meter box to flee electric meter location on rash lot per
Public Works DcparUncnt icquirenrcnts, plus the following "off --site" improvcmcnts:
Baumi»ch - Piazza
File av2SOO9
May 29, 1992
Page 3
11. Payment of the following:
Filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City forces per the Public
Works Foe and Scrvice Charge Schedule;
• Development Impact Mitigation Fees rz. iise Public Works Fee and Service Charge
Schedule at the time of map filing (fees for Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation and General
City Facilities may be deferred until acceptance of public improvements);
Wastewater connection fee at building permit issuance;
• Reimbursement fees per existing agreements (approximate) at the time of map filing:
1) 86S02 S766/AC Sanitary sewer lift station fee for acreage parallel to and 400 fact
west of the existing cast line of the Lower Sacramento Road
right-of-way.
The above fees are subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the implementing
ordinancelresolulion. 71se fee charged will be drat in effect at die time of collection indicated
above.
12. Obtain the following permits:
• San Joaquin County we[Vseptic abandonment permit.
13.11c City will participate in the cost of the following improvements:
• Street paving on Lower Sacramento Road in excess of 34 feet measured from SS feet west
of (lie centerline;
• Master plan sanitary sewer lines 12 inches and larger;
• Master plan storm drains 30 inches and larger.
14. A specific plan was adopted for Lower Sacramento Road (Ordinance H847) which includes a
frontage road parallel to Lower Sacramento Road from Lodi Avenue to Turner Road. The
tentative map, as submitted, docs not comply with the specific pian north of Tejon Street;
however, upon Planning Commission approval of the map, the Public Works Department will
draft a new ordinance to amend the specific plan and present it to the City Council for
approval.
13: Tlse reverse frontage fence along Lower Sacramento Road shall be constructed by die
developer to [lie approval of the Public Works Department and the Site Plan and Architectural
Rcvicw Committee. 71sc ownership of the reverse fronlage fence has not been determined.
Policies concerning ownership and maintenance of fences along reverse frontage or restricted
access lots arc currently being developed by City staff. These policies will be presented to the
City Council for action in the very near future. Ownership and riaintenance of the proposed
fence along lower Sacramento Road and Turner Road should be1equired to conform to the
policies as adopted by the CUy Council. Unless otlrcnvise determined by Ure City Council,
the fence will be privately owned and maintained.
M A925008. DOC
CITY COUNCIL
PtI1LLIP A PENN;NO. Mayor
TACK A. SIFGLOCK
Mayor Pro Tempore
RAY G DAVENPORT
$IEPHEN ). MANN
JOAN R. (Randy) SNIDER
July 13, 1993
I , o;d
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209)334-5634
FAX (2091311-6711,
Mr. Dale Gillespie
c/o Bennett & Compton
P.O. Box 1597
Lodi, CA 95241
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
RE: Reverse Frontage Fence
Lower Sacramento Road
Towne Ranch Subdivision
THOMA&A. PETERSON
City Manager
IENNIFER M. PERRIN
City Clerk
BOB McNATT
City Attorney
At its meeting of Monday, July 12, 1993 the Lodi City Planning Commission
approved the Towne Ranch Subdivision Wall Design for the reverse frontage
fence to be located along the Lower Sacramento Road frontage of the
subdivision.
The Planning Commission approved the design as submitted. However, the
Commission required that the fence height be increased from 6 feet to 7
feet.
Sincerely,
S B. SCHROEDE
unity Development Director