Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Sidewalk Policy AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: BACKGROUND: ALTERNATIVES: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 8A DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDED SIDEWALK POLICY AND STANDARDS FEBRUARY 21,1995 The Council requested preparation of a policy or City Code language that would deal with the installation of sidewalks in the City. The focus is on the need for formal guidelines or standards that could be used during plan preparation and review of new development. The Planning Commission at its November 17, 1994 meeting held a public hearing and considered a draft policy and draft Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission ultimately tabled further consideration at that time so that both the policy and the amendment could be revised to reflect Commission concerns and suggestions. On February 13, 1995 the Commission again held a hearing to consider the modifications which had been made to the policy statement and amended code language. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft policy and amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance contained in the attached staff report with a minor modification to the section on barrier curbs on page 3 of the draft Code Amendment. This limited the application of barrier curbs to collector streets or streets located in commercial areas. Another modification was in item 6 on page 3 of the draft Amendment changing the reference to the MNDOT standard plate to read "as may be amended from time to time." One of the significant provisions of the recommendation was the requirement that sidewalks be installed on both sides of both local and minor collector streets in all new developments. There is a provision included in the draft language that the City Engineer may recommend the sidewalks on only one side of the street where topography or traffic conditions would warrant. The Council has three alternatives: 1. Council may approve the draft policy and Subdivision Code Amendme(1t as recommended. 2. Council may approve the draft policy and Subdivision Code Amendments with specific changes. 3. Council may deny the proposed draft policy and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. -1- 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER ~___..-__,..,_".._,.~._.~..._.._~" "'_"<'''~~O>''__.''_ , r RECOMMENDATION: It is the Planning Commission's recommendation alternative #1 be followed. ACTION REQUIRED: 'ORLT07" -2- _.._~,-,~---~-~._-...,.._-_.--.~'~-~.."'. ,.....< "_. ,.-..-_.~- , . r _~~b-07-95 15:46 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.02 PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT : PREPARED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: Proposed Policy state.ent and Subdivision Code Amendment Reaardinq Sidewalk Standards Blair Tremere~ Public Affairs Consultinq Yes January 23 r 1995 for February 13 r .eetinq .I~TRQpqCTION The planning commission at its November 17f 1994 meeting held a public hearinq and considered a draft policy and a draft amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance on the sub;ect of sidewalks in new developments, as directed by the City council. The commission tabled further consideration so that both the oolicy and the amendment could be revised to reflect commission concerns and sugqestions. Revisions have been made and notice of hearing was published in the leqal newspaper for the meetinq. BAC~G:RQYNQ The City council directed the preparation of a policy and/or city Code language that would deal with the installation of sidewalks. The focuS was on the need for formal quidelines or standards that could be used durina the olan oreoaration and review staaes for new develooment. . - -- . - The Enaineerina, Parks and Recreation f and Planning deDartments oreoared. information that was presented to the commission in- November. The materials included a draft oolicy statement that was designed to be incorporated into the updated comorehensive Plan: a draft amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance in the city Code which provided standards and guidelines for new develooments: and information reaardina the oriorities for instaliing sidewalks in areas of the City already developed which had been reviewed by the Parks Advisory Committee. The city Manaaer had reauested information about the caoital costs for a- oroaram for installina sidewalks in the alreadY developed areas: the data was also provided to the commission. - The commission tabled' the item with direction to staff to clarifY oortions of the draft oolicv and ordinance amendment and to reflect specific items~ as appropriate in both. ~~'lS;IS 1. The policy statement has been rewritten to not onlv reflect the commission's discussion, but also to reflect concepts and information that will ensure compatibility -----T.. I ..-r---.~..._.........._.... Feb-07-95 15:46 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.03 Page Two with the Comprehensive Plan and~ particularly~ with the Transoortation Element which was oreoared for the Citv. The Commission especially sought inclusion of a reference to oublic safetv. and clarification of the intent and imoiementation of the oolicv. This statement will be integrated with the Transportation Element when the updated Comprehensive Plan is approved. In the interim, it will be deemed part of the current Plan. 2. The draft code amendment has been revised qrammaticallv and substantively. The so-called "legislative fonnatit was used to identify deleted and added language: note: the entire draft is new language that would be added to the Subdivision Ordinance. The form has been modified to better focus on code- related items and standards, versus policy statements. Reference to public safety has been added and cross- reference to the Comprehensive Plan is now in the text. The auidelines in TABLE 1 have been revised to indicated side~alks should be installed on both sides of the street. A "Note" has been added to orovide that the Ci tv Enaineer mav recommend that a sidewalk be required on oniy one side if topographical conditions or traffic volume warrant. 3 , The cublic hearina and recommended action relate to auidelines and standards for sidewalks in NEW develooment. The code text refers to the Comcrehensive Plan which would include the new policy statement. Installation of sidewalks in established neighborhoods and other developed areas would NOT be a function of the Subdivision Code. unless an area were to be fullv redevelooed and re-olatted. A oroaram and fundina for imolementina this oart of the oian DOlicv would reQuire specific action by the City Council, -typically as part of the Capital Improvement Plan approval process. 4. The requirements and standards for the construction of trails; which can serve similar functions as sidewalks, will be addressed during the review of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Al;.'1'r;EN~J:VES Conduct the scheduled public hearing (the November hearing was closed: a new notice for this meeting was duly published) and, ~ 1. Recommend approval t1the Draft Amendment to the Subdivision Code regarding installation of sidewalks in new Feb-07-95 15:47 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.04 Page Three developments: and of the draft policy statement for incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Table the item for specific reasons. J. Recommend that the croDosed code amendment and/or policy statement not be approved for specific reasons. ~EC.9MMENDA1'ION staff recommends Alternative No.1. Attachments 1. Revised Draft Policy statement and Code Amendment 2. November 17, 1994 Commission Minutes (Item II) ..-T------y----..-,----.--- . .' I -------..-'. ,...-,~--~....-..-,,-~ Feb-07-95 15:47 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.05 ",sWALK2" DRAFT 2-24-94 (REV. 3-7-94, 11/10/94, 2-1-95) CITY OF PRIOR LAKE SIDEWALK POLICY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2010 Sidewalks are an integral component of development in Prior Lake. Segments of the community-wide sidewalk system have been constructed or are planned in several areas includinq, the Town Center and Priordale Business Districts. along Fish Point Road, Franklin Trail, C.R. 21, Carriage Hills Parkway. Duluth Avenue and Toronto Avenue. Sidewalks provide a pedestrian-oriented circulation network which is separate from vehicular traffic. The development of a sidewalk system provides opportunities for face-to-face contacts between residents in order to foster a sense of communi ty, security, and well being. Sidewalks enhance the public safety by the separation of pedestrian traffic from other transportation; this is particularly important as the volume of vehicular traffic increases on a given street. Sidewalks provide internal links between community facilities and residential and commercial areas. Sidewalks also provide linkages among residential developments, recreation areas, business and industrial centers, SChools, and churches. A well integrated, comprehensive sidewalk system will provide good access and help sustain market strength for community facilities. The community trail system serves both non-vehicular tranzportation function and recreational functions; it differs from the sidewalk system in that trails are typically constructed within designated corridors and are intended designed to provide access and connections to key destinations such as neighborhoods, parks, schools, commercial areas and recreation facilities including regional and county trails. Trails may be warranted where sidewalks are not warranted for safety and circulation, The development of a comprehensive community-wide sidewalk system should occur with thoroughfare construction and reconstruction, wi th new development, and with public improvements in existing neighborhoods and centers. Connections to existing sidewalks and, where applicable, to trails will be required. The provision for connections to community facilities should be a consideration of City review of all devetqpment proposals. Implementation of the comprehensive sidewalk system will occur over an extended period of time. The City should develop a sidewalk and trail system map which corresponds to the adopted roadway functional classifications and which indicates priorities and warrants for existing neighborhoods and centers. Feb-07-95 15:47 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.06 Page Two Areas where development or redevelopment is anticipated should be considered as part of the Capital Improvements Program during the annual budget process. The funding should also correspond to the development schedule proposed by the Scott County Highway Department and MNDot for the upgrade and expansion of the highways within the City limits. H .t ..... .. .......-.....-T.....-.--.....,----....-......-~.... Feb-07-95 15:48 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.07 SECTION 6-7-3 - SIDEWALKS: AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 87-10 (A) PURPOSE: The intent of this chapter is to provide guidance for sidewalk construction and to accommodate a range of l_gc~ti_on and_d~~ign options ~~ggyelQD.ents. ra~fter-~fta"-~m~ese-~"f%ex~~%e re~~~reme"~s~---Fe~-~~~-~--~~~--~---~~dewa%ks W~~ft~"-a--~~;ee~~.l:d--be-~mined- ba3ca ttpOPt- ~fte-%eea~~e" er- eOmftl1:1M~y--f-eei~-i-t:-i~~~~~-e:eve%e~men-~-~re;ee~ rer-..wfti-eft -ene- ~ dc-Jtrl*-i-s-i:n~el"lded -~ ~n~.-""Phe- -i1'l~~-eel-er' expee~ee-~~~-~~~id~~~-~he~la- ~u~~~~~--~-w~a~h7 %eea~~en7-re%a~~e"~h~~-~e-~he-readway-e"d--~~e-e~e~~erne~~ve ftla~er~e:~-~-~-~~- pavcr~, e~ered-~/-e~~eaea e~~re~a~e-er-e~fter-ee"ere~e-ftla~er~a%~ 1. (B) OBJECTIVES: 2. h Sidewalks are desirable improvemen~s which Dromote the Dubl ic safety and welfare: and they are aDDrooriate features for all multiple residen~ial ADd commercial/industrial projects, adjacent to 3chools, churches, shopping facilities, and e~--i1'l~~~~-~~~ ~y~~em~ within residential developments. Sidewalks are encouraged to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, thereby affording more safety for pedestrians; to encourage a pedestrian mode of transportation, which conserves energy by decreasing automobile usage; and to provide a safer area for handicapped persons ~e-~~a~e: and rer children to welk el"ld--p%ey--~pe" ~. The emphasis of sidewalk construction should be on improving the pedestrian experience by provision of landscaping, such as boulevard trees, and to provide safe crossings, through the use of landscaped medians, brick pavers at street crossings or use of colored and stamped concrete to physically and aesthetically identify the pedestrian cross walk separate from the street system. (C) REQUIRED SIDEWALKS: 1. sidewalks shall be required for all ~ projects where a means of pedestrian access is deemed necessary by the city Council, from the development to schools, parks, churches, business or industrial developments, adjacent neighborhoods, transportation facilities, or for unusually long blocks, in order to meet the purpose and Feb-07-95 15:49 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.os Draft Code Amendment Page Two objectives of the COmDrehensive Plan and of this Ordinance. TABLE 1 contains the guidelines related to the location, installation and maintenance of sidewalks within the City of Prior Lake. 2. An option to traditional sidewalks is the provision of paved or concrete paths that may not strictly follow the street. They may be slightly winding paths located wi tnin the street right-of-way or walkways that, well removed from the street, weave their way tnrough a neighborhood. For aesthetic reasons, bituminous material may not used for paths to be located within the front yards of residential properties. 3. Paths in common areas or other locations away from streets, generally should be integrated into the detailed area plan or layout, permitting visual surveillance of tne sidewalk from the street or nearby houses. The opportunity for surveillance is an important factor for user safety and security. (D) STANDARDS: 1. Sidewalks will normally be made of concrete, five feet wide, although there may be occasions in high intensity areas where safety is a concern, when an eight foot concrete sidewalk will be required. Examples include: commercial ~ industrial areas, multi-family areas and school zones. 2. Sidewalks should be located within a public right-of-way, public easement, or common area, at least one (1') foot inside of the right-of-way line. A border area or grass strip located between the street edge of the sidewalk and curb face is desirable in most project areas. See Engineering Design Guidelines Manual, Template for a detail related to the border/grass strip design. The grass strip provides a visual break between the Daved surface of the street and sidewalk: a suitable location for planting of boulevard trees, landscaping, snow storage, and. provides pedestrian safety by further moving the sidewalk from the road surface. 3. Along certain streets, a continuous sidewalk, without a grass strip may be appropriate where pedestrian traffic is considerable and where the City Council determines that turf maintenance will likely be a problem. 4. Sidewalk street crossings should be located at a peint along the road that offers adequate sight distance as ~~-r~ .. - ... ....~-_.~~...~-,.-----r---..~--~... Feb-07-95 15:50 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P_09 Draft Code Amendment Page Three determined by the City Engineer. 5. Barrier curbs (vertical curb) 6 inches high with steep sides are desirable along streets adjacent to sidewalks to prevent vehicles from leaving the roadway. Barrier curbs control drainage, protect pavement edges and protect sidewalks, lawns, pedestrians, street trees, utilities and signs from encroachment by vehicles. Barrier curbs establish a positive limit of vehicle encroachment on the border area, minimi zing parkway erosion and reducing the probability of vehicles sliding off the roadway under unfavorable pavement and weather conditions. Barrier curbs also protect grass and landscaping from damage by snowplows. 6. Curb cuts shall be provided for bicycles, wheelchairs, baby carriages, and other wheeled vehicles. MnDOT Standard Plate 70360 should be used as the standard for design and installation of curb ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. In addition, the following principles should be observed in considering ramp construction. a) A curb cut ramp should be located close to the intersection to keep the width of the crosswalk to a minimum. Minor obstacles such as mail boxes or newspaper dispensers, e~e~ and the like, should not be ~~ed cited as a"-e~e~~e basis to omit the curb cut. b) Ramps should be constructed by depressing the curb and sidewalks to the height required for achieving the ramp slopes and landing areas needed for safe pedestrian and wheelchair movement and consistent with ADA requirements. c) The surface of the ramp should be rougher than the texture used on the surrounding ~idewalk. ~ effect may be obtained by coarse brooming or scoring transverse to the slope of the ramp, ~ -providina traction that will assist the sight- impairea pedestrians of using the ramp. 7. When sidewalks cross streets, a treatment to identify the crosswalk as approved by the City Engineer, shall be installed by the Developer. Typical crosswalk treatment consists of striping per applicable state standards. In developments where sidewalk.s are near schools, park.s, churches, businesses, and unusually long blocks, a crosswalk. treatment of landscaped medians separated by colored stamped concrete, signs, or other treatment may I Feb-07-95 15:51 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P.10 Draft Code Amendment Page Four be required by the City Council. 8. In development projects that contain hills or steep topography the sidewalk pattern should conform as closely as possible to the standards found herein and to connecting walkways. 9. The city council may allow sidewalks to be narrower than otherwise required to fit the terrain. .,,~.~. . . .-..---.-.....--.-. I Feb-07-95 15:52 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING 612 545-9201 P_11 Note: The 2-1-95 revision modified this table to require sl.dewalks on both sides of all streets, as directed by the Planning c01llDlission. The form of the table will be appropria'cely modified when it is adopted by the City Council. TABLE 1 GUIDELINES FOR LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS STREET TYPE /I SIDEWALKS INSTALLATION MAINTAINED BY 1 1 or 2 BOTH PAID BY SIDE SIDES SIDES DEV./CITY/* OWNER/CITY Local * X Developer Owner Minor Collector * X Developer. Owner/city Major Collector X city/* City Minor Arterial X City/* City Major City/* Arterial X City Principle Arterial X City/* City * Other jU11sdiction such as MNDOT and Scott County NOTES: L.. If improvement is not listed in the City ClP, the developer will be responsible for cost and installation of sidewalk system. A... The ci ty Enqinee-r lIlaV recommend that. sidewalks be installed on onlY one side of a street where topoarachical or traffic conditions warrant.