HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7356 1 F'.
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL, MEMBERS No 7356— P
February 14, 1989
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
Subject. SCENIC VILLAGE ADDITION - Request by Ms. Wendy Turrella Vann
to Waive 37.— Charge For Construction Engineering and
Administration & City Acceptance of Maintenance
Responsibility For Street Lights
on February 3, 1989, Ms. Wendy Turrella Vann appeared before City Council
regarding M&C C-11449 - Contract for Installation of Community Facilities -
Scenic Village Addition, Block 5-R, Lots 1-37. Ms. Vann requested that City
Council waive a Special Condition of this Community Facilities Agreement (CFA)
which required that 32 of the total construction cost be used for construction
engineering and administration. In addition, she asked that upon completion of
the Scenic Village development, the City of fort Worth assume ownership,
maintenance and operation of all the street lights installed in the development
on the private streets.
Scenic Village is located east of Oakhurst Scenic Drive and south of Yucca
Avenue in the Riverside area of Fort Worth. The development is proposed to be
single-family residential with private streets and secured "gate" entrances. On
November 22, 1985, Mr. Wayne K, Olson, Assistant City Attorney, issued an
opinion on private streets (see copy of Inter-office Correspondence attached)
which effectively says that private streets must be constructed the same as
public streets unless there is a rational basis related to the health, safety
A. L -e issuance of that opinion and staff
and welfare of the public. Following the L ff
discussion with the City Plan Commission, the staff began requiring CPA's for
private streets and began inspecting private streets -to ensure that the
improvements installed met the requirements of the CFA and the construction
plans. Since the facilities to be installed on private streets will provide no
direct benefit to the general public, staff prepares these CFA's such that the
City will not pay for any construction cost or any other cost of the facilities.
The 32 construction engineering/administrative cost and the ownership,
maintenance and operation of street lights is assigned to the developer for that
reason.
Although no specific written policy currently exists on the subject of
construction engineering costs for private streets, precedent has been set on at
least two sizable "private street" subdivisions. The Mira Vista Addition and
the Cityview Urban Center Addition both have private streets and are examples of
where the 3% charge was administered. Since no specific policy existed, staff
negotiated the amount of the charge in both instances.
As an alternative, City Council could elect to reduce the percentage paid for
construction engineering from 37 to 2%. This decision would be in keeping with
the recommendations of the Development Fee Committee chaired by Councilman Garey
Gilley. Staff is in the process of amending the Development Policy to include
the recommendation made, by this committee that all development-, gy 2% of the
developer's construction cost for construction engineering/inspection.
[ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7356 Pg. 2 DoE fppT�o To the Mayor and Members of the City Council February 14, 1989
Subject: SCENIC VILLAGE ADDITION - Request by Ms. Wendy Turrella Vann
to Waive 3% Charge For Construction Engineering and
Administration & City Acceptance of Maintenance
Responsibility For Street Lights
The question of who maintains and operates street lights on private streets is a
similar question. At the present time, the City does not own, operate, maintain
nor pay the cost of electricity for any street light on a private street.
Although the written policy says "All street lights installed under this policy
shall be, and shall remain, the property of the City, and shall be operated and
maintained by City.", the policy was never intended to apply to private streets.
Thus, the staff has long followed a practice of not assuming responsibility for
street lights on private streets.
Following the February 3, 1989, City Council meeting where Ms. Vann addressed
the Council, Mr. William W. Wood, Deputy City Attorney, considered the matter
and sent an IOC to Mr. Dallas Williams, Deputy Director of Transportation and
Public Works (see attached IOC) which seems to confirm staff's previous
policy/practice but recommends that if developers are to be charged for
construction engineering/administration that the requirement should be formally
adopted by the City Council.
'—J
Ow Due to all of the above, staff recommends- that the current policies/practices
remain in effect where the benefits and responsibilities of private streets
rests with the developer and the future property owners,. residing within the
development and that the policy of requiring developers to pay for construction
engineering/administration be adopted by the City Council as soon as possible.
It is hoped that the above information and rationale adequately addresses this
situation. Should the City Council desire additional information it will be
furnished upon request.
,�las Harn=
City Manager
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INTER-OF FICE CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Gary Santerrer Director
TO Transportation/Public Works DATE November 22, 1985
FROM Wayne K. Olson
Assistant City Attorney.,.
SUBJECT PRIVATE STREETS
On September , 24, 1985, you wrote this office requesting an
opinion on four issues involving the platting of private streets in
the City of Fort Worth. Most of these issues have already been dis-----
cussed with Bob Green, Walt Cooper and Don Bean of your office,
particularly with regard to amending the Plan Commission Rules and
Regulations in the near future to set forth specific design criteria
and other regulations for private streets. Current City regulations
are almost totally nonexistent with regard,--to -,the..,,use -,of _private
.,n_the City. Therefore -�-"d'
ommen at1onthzt'spe';
inclusion in
in
716
De,,,,. rcTg. TwrV4r
tYtre'ar�fvture: fog`W
n 'Commission
With reg=rd to your the specific questions asked, I will
address them in the same order as presented:
I. "First, what is the specific definition of a 'private
street ? Does it include 26 ' wide emergency access ease-
ments, private alleys and other private drives? Should it
cover a street serving single-family or duplex residential
property?"
Neither the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision
Ordinance nor the Plan Commission Rules and -:1,eguli;,,.Lons contains a
specific definition of private streets. The Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance defines a lot as " . . .havin.g_ n
,pricipal-.-f.rontage - upon a
street or officially approved. place. - Th'e':,, c-"r�d"'in-anbe�,-.,,then. defines a
street-a'*s " [a] public thoroughf are jwhich affords.. principal means of
access to abutting properties. " "T'h'e,,-'Un.'lf;i.ed-':Res' idential'- provisions
of Section 16A provide: ,,
"Emergency Access shall be provided to each principal
building by:
(a) A public street or alley; or by
(b) A private way, alley , or paved place delin-
eated on an approved subdivision plat conforming
to the requirement of Article 974a, Revised
Civil Statutes of Texas. Access may also be pri,*-
vided by an emergency access easement approved
Continued, Page 2
November 22, 1985
Mr. Gary Santerre
by the City Plan Commission and recorded in the
Tarrant County Deed Records (Paragraph D.2) . "
: .:I.t:. .agpeats" .that:' the .,.'Z,o img_-Ordinance�-:contemplates, that all
.lets;"exceptin Unified Residential §ubdive'ions, will be served by
IfVb1ic..:streets._ However, Section I of Article 974a- provides:
"Hereafter very owner of any tract of land situated with-
in the corporate limits, or within five miles of the cor-
porate limits of any city in the State of Texas, who may
hegeaL"r divide the same in two or more ,arts For
nn e- of addition s on `out any subd iv,=_, of any tract of land
� dGr
to any town or city, or for laying out
suburban lots or building lots, or any lots, and streets ,
alleys or parks or other portions intended for public use ,
or the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting there-
on or adjacent thereto, shA;j cause a plat to be made
thereof which shall accurately describe all of said' sub-
division or addition by metes and bounds and locate the
same with respect to a corner of the survey or tract or an
original corner of the original survey of which it is a
part, giving the dimensions thereof of said subdivision or
addition, and dimensions of all streets, alleys, squares,
Parks or other portions of same intended to be dedicated
to public use, or for the use of purchasers or owners of
lots fronting thereon or adjacent thereto; provided, how-
ever, that no plat of any subdivision of any tract of land
or any addition to any town or city shall be recorded
unless the same shall accurately describe all of said sub-
division or addition by metes and bounds and locate the
same with respect to a corner of the survey or tract or an
original corner of the original survey of which it is a
part giving the dimensions thereof of said subdivision or
addition, and dimensions of all streets, alleys , squares,
parks or other _portions of same intended to be dedicated
to public use, or for the use of purchasers or owners of
lots fronting thereon or adjacent thereto. " (Emphasis sup-
plied)
The Subdivision ' Ordinance of the City of Fort Worth (Ordinance
No. 7234) tracks this language in the state statute and provides for
the laying out of streets and alleys ". . . for the use of purchasers
or owners of lots fronting thereon or adjacent.thereto. . . . As stated
in my opinion of August . 24 , 1984 ,. Texas,_courts+. have_rinterpreted the,,.,
language contained in the statute. as applying to both public and.'
Private streets:. Permitted private streets would include emergency
access easements (in Unified Residential Developments) , private
alleys and other private drives. They would also include streets
serving swi.ngle-family or duplex residential properties.*M'. they were
xplaced on ..the plat in such__a...manner..., Theref-ore;;the,•�,need_for spe-
r , 'cific regulatipns regarding .pri:vate streets::1becomesa;apparent.
Continued, Page 3
November 22 , 1985
Mr. Gary Santerre
II. "Second, with respect to the design of private streets, do
all design requirements (including right-of-way, street
width, set-backs, geometry) for public streets apply? Do
private streets need to be designed to the standards used
for public streets? Then should staff review such plans
for compliance and must the City Engineer sign those
plans? It would seem that such a requirement would place
an inordinate burden on review staff and current staffing
levels could not handle this additional load. "
The only design criteria established for private streets in the
City of Fort Worth are for Emergency Access easements which are
allowed only in Unified Residential Developments. Therefore, it is*.
my opinion that all private streets (other than. Unified Residential)
must meet - the same design requirements as for, public streets, in--._ i
..eluding . right-of-way, street widthl ' set-baick.'Jind geometry. The same
,Standards.-' and. .staff review of s'-u''ch*-- s'tree-'ts' ""s*h-'ou-16 be required prior
to approval. ,
III. "Third, could separate design standards be established for
private and public streets. For example, private streets
(emergency access easements) used in apartment complexes
should not be required to have curb and gutter, whereas
all public streets are required to have curb and gutter. "
Emergency access easements used in apartment complexes already
have different design standards than for public streets. However,
outside of Unified Residential Developments the only design stan-
dards contained by the City for streets are those standards which
apply to public streets. it would be permissible in my opinion for
the City to develop separate standards for public and private
streets, provided these standards could be justified, based upon a
traffic safety or general health and welfare considerations. In
other words, if the City could justify different standards based
upon different uses or amounts of use of private streets, different
criteria would be acceptable.
IV. "Fourth and finally, does the stipulation to apply all
ordinances, regulations and design standards to both pub-
lic and private streets extend itself to public and pri-
vate drainageways which generally involve channels?"
It is my opinion that if health, safety and welfare considera-
tions would dictate the use of different design standards for public
and private drainageways, then such separate standards may be re-
quired by the City of Fort Worth. Again, there must be a rational
basis for distinguishing between the two. But if they can be justi-
fied as being rationally related to the health, safety and welfare
of the public, then such regulations would be upheld.
I trust that I have adequately answered your inquiry. I again
want to emphasize the need for specific standards to be applied to
Continued, Page 4
leovember 22 , 1985
Mr. Gary Santerre
private streets in the City of Fort Worth. The use of private
streets in single-family subdivisions is no longer a thing of the
future and, therefore, needs to be addressed by the City as soon as
possible.
WAYNE K. OLSON
Assistant City Attorney
WKO:iqqq
cc: Mr. Dallas Williams
Mr. Bob Green
Mr. Don Bean
Mr. Joe Bilardi
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
TO Mr . Dallas Williams DATE February 10 , 1989
Deputy Director/Engineering/T&PW
FROM William W. Wood
Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT STREET LIGHTS IN SCENIC VILLAGE ADDITION, BLOCKS 5-R,
LOTS 1-37
Pursuant to our meeting yesterday and our telephone
conversation this morning, I suggest that the following
language be incorporated into the I .R. which I understand
your office is preparing :
"With respect to the privately owned street lights
which are to be used to light the private streets
in Scenic Village , it is the City Attorney ' s
opinion that unless the City Council finds that
these street lights will predominently serve
a public purpose , the expenditure of City funds
to pay the maintenance and utility costs of these
lights will be an illegal use of public funds
for private purposes as prohibited by the Texas
Constitution.
op"
With respect to the City charging developers
a percentage of the total construction cost for
City engineering and administration , the City
Attorney has no objection since these are costs
which the City incurs to guarantee that the
streets , whether public or private , will be
constructed in accordance with City specifications
and standards . (See attached City Attorney
opinions) . However , the City Attorney recommends
that, if the City is going to require developers
to pay such a charge , the requirement should
be formally adopted by the City Council and
included in the City ' s Policy for the Installation
of Community Facilities . "
Dallas , if you have any questions about the proposed
language , or have some additional information for me that
might affect my opinion , please let me know.
William W. Wood
WWW:als Deputy City Attorney