HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated April 13, 2004 ITEM # 54
DATE 04/13/04
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING
REQUIRMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of July 22, 2003, staff presented several policy options with
regard to requirements for installation of sidewalks in new subdivisions (see attached
Sidewalk Policy Choices). At that meeting, the City Council supported Policy Option F and
directed staff to solicit input from identified interest groups regarding the policy and to bring
this item back to the City Council for a formal amendment to the City's Subdivision
Regulations.
On February 11, 2004, staff mailed letters to 93 individuals (39 developer/consultant
contacts that routinely do business within the City of Ames and 54 neighborhood
association contacts) inviting them to one of two informational meetings to provide their
input regarding the proposed sidewalk policy. In the letter staff indicated that individuals
could also submit comments in writing either via e-mail or fax.
As a result of this invitation, no one attended either of the two informational meetings. Staff
received two phone calls from members of neighborhood associations with very general
questions. Once staff indicated that this policy only applies to new developments, these
individuals had no further questions.
Staff received one e-mail from Bill Armstrong, a copy of which is attached. In his e-mail, Mr.
Armstrong indicates that he supports Policy Option F as well, but tends to favor Policy
Option E more. The main difference between the two options is that Policy Option F
requires installation of sidewalks on one side of industrial streets and Policy Option E does
not require the installation of any sidewalks along industrial streets. Staff does not support
Policy Option E. As indicated in the previous Action Form in July, which outlined the
various policy options, staff believes that it is important to, at a minimum, require sidewalks
on one side of the street in industrial areas. Staff believes that without any sidewalks, if
someone wants to walk in industrial areas—either to and from work or a Cy-Ride bus stop,
for recreation on their lunch break, or for emergency purposes (such as walking for help
with car trouble)—they would have to walk in the street, along with industrial vehicle traffic.
Providing sidewalks on at least one side of the street gives pedestrians some refuge from
vehicular traffic.
In order to implement Policy Option F, staff is proposing the following text amendment to
the Subdivision Ordinance (changes are noted in bold italics or Str'GkeR thr„urh):
23.403(14)(a) Sidewalks and walkways shall be designed to provide convenient
access to all properties and shall connect to the City-wide sidewalk system. A
minimum of a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be installed in the public
right-of-way along each side of any street within residentially and
commercially zoned areas and along at least one side of any street within
industrially zoned areas. Such a sidewalk shall connect with any sidewalk
within the area to be subdivided and with any existing and proposed sidewalk in
any adjacent area. Any required sidewalk shall be constructed of concrete and
be at least four feet wide.
(i) A deferment for the installation of sidewalks may be granted by
the City Council when topographic conditions exist that make the
sidewalk installation difficult or when the installation of the
sidewalk is premature. Where the installation of a sidewalk is
deferred by the City Council, an agreement will be executed
between the property owner/developer and the City of Ames that
will ensure the future installation of the sidewalk. The deferment
agreement will be accompanied by a cash escrow, letter of credit,
or other form of acceptable financial security to cover the cost of
the installation of the sidewalk.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved Policy Option F as outlined in this Action
Form, which would require this proposed text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance at
their meeting of July 2, 2003.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve the text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
regarding requirements for the installation of sidewalks.
2. The City Council can deny the text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
regarding requirements for the installation of sidewalks.
3. The City Council can approve the text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
regarding requirements for the installation of sidewalks, with modifications.
4. The City Council can refer the text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance back to
staff for further review and comment.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff believes that sidewalks are an important component of the transportation
system of the city. Ideally, sidewalks would be installed in all locations in the city to
give pedestrians the ability to walk freely anywhere. Staff believes that limiting
sidewalks to one side of streets in industrial areas represents a reasonable compromise
from the current practice. The combination of limiting walks to one side of industrial areas
and allowing a deferment of walks in certain situations, as long as the installation of the
walk is guaranteed with an effective means of security, should serve to solidify the City's
position with regard to the installation of sidewalks. It will give clear direction to staff and
property owners regarding the City's policy, which can be clearly presented to the
development community. The end result will be less time spent by staff, developers, and
the City Council discussing the need for the installation of sidewalks. Therefore, it is the
City Manager's recommendation that Alternative #1 be adopted. Alternative #1
recommends that the proposed text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding
requirements for the installation of sidewalks be approved.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Attachment
"EandB" To <ejensen@city.ames.ia.us>
<EandB@mail.isunet.net>
cc
02/25/2004 10:01 AM
Please respond to bcc
<EandB@mail.isunet.net> Subject Sidewalk Policy Comment
Dear Eric - Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the sidewalk policy
options. I just returned from 30 days overseas, so these are based on our past
experience with development of our industrial land on South Dayton rather than
any broad, detailed analysis. I tend to favor option E that does not require
sidewalks in industrial zones. The experience in the Ames Industrial Park
immediately east of our property suggests that walks are an unneeded expense
in that the nature of activity in the zone is such that they simply will not
be used. I think that the density of persons actually employed in the zone
also suggests that walks will be little used and less than cost effective to
build, especially when they do not connect to the city' s existing sidewalk
system. Persons simply do not use sidewalks to access businesses in industrial
zones, nor do the relatively few numbers of employees in such zones use them.
Option F is also close to the reality mark especially if the language will
permit deferment when a industrial development does not connect to the
existing system. I think, as well, that the development agreement should spell
out when and under what conditions deferred walks shall be installed, but when
the likelihood is that those conditions will not be met for many years or it
is speculative that they will ever be met, the agreement should not require a
financial element to the guarantee. Requiring the developer to lay out funds
to guarantee future construction of an improvement that is not presently cost
effective, and may never be needed, to me seems to be at odds with the purpose
of permitting the deferment in the first place.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment.
Bill Armstrong