HomeMy WebLinkAboutA005 - Council Action Form dated April 14, 2015 ITEM # 57
DATE 04-14-15
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING
SIDEWALKS, IMPROVEMENT GUARANTEES, AND STREET LIGHTS
BACKGROUND:
In January, 2014, the City Council directed staff to research and prepare amendments
to the Ames Municipal Code to require the installation of missing infrastructure at the
time of site plan review and approval.
Planning staff returned on February 24, 2015 with a staff report (see Attachment A)
requesting specific direction on three issues concerning right-of-way improvements.
Council gave the following direction to proceed with text amendments for right-
of-way and subdivision standards (Excerpt of Minutes Attachment B):
I. Prepare an ordinance that requires the installation of sidewalks, shared use
paths, street lights, street paving, and dedication of needed right-of-way or
easements for development of industrial, commercial, or multi-family property,
regardless of subdivision.
II. Include development triggers for new construction or redevelopment of a
principle building and by substantial building addition in square footage or
valuation.
III. Prepare an ordinance to update certain infrastructure specifications for sidewalks
and street lights.
Items I and II will be part of new right-of-way improvement ordinance that will be
on a future agenda. Item III involves specific amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations, Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code, that are the subject of this
proposed ordinance. Specifically, the City Council directed staff to prepare
amendments to "require street lights on arterial street frontages of a development site
and to require new street lights to be LED" and to "require sidewalks on both sides of
streets in all zoning districts as well as increase them to five feet in width to assist with
ADA issues and to have complete streets and connectivity." Additionally, this proposed
ordinance addresses timing and security requirements for installation of sidewalks in
new subdivisions.
Sidewalk Specifications
The City's current subdivision regulations require sidewalks to be installed on both sides
of streets in commercial and residential zoning districts. Industrial zoning districts
currently require sidewalks on one side of the street only. There are two concerns
with these limited expectations in industrial areas. First, staff believes there is value to a
more inclusive approach to transportation modes that would benefit by having sidewalks
1
on both sides of the street. This would further an effort for more "complete streets,"
better safety of pedestrian circulation, convenience of access to nearby business and
services, and access to transit.
Second, administering ADA compliance requirements based upon the 2010 standards
for accessible design that went into effect in 2012 has been challenging. Zoning
requirements to connect building entrances to the street with a walkway and a
requirement for there to be an accessible route in the right-of-way or to cross the street
have made it confusing for applicants and for staff management of right-of-way.
The City's sidewalk specifications are a minimum of four feet in width in most areas of
the City. Staff has found that in some instances that a five-foot sidewalk width will
provide easier compliance with ADA cross slope and turn out requirements versus
current alternatives. A 5-foot walk width also provides more pedestrian comfort when
walking with other people or passing other people. Typically the right-of-way has 14.5
feet beyond the curb to the property line to accommodate a sidewalk, sidewalk buffer,
and a planter strip for street trees. Staff does not propose increasing the right-of-way
width for the wider sidewalk, but instead to lessen the planting area for street trees to
8.5 feet. Five-foot sidewalks would apply to all types of subdivisions, including single
family.
Street Lights
Street lights are currently required within new subdivisions, but have not been required
along abutting existing streets. When street lights have not been required with the new
subdivision, the City must consider at a later time if installation at city costs is needed in
response to demands by new occupants of an area. This issue applies to most areas
that have existing roadways that are not expanded with development. Examples would
be SE 16th Street, State Avenue, George Washington Carver, Mortenson Road, and
190th Street. Staff believes that strengthening the language on when street lights are
required will clarify the expectations that new development will provide the same
infrastructure adjacent to a development that serves the development as required within
a subdivision. This change would apply to all types of subdivisions, including single-
family residential.
Gaps In Street Tree and Sidewalk Installation
Although the City Council did not direct the staff to review installation
requirements for sidewalks, staff is offering in this report a recommendation that
should expedite the installations of these two public improvements. The City's
code requirements regarding the installation of public improvements within a subdivision
state that all infrastructure shall be installed at the time of final plat approval.
Alternatively, financial security and an installation agreement can be provided to ensure
that the improvements are installed within two years of final plat approval. In practice,
however, sidewalks and street trees have not been secured with financial security or
held to the two-year installation window. Their installation has been tied to the
occupancy of the building on an individual lot through a deferral agreement. This
practice sometimes results in gaps in the sidewalk system that may last several
years.
2
Assuming that the City Council is interested in expediting the installation of these public
improvements, the City staff has prepared a code change that sidewalks are
required the earliest of two years following final plat approval, or when
occupancy of a house is sought, or when construction has occurred on 50
percent of the lots on a block. This approach would expedite sidewalk installation and
allow for full pedestrian mobility more rapidly. However, the City Council should
understand that developers and home builders will, no doubt, oppose this change
since they would need to put in place measures to protect the sidewalks if
installed prior to construction of a home.
If the Council believes that this proposed change is impractical, another
alternative to expedite installation of the improvements would be to bring our
practices in line with the current Code which requires that sidewalks need to be
installed at the time of final plat approval or that financial security be provided
and installation be completed no later than two years after final plat approval. (It
should be that the Subdivision Code allows the City Council to grant extensions,
provided financial security remains in place.) While returning to these standards does
not require any code changes, it will require informing developers of the change in
practice.
If the City Council wants only to remove the inconsistency that exists between the Code
requirements and current practice, then the Municipal Code could be revised to exempt
sidewalks from financial security and to require installation only at occupancy of a
house. This current practice has resulted in public improvement gaps remaining for long
periods of time.
Proposed Amendments
While Council could set the requirement that all final plats conform to these changes,
staff does not recommend extending the sidewalk and streetlight requirements
retroactively to preliminary plats approved prior to this year as investments and
expectation have already been set. Staff recommends that the following text
amendments apply to any final plat for which a preliminary plat has been
approved after January 1, 2015. No preliminary plat has been approved yet this year
and no one has made infrastructure installations for new plats that could not
accommodate these changes. The first subdivision likely to be affected by the
amendments is the pending Quarry Estates Subdivision in the North Growth Area.
The following language is the proposed text amendments to the Subdivision Code. A full
ordinance is also attached.
The amendment to Section 23.403 (13) explicitly requires the installation of street lights
on interior as well as adjacent streets. The Electric Department believes no specific
language on LED lights is needed as their department has adopted design and
g p p 9
specification standards that allow LED lights to be required where and when
appropriate. The LED specifications are consistent with Council direction from February
24, 2015.
The amendment to Section 23.403 (14) requires five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the
streets—there is no special dispensation for industrial zones. The amendment also
requires sidewalks greater than five feet if needed to match adjoining sidewalks. This is
important in commercial areas where wider sidewalks have been planned or installed.
And the amendment to Section 23.409 (4) will require sidewalks to be installed the
earliest of 1) two years following final plat approval, 2) when occupancy of a principle
structure is sought, or 3) when 50 percent of the lots on a block face have sidewalks
installed.
Section 23.403. STREETS
(13) Street Lights: Street lights shall be installed along any streets within the subdivision and along
any abutting street frontage. Exception: For any final plat for which a preliminary plat has been
approved prior to January 1, 2015, Street lights shall be installed at the subdivider's expense and
according to design and specification standards approved by the City Council and after approval of
the municipal utility.
(14) Sidewalks and Walkways:
(a) A minimum of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be installed in the public right-of-
way along each side of any street. If sidewalks on adjacent property are greater than five feet, the
subdivider shall install sidewalks to match. If constraints exist that preclude installation of a sidewalk
within the public right-of-way, the subdivider shall install the required sidewalk on adjacent land within a
sidewalk easement.All required sidewalks shall connect with any sidewalk within the area to be subdivided
and with any existing or proposed sidewalk in any adjacent area.
(b) Exception: For any final plat for which a preliminary plat has been approved prior to
January 1,2015,the following standard shall be met:
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 or proposed sidewalk in
any adjacent area.Any required sidewalk shall be constructed of concrete and be at least four feet wide.
(c) 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.
(d) A pedestrian walkway made of concrete may be required where deemed essential to
provide access to schools,parks and playgrounds,commercial areas,transportation or community facilities.
Any such walkway shall be not less than eight feet wide.
See. 23.409. IMPROVEMENT GUARANTEES.
(1)The subdivider shall file a bond with the City Clerk in an amount not less than the certified estimate of
the Director of Public Works for the cost of constructing or completing any improvement required under
this section that has not been installed and accepted by the City prior to final plat approval. Such bond shall
be retained by the City Clerk until any such improvement is completed and accepted by the City,as a
guarantee that the work will be completed in an acceptable manner within the time specified in any
agreement between the subdivider and the City. The time frame for installing improvements required for
the approval of the subdivision shall not exceed 2 years from the date of approval of the Final Plat.
4
Additionally, the term of the bond shall be for a period of time equal to or longer than the time specified in
the Improvement Agreement.
(2)The subdivider shall apply in writing to the City Council for any extension of tirne for completing any
improvements and the City Council shall provide notice and an opportunity for comment from any
purchaser of any lot in the area subdivided before acting on the subdivider's application. The City Council
shall grant such extensions in increments of not more than two years but in any event only if there shall be
no unreasonably adverse effect on persons who purchased lots in the area subdivided in reliance on timely
completion of any improvement.
(3)The subdivider shall file a new bond upon the granting of an extension of time in an amount based on
any revised estimate of the cost of completing any improvement.
(4) Notwithstanding, the two year time frame for the installation of required infrastructure (and any
Subsequent extensions g,ranted by the City Council) as provided above, for any final plat for which a
preliminary plat has been approved after January 1, 2015, the subdivider shall install any sidewalk adjacent
to a property on which a principle structure has been built and prior to occupancy of said structure. In
addition all remaining,sidewalks shall be installed by the subdivider when 50 percent of the lots on a block
face have been installed. A block face consists of one side of a street between two intersectin(,) streets or
between an intersecting street and the end of a cul-de-sac."
Outreach
Staff initially held a developer/property owner meeting on February 5t" to give an
overview of potential right-of-way improvements changes. The initial outreach included
a mailing to 400 property owners/developers, of which about two dozen attended the
meeting. Staff has subsequently posted Council direction and updates on the Planning
Division's "What's New" section and provided direct email notice to interested parties.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on April 1 and recommended approval (3-1)
of the proposed text amendment. Most commissioners expressed support for a
"complete streets" approach to right-of-way infrastructure, requiring sidewalks to
accommodate pedestrians in addition to the emphasis given to vehicle traffic. Most
commissioners thought the approach to requiring the installation of sidewalks no later
than two years would better serve residents of neighborhoods.
One commissioner voted against the recommendation because of the increase in
impervious surface that a five-foot sidewalk would have over a four-foot sidewalk. He
was also concerned about the installation of excessive and premature street lights,
contending that the City has a "dark skies" ordinance and too many street lights run
counter to the spirit of that law. He favored the sidewalks on both sides in all districts as
well as the changes to the improvement guarantees.
There was one speaker at the meeting as well. Justin Dodge, representing Hunziker
Development, argued against the installation of street lights on arterial roads adjacent to
new development contending that the lights benefit city traffic as a whole, rather than
just the new development. He also argued equity, stating that the first developer would
pay for the lights but the developer on the other side of the road would get a free pass.
5
Mr. Dodge also opposed sidewalks on both sides in an industrial zone, arguing that
there is no pedestrian traffic. Mr. Dodge is also strongly opposed to the requirement that
the sidewalks be required prior to construction of a home on the property as it would
likely be damaged and would need to be replaced at a cost to the homeowner.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve on first reading an ordinance to amend the City of
Ames Subdivision Code Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code to include changes to
Section 23.403 and 23.409.
2. The City Council can modify the language of the proposed amendments and have
first reading of the ordinance on April 28, 2015.
3. The City Council can refer the proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance
back to staff for specific further information or for further options.
4. The City Council can decline to adopt the proposed amendments.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMENDATION
The proposed amendments improve accessibility and safety of the public by requiring
sidewalks on both sides of the streets in all zoning districts. They also enhance
consistency with ADA accessibility standards by increasing sidewalk widths to 5 feet.
They also clarify the requirements for the placement of streetlights on streets adjacent
to new subdivisions and not just within the subdivision.
Based on this referral, the staff is assuming that the Council is seeking alternatives to
expedite the installation of sidewalks and street trees. Therefore, four alternatives
related to sidewalk installation have been offered in this CAF. The Council is being
asked whether the current practice which is inconsistent with the Municipal Code should
be continued or changes should be made in the Code to expedite the installation of
sidewalks and street trees.
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council act in accordance
with Alternative #1, which is to approve the amendments to Sections 23.403 and 23.409
of the Subdivision Regulations as shown above.
It is important to note Alternative #1 includes the most aggressive option to
expedite installation. If the Council disagrees with this approach, another
direction would be warranted.
6
ATTACHMENT A: STAFF REPORT OF FEBRUARY 24, 2015
30
Staff Report
Requirements for Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements at Time
of Building Construction
February 24, 2015
BACKGROUND
The City Council directed staff, at their January 28, 2014 meeting, to "research and
prepare amendments to the Ames Municipal Code to require the installation of
missing infrastructure at the time of site plan review and approval." Amendments
were directed to address only commercial, industrial, medium- and high-density
residential development. Single-family home properties are not part of this assessment.
The range of infrastructure improvements that may be required of new development,
include: sidewalks, shared use paths, street lights, curb and gutter, road paving, street
trees, bus stops, etc. Attachment 5 is a summary of basic subdivision infrastructure
requirements by type of use. As part of the evaluation of requiring infrastructure
improvements, staff has also identified related issues with the current standards for
sidewalks and street lights in the Chapter 23 Subdivision Code. A discussion of these
subdivision issues is also included in this report.
The City of Ames requires infrastructure to be installed at the time of subdivision
approval. The City may grant allowances for posting of financial security for uninstalled
infrastructure and for deferral agreements of sidewalks. However, for many older
properties and subdivisions there is a lack of modern infrastructure improvements
(inadequate sizing or condition) or a gap in improvements. The most common example
has been the lack of sidewalk improvements on infill lots. The City typically has no other
mechanism, other than subdivision regulations, to require the installation of public
sidewalks. The Minor Site Plan review process does not expressly require all
infrastructure to be complete and relies upon a case-by-base assessment of impacts
related to a specific development. This at times this results in newly developed or
redeveloped sites that don't subdivide and then would not meet community expectations
for accompanying improvements.
Staff identified approximately 3,200 properties of all types that lack sidewalk
infrastructure in the City. Of the 3,200 properties, there are about 400 individual
properties in commercial, industrial, and high-density residential districts which are
lacking sidewalks. Staff used this basis of 400 property owners for a mailing inviting
participation in an outreach meeting on February 5, 2015. The meeting had 24
members of the public present. Staff explained the Council direction given last year and
addressed questions. A number of questions arose about the need for sidewalks in
locations that are remote, have no pedestrian traffic, or have open ditches that would
preclude sidewalks. Some supported sidewalks in all zoning districts, including single
family. Some voiced concern about the increased costs of development. (See
1
7
Attachment 6 for estimated cost range). Staff has also posted background information
on the Department's webpage.
As part of the research on infrastructure needs, staff has identified areas that lack some
infrastructure:
Attachment 1 identifies those lots without sidewalks that were the basis of the property
owner outreach mailing.
Attachment 2 is the current map of shared use paths, including on-street and off-street.
This would be used to identify where the gaps in the system are and to identify
installation needs.
Attachment 3 shows arterial streets that are under lit. As can be seen, most are older
thoroughfares. Some have develoFment on both sides, while some are adjacent to land
yet to be developed (e.g., SE 16` Street). The Electric Department and Public Works
seek direction Council interest to reduce under lit streets in developed areas.
Attachment 4 is an inventory of unpaved streets done by the Public Works Department
in 2014. Since then, Site No. 2 portions of Aplin Road and Beedle Drive have been
paved.
In addition to creating background information, staff researched how various other
communities ensure the installation of infrastructure outside of new subdivisions. A
sampling of communities that require at least sidewalk improvements with development
included: Sioux City, West Des Moines, Ankeney, Davenport, Urbandale.
Most cities that address the issue do it either through requirements at the building
permit stage or through property assessments. However, individual communities use
different thresholds that trigger the installation requirements. Some require it for any
new commercial or residential structure. Others trigger infrastructure improvements for
new construction or when repairs or remodeling costs equal 50 percent of the value of
the structure.
Options:
Staff is seeking direction on three issues to begin preparation of text amendments:
• What type of deficient infrastructure should be installed at the time of
development by the developer?
• What level of development or redevelopment should trigger the installation of
right-of-way improvements?
• What additional changes to standards for infrastructure of sidewalks, shared use
paths, street lights, should be implemented to improve subdivision regulations
and ensure appropriate infrastructure installation?
2
8
Issue I. What deficient infrastructure should be installed?
• Option 1: All deficient infrastructure identified within the Chapter 23 Subdivision
Code. This would include street paving, curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, sidewalks, street trees, street lights.
• Option 2: Sidewalks and shared use paths only.
• Option 3: Dedication of needed right-of-way or easements, no construction.
• Option 4: Some other combination of improvements.
Issue 2: What should trigger the installation of ROW improvements?
• Option 1: New construction or redevelopment of a principle building
• Option 2: Substantial building addition in square footage or valuation.
• Option 3: New construction of accessory buildings.
• Option 4: Change of a non-conforming use, building, or site.
• Option 5: Target specific improvements to different triggers, i.e. full
improvements with new development, sidewalks with new site improvements.
Issue 3: Update of Infrastructure Standards.
• Option 1: Amend Municipal code to:
Require sidewalks on both sides of streets in all zoning districts.
Require street trees in all zoning districts. Currently only residential
districts require street trees.
Require sidewalks in right-of-way to be 5 feet in width. Currently only a 4-
foot walk is required.
Require a shared use path to be 10 feet in width. Currently, the minimum
requirement is 8 feet.
o Require street lights on arterial street frontages of a development site.
Require new street lights to be LED.
• Option 2: Changes to some or none of the above.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Issue 1-Type of Improvements:
Staff believes it is appropriate to require the same level of infrastructure for
development that is required with a subdivision plat. In most instances, the missing
infrastructure will be only the sidewalk or shared use path. In some instances, there
may be a need for street lights or street trees. These can be installed on a single
development site and completed in logical manner.
However, there may be limited occurrences where there is no street paving or storm
sewer. These types of improvements are difficult to install on a single development site
as they are more of an "area wide" improvement for them to be fully effective. In this
3
9
case of these major street improvements, there would be a likely combination of
mandatory improvements and potentially deferral agreements with financial security.
Staff has concerns about implementation and administration of deferred improvements
if it becomes the common instrument of meeting the standards. Requirements for
improvements should be expected to occur reasonably along with development, it
should not be viewed as means of collecting future obligations and having property
owners incur costs of indefinitely maintaining financial security and staff tracking the
status of agreements. There would at times be exceptions where deferral or cash in lieu
payment would be appropriate.
With the consideration that improvements would occur at the time of development, staff
supports a text amendment that incorporates Option 1 of Issue 1 for full improvements
with new development.
Issue 2-Tapper for Improvements:
The second issue addresses what should trigger the requirement. There is a need to
balance triggers of improvements with the cost of a project. A small remodeling of a
building would appear to be onerous if there are large infrastructure costs also attached
to it and there is no significant change in the use of a site.
However, when a new principle building is constructed on a lot or when there is a
substantial improvement to an existing structure, the value of the necessary
infrastructure becomes a less significant component of the total cost. One example of
"substantial improvement" is the definition in the Chapter 9 Flood Plain Regulations
(defined as a 25 percent increase in floor area or improvements valued at 50 percent of
the value of the structure) that trigger compliance with elevation or floodproofing
requirements.
Staff supports a text amendment that incorporates Option 1 and Option 2 for Issue 2 for
both new development and substantial additions.
Issue 3-Changes to Standards:
The third issue addresses changes that are of interest independent of whether
development is part of a new subdivision or on an existing lot. These issues are
interests that staff has identified through the Development Review Committee or in
response to individual city department service objectives. If there is an interest in
changing some of these specifications, it may be convenient to include them with text
amendments that require installation of new infrastructure.
The City's subdivision regulations require sidewalks to be installed on both sides of
streets in commercial and residential zoning districts. An exception is made for industrial
zoning districts, which require sidewalks only on one side of the street. There are two
concerns with limited expectations in industrial areas. Staff believes there is value to a
more inclusive approach to transportation modes that would benefit by having sidewalks
on both sides of the street, this would further an effort for more "complete streets." This
would provide better safety of pedestrian circulation, convenience of access to nearby
business and services, and for access to transit.
4
10
Secondly, administering ADA compliance requirements based upon the 2010 standards
for accessible design that went into effect in 2012 has been challenging. Zoning
requirements to connect buildings entrances to the street with a walkway and a
requirement for there to be an accessible route in the right-of-way or to cross the street
have made it confusing for applicants and for staff management of right-of-way.
Street trees provide benefits that include aesthetic value, shade, reduction of heat
islands, and carbon absorption. The City's subdivision regulations require street trees
only in residential zones in recognition of these values on residential quality of life. With
promotion of sustainability, water management, and street character it would be
appropriate to include requirements for street trees in all zoning districts of the City.
The City's subdivision regulations require public sidewalks in the right-of-way to be 4
feet in width. Yet the Zoning Ordinance requires private sidewalks to the main entrance
of a building to be 5 feet. Staff has found that in some instances, due to ADA
requirements, a 5-foot public sidewalk is needed for some locations. A 5-foot walk
meets all ADA width requirements without the need for turn out areas. A 5-foot walk
width also provides more pedestrian comfort when walking with other people or passing
other people.
Shared use paths are specified in the Subdivision Code to meet an 8-foot width that
meets the minimum specification. In many instances, a preferred width of 10-feet would
be desirable based upon levels of use and the surrounding context of the area. A 10-
foot width would bring the City in line with recommend practices for shared use paths.
The City practice has always been to require street lights on the internal streets of a
new subdivision. When a new subdivision abuts an existing arterial street, street lights
have often not been required which sometimes result in later installation at city costs in
response to demands by new occupants of an area. Staff believes that strengthening
the language on when street lights are required will clarify the expectations that new
development that causes the need for lighting along the perimeter of a subdivision will
provide the infrastructure the same as within a subdivision. This change would apply to
all types of subdivisions, including single-family residential.
The Electric Department has begun to maintain streetlights in their service territory by
replacing older fixtures with more efficient LEDs. The Electric Department is interested
in updating the specification for a new street light installation to be the LED type of
lighting that they use as a replacement for existing street lights.
NEXT STEPS
With Council direction, staff will proceed with drafting of text amendments and set public
hearing dates. Staff would anticipate returning to Council in April for a first reading on an
ordinance. To accomplish this schedule, Council needs to indicate what the preferred
changes are to be included in a text amendment to draft precise language for an
ordinance.
5
11
Staff has conducted one outreach meeting to hear comments on the above concepts. It
is fair to say that there was some hesitation about extent of new requirements and
potential costs. It is unlikely that property owners would be supportive of all of the
described improvements. In the next steps staff would not hold a formal outreach
meeting, but would make a draft document available for public review prior to Council
review. This approach would allow for time to hear specific concerns about how to
implement any requirements and attempt to adjust language if appropriate prior to
Council review.
S:\Planning.Dep\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\MStaff Reports\ROW Infrastructure-02-24-15.docx
6
12
ATTACHMENT 1:EXISTING LOTS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS
17,
..
j{
.......
�k� 1
t
f
7
13
ATTACHMENT 2:SHARED USE PATH INVENTORY
City ofAmes
Shared Use Paths
i
j Typo Pf Path
� � 4
j
ri
i
kya.
t �
LPcaSitM Par#fMmas
u i_ 7atiawrae
� a ] hYM iva8µ'F.vF
e ax#MA
7y ila
9 iex Cunvw m� r
mot, a1 YP F Y .aart��x
to C r+ te,w
1n C+0.
M.i Nmaua
.. f8 Yk Lkd<u.rtn
iS 'VfA4 Mf Sga'I+.CmMiSM
rt
lro
23 Nc.n;4bce!8
26 ("Nce
^e
" 2a Rrx1w Nvcwa
^.0 kesxun�raitiRrar
n '3] :a;xitW UMk
i
8
14
ATTACHMENT 3: UNDERLIT ARTERIAL STREETS.JANUARY 2014
`M1
R
U
il.'I.I II!t
l�
1,
ATTACHMENT4: UNPAVED STREET
�. .................................
,. W
.. F d;,
00
O y BLOOfMlNGT,O OLD BLf0OMlNGTON'RD ti
t '� �zil Xfl r 21S71i,
q Q
Gx Z2fi�„
Q ; ors a �s
..�10�> `'°-tiJTHgT � 220
ONTAF 0 ST 0•d Q ONTARIO ST ��w 13TH'ST -"E 13TH SV E 13TH ST;.� f ST >,
z,o Z. 6 z 7
r,, . a
LINCOLN O � ���y -� E iINCOLN v e LINCOLN
HIGHWAF j..,. ��` r h =.L HIGHWAY
RD
oMORTENSENRD "` r O t1 °
a
2<fOfH ST���'•� ���� � .. ,� �"�� 5,1oTN gT �' o �,`i��249ST S I-_
45iH,S`�a
<3 OAKWOOD
ZUMWALT '�
� ZUMWAL �,I T _(� a m im `
{ a 250TH ST S7ATIONRD STATIONR �C ���• �� �'�
I a z
X,: Q a =1� MARIL RD Cj J
�s
26TH
260THST 260JH,S 60THST ST
69 v
M 265TH > 265TH _• 5? o
ti ti it- > ST d 265T1!°ST ..� 265T
10
16
Attachment 5
Summary of Infrastructure Requirements with Subdivision
P.
Yes Yes If shown on None7ent
Yes a Noa Yes
-11,11 adopted plan of
LRTP
>`�! Yes No If shown on None Internal to Yes No Yes
adopted development
' plan of (no arterials)
LRTP
One side of No If shown on None Internal to Yes No Yes
street adopted development
plan of (no arterials)
LRTP
*References to bike facilities are inconsistent with current terminology and includes references to an adopted bicycle plan
that is no longer in place,making requirements ambiguous at times.
11
17
ATTACHMENT 6:INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE RANGE
Item Private cost City cost
4'sidewalk per linear foot $25 $40
8'asphalt shared use path per linear foot $26 $50
Street tree $200 same
Standard street light $2,000 same
LED street light $2,600 same
35 sq ft bus stop ad $200 $400
30"curb and gutter $15 $30
One lane of pavement per linear foot(HMA) $66 $100
Sidewalk detectable warning per square foot $25 1 $40
l
181
ATTACHMENT B: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2015 [EXCERPTS]
Below are excerpts of the minutes, showing the specific motions and votes. The full
minutes can be found here:
http://www.cityofames.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=20972.
Issue 1: Deficient Infrastructure
Mayor Campbell asked for a motion dealing with Issue 1: What deficient infrastructure should be
installed. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Goodman, to require the installation of sidewalks,
shared use paths, street lights, and dedication of needed right-of-way or easements. Vote on
Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Orazem, to amend the motion to include street paving. Vote on
Amendment: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Vote on Motion, as Amended: 6-0.
Motion declared carried unanimously.
Issue 2: Triggers for Installation
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Corrieri, that the installation of right-of-way improvements be
triggered by new construction or redevelopment of a principle building and by substantial
building addition in square footage or valuation. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried
unanimously.
Issue 3: Updated Subdivision Standards
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to require street lights on arterial street frontages of a
development site and to require new street lights to be LED. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye:
Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Goodman, Orazem. Voting nay: Nelson. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to require sidewalks on both sides of streets in all
zoning districts as well as increase them to five feet in width to assist with ADA issues and to
have complete streets and connectivity. Vote on Motion: 3-3. Voting aye: Betcher, Corrieri,
Goodman. Voting nay: Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Mayor Campbell voted aye to break the tie.
Motion declared carried.
19