HomeMy WebLinkAboutA009 - Council Action Form dated April 28, 2009 (26a) ITEM # 26a
DATE 04/28/09
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,
REGARDING SIDEWALKS FOR SOUTHERN HILLS WEST PLAT 2,
AIRPORT ROAD
BACKGROUND:
An application for minor final plat approval has been submitted by Scott Renaud
(representing Marguerite, Karin, and Randy Sevde, and also representing Al Myer of Ag
Leader) to subdivide Plat 2 of the Southern Hills West Subdivision. Concurrent with
that application, the applicant has submitted a request to waive the sidewalk
requirements of Section 23.403(14). A copy of the waiver request is provided as
Attachment A to this report.
Code provisions pertaining to sidewalks in both the Subdivision Code and SUDAS
standards are identified in Attachment B of this report. Code provisions for waivers from
the subdivision regulations are contained in Section 23.103 of the Subdivision Code,
which states as follows:
Sec. 23.103 Waiver/Modification
(1) Where in the case of a particular subdivision, it can be shown that strict
compliance with the requirements of the regulations would result in extraordinary
hardship to the Applicant or would prove inconsistent with the purpose of the
regulations because of unusual topography or other conditions, the City Council
may modify or waive the requirements of the Regulations so that substantial
justice may be done and the public interest secured provided, however, that such
modification or waiver shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and
purpose of the Regulations. In no case shall any modification or waiver be more
than necessary to eliminate the hardship or conform to the purpose of the
Regulations In so granting a modification or waiver, the.City Council may impose
such additional conditions as are necessary to secure substantially the objectives
of the requirements so modified or waived.
This is the second waiver request submitted for this site. The first sidewalk waiver
request was submitted to the City Council via the City Clerk on November 20, 2008. It
was submitted independent of any plans or proposals for the site. The Council chose
not to refer the waiver request. The Sevde's have submitted this second waiver request
for the same site with the expectation that the Council can better determine the merits of
a waiver with a proposed plat accompanying the request.
The site was not developed with a sidewalk when it was first platted in 2004; instead, a
frontage road was installed and was labeled as a "bike path". A note on the plat
indicates that the frontage road also serves as a sidewalk for the property.
1 '
This plat was approved during a period when the City Council was deliberating on the
requirements for sidewalks. That deliberation was brought about by numerous requests
for sidewalk waivers, which raised concern over how the granting of these waivers
would affect the City's future sidewalk system. One of the questions considered was
whether sidewalks should be required in industrial areas. It was recommended that
sidewalks be required on at least one side of the street to facilitate people who wish to
walk to a Cy-Ride bus stop, for recreation on their lunch break, or for emergency
purposes (such as walking for help with car trouble).
The Council ultimately adopted standards that required sidewalks within all residentially
and commercially zoned areas, and along at least one side of any street within
industrially zoned areas. The amendments did not provide specific criteria for sidewalk
waivers; rather, they provided provisions and strict criteria for sidewalk deferral. Under
the adopted language, sidewalks could only be deferred (rather than waived) when (1)
topographic conditions make installation difficult, or (2) installation is premature. These
standards were adopted in May 2004. Also, in February 2005, the City Council adopted
by resolution the Iowa Statewide Urban Design and Specification (SUDAS) standards.
These standards specifically defined, and differentiated between, sidewalks, shared use
paths, bicycle lanes and signed shared roadways.
Although the Southern Hills West plat was reviewed during the time the sidewalk issue
was being discussed, it was nonetheless submitted, vested, and approved under the old
code (i.e., prior to adoption of the current deferral provisions, and prior to the adoption
of SUDAS standards (see Attachment B,).' Additionally, the lack of a sidewalk was
specifically approved via a note on Preliminary Plat, because it was suggested to the
Council at that time that a sidewalk was not feasible.
The subdivision code now requires sidewalks in all areas, and additionally requires
bikeways when a lot is subject to a "bicycle route master plan". Nonetheless, the City
has in some areas allowed shared use paths, as defined in SUDAS to meet the
requirement for both sidewalks and bikeways. The frontage road on the Southern Hills
West Plat does not meet the definition of a "sidewalk" because it is not improved for
preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians. Although it is the only route available for
pedestrians, it functions primarily as a frontage road. However, it also does not meet
the definition of shared use path because it is not physically separated from the
motorized vehicular traffic, and because it allows motorized users. Accordingly, the
existing frontage road does not meet current code standards for either sidewalks or
shared use paths. It more closely functions as a "signed shared roadway", except that it
is not signed as a designated bike route as SUDAS standards otherwise describe.
The Sevde's have stated, in part, that the waiver is needed because the sidewalk is
constrained by topography, trees, limited area, surface drainage, and the rural road
section of the current frontage road. Upon reviewing the site, the Municipal Engineer,
provided the following comments:
It appears physically feasible to install a 4-foot sidewalk just behind the Airport
Road back of curb. At the west side of the property, where the ground elevation
rises, the sidewalk can be constructed toward the frontage road to then connect
2
into the existing shared use path at an angle that we prefer. I do not recommend
building an embankment to support the sidewalk since that would impact the
existing street trees, as well as the capacity of the swale. Considering the
alignment above, the cost ($16 per linear foot) to install 4-foot concrete sidewalk
is estimated to be $12,800.
Public Works supports a waiver of sidewalk requirements for this project. During
several past projects a frontage road has been utilized for pedestrians/bicycles
due to the low volume of traffic. This includes part of the East Lincoln Way
Widening project completed west of Dayton Avenue. When the Public Works
Department installed Airport Road, including the shared use path, we deliberately
connected the path into the frontage road as connection to the shared use path
within the ISU Research Park. When this area was subdivided in 2003, it was
included in the Council Action Form (approved on 08-12-2003) that "therefore
there is no requirement that the developer construct a sidewalk or bike path in
this location."
Based upon Public Works comments, the project would not comply with the deferral
provisions for sidewalks because there are no topographic conditions that would make
installation difficult. Nor would it be premature to install the sidewalks because the area
is already developed with a shared use path. The only means of granting relief from the
sidewalk requirement would be through the standard waiver provision of the subdivision
code. As noted above, Public Works supports the request for a waiver due to expected
low volume in the industrial zone and the fact that the City determined that there would
be no sidewalk requirement for the original subdivision approved in 2003.
Walking and jogging have become popular activities along this corridor, and the trees
and landscaping likely contribute to the appeal of the area for these purposes. Public
Works finds that the frontage road is adequate for this purpose due to its low volume.
The Council could, therefore, find that the waiver of the sidewalk requirement would not
nullify the intent and purpose of the sidewalk regulation, thereby meeting the standards
for a waiver. However, the Council should also ensure that the waiver is no more than
necessary to eliminate the hardship or conform to the purpose of the regulations.
Accordingly, the City could install signage along the frontage road designating the road
as a "shared roadway", consistent with SUDAS standards for recreational trails.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can grant the waiver of sidewalk requirements.
2. The City Council can deny the waiver of sidewalk requirements, and require that
a minimum 4-foot sidewalk be located in the public right-of-way near the back of
curb, thereby retaining the existing trees.
3. The City Council can refer this back to staff for further information or analysis.
3
MANAGER'S RECOMMENED ACTION:
Based on the staff's belief that a frontage road along low volume roadways can
adequately accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1 and
grant the requested sidewalk waiver.
4
AWACf3MENT "A"
March 23,2004
Honorable Mayor_&City Council.
City of Ames
515 Clark Avenue
Ames,Iowa 50010
RE: Request for'Waiver from Section 23.403(14)for Consideration with the Minor Plat
of Southern Hills West Plat 2
Honorable"Mayor&City Council:
Imaccordance.with City:of`Ames Code Chapter 23.103 we are requesting a modiflcaOon,of regulations by the City
Council pertaining:to the installation of:sidewalks required)by Chapter 23.403(14). Sidewalks are being required
along'Airport Road as part of the Southern Hills West Plat 2.; Under a previous;glatting of the area the City agreed
that the frontage road would serve as the bike path along:Airport Road. A bike path easement was granted to the
City to that effect.. the frontage road is a low traffic volunie,low speed road actively,used in its current condition
by pedestrians and bicycles. The:frontage road.has been used by:bicycles:and pedestrians for 15 years.without
incident.
The installation of the sidewalk.is eonstraine&by topography,.trees,,limited area,surface:.drainage,:and'the rural
road:section:usedfor the current frontage-road. The construction of approkiriately-800 feet of sidewalk would
add a$15,000+expense'to:a pedestrian system that is already functioning well as it:+is.
It is our contentionahat.the frontage road meetsthe needs of thepedestrians and.bicyclists and no further
improvement is necessary:: In addition,if a sidewalk was required,then."substantial regrading and.drainage
improvements would be required resulting:inthe loss of street trees and,site!landscaping. We;have included
photos of the frontage road for your review;
The sidewalk,.if installed,would not connect to any other sidewalk. The sidewalk:would only be iii'front of Lots 1
and 2. The frontage road currently connects the bike path at the west end at North Loop Drive and the at the east
end at Riverside Drive.
Since Staff has agreed that the bike+path.requirements have been-met(in accordance with the Cit,vs bike:path
Master Plan)it begs:the question of when•a.bike path:is not a sidewalk. Bike:paths are commonly used by
pedestrians whereas sidewalks are not used by bicyclists. Are we to infer from the City that both a bike path and
sidewalk is required:for this,project?
Thank.you for your time.andConsideration inAhismatter.
Sincerely,
Maggiie..rsevde / KarimSevde
cc: Sam Perry;Planning&Housing;City:of Ames
Craig Hastings,:Attorney
Scott Renaud,FOX Engineering
Al Myer;Ag!Leader Technology
5
I
I
i
p? ^s N
57
Woo
NIZA
MW
a
log,
'iF �b Si qY F^K"P �p� � � d "�.,gG>�{. '•a�.3`tk t ?.zSv'.. .<. A. .. ...
s=z
' t��wF�yS�•'�3�X�"•��' s��+' �c?��4;;w����`� �^L
MR"X,r MM�." �. �""$�h, ui�a`,g�s""`<� �,°,?% � '' '�e�>�~• c `4 1'E s�S' „may�'`,N:= s se'(+=,-�i�' y�'t, �'c�'.s r a�> $r�ate°
r '"'✓'�'ii�',' d�#'zst 's4 ',f# r.: q, ry 3...}.xs+..c �.z"•, t�t"�c'ryT. 'px�>ai�t,� -� 2 a ." `.:i
� r�,d < �;� `'o�t'�TM�6At:. r,�'"?v .t%Y.a3`As.''`�' ,.3y �+i'�8;,rye E, •...yam � K Y � � •'"" °�2��,'\ 4F,d �>{,'-"�: 'c' t e`ic'�`iFk
MEN
r ��* x53cr+-• a t 'a. a rc krr � ,r ' '�`r - x'"
z �w
FF '� X.n" � •�� Y 1
s s�� Y k•�s�.a- {a ,f"AX,,,,sky Y�' y, ,�`"x �X a'', �S.�:.� rv� <�y1 '�'• `r��+�'``+ a s r�� .�d ar4=���',"�'�� �y-'t:: �t t ,�h.�� y '-�a ate & � i-t r sr� x �< S r.. �t :fit
`"" 3 INN
r a°Fro ax.. n
tr S .;xK srx ma•�,y, 's"' r. ,r�:fi4>
AM� �;
�453����`g � y F •� �•.:�xd k.= n.x t•,a F t� rya � ,�< r5 r `a>.., � { }�
'�q',��LP� b��"u}l� �i''•S'C� j'EiS. k�''U "P Y � .F:'�1' Ew"x� 'SG,fi y„S ?sA � � 'k ��,* '�7'lTr."tt,. "�i
�,x s i xr�� s r� ^ a� s a'�• �'-'��� � � ' '�,o � „�,,i �� "��.y�„ � x�a� r'r ;�'�>� .�'2+k„ �,d
,.. +;ssv Sri �ka ,x s�'>X;tx` a. ``t .:,, <"'� a'"u, ,, T 'd3.,ttx � a ?• �^ yw, a
,e;k �.h�rf rc s'
� ro�aft.��u"",��.,� .m�k��:
I
I
ATTACHMENT "B"
APPLICABLE CODES PERTAINING TO SIDEWALKS AND BIKEWAYS
Current code provisions pertaining to sidewalks as found in the Ames Subdivision Code
(ASC) and in SUDAS are as follows:
ASC Section 23.403(14) — Sidewalks and Walkways ". . . shall be installed in the
public right-of-way . . . along at least one side of the street in industrial zoned
areas".
Definition of Sidewalk
ASC Section 23.201(29) Sidewalk. A public way designed and used for
walking and located in public right-of-way or private easements.
SUDAS Section 1.3(2) Sidewalk — the portion of a public right-of-way between
the curb line or lateral line of a roadway and the adjacent property that is
improved for preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians.
ASC Section 23.403(15) — Bikeways — A bicycle path shall be constructed in an
area to be subdivided in order to conform with the Bicycle Route Master Plan
adopted by the City Council. The dimensions and construction specification of
any such bicycle path shall be determined by the number and type of users and
the location and purpose of the bicycle path.
Definition of Bikeway- SC
SC Section 23.201(4) Bikeway: A public way designed to be used for
bicycling. "Bikeway" shall include any Bike Path, which is a public way
separated from any highway, street or alley and designed for the use of bicycles;
and any Bike Lane, which is a portion of a highway, street, alley or other public
way reserved and marked for the exclusive use of bicycles.
Definition of Bicycle Route System - SUDAS
SUDAS Section 1.3(6). Bicycle Route system —A system of recreational trails . .
. . Bike routes should establish a continuous routing, but may be a combination of
any and all types of recreational trails.
SUDAS Section 1.5 Recreational Trails Classification — Recreational Trails are
classified according to their location; i.e., separated from the roadway (Shared
use path) or connected to the existing road system (Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Roadway).
7
r
SUDAS Section 1.3(1)(A) Class 1 - Shared Use Paths — "A recreational trail
(bikeway) physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space
or barrier and either within the roadway right-of-way or with an independent right-
of-way. Shared use paths may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair
users, joggers and other non-motorized users.
SUDAS Section 1.5(2) — Class 2 — Bicycle Lanes — " . . . an exclusive one-way
lane for bicycle use only. Lanes parallel to motor vehicle travel lands or parking
lanes are designated through the use of signs and pavement markings.
SUDAS Section 1.5(3) — Class 3 - Signed Shared Roadway. Class 3
Recreational trails, also know as signed Shared Roadways, share the traveled
portion of the roadway with motor vehicles and do not have striped Bike Lanes
8