Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1995, C-5 - CONSIDERATION FOR USE OF DETACHED SIDEWALKS IN LIEU OF INTEGRAL SIDEWALKS FOR TRACT NO. 1750 (UNIT 3) [IRONBARK ST. AND BROOKPINE DR., ET AL.] �Im�`MIW IIIII�II�` MEETING DATE: �Il� I city Of San ` _J,S Ot2 ISPO ITEM NUMBER: u I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Direcf ?6� Prepared by: Gerald W. Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration for use of detached sidewalks in lieu of integral sidewalks for Tract No. 1750 (Unit 3) [Ironbark St. and Brookpine Dr., et al.] CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution (1) reaffirming the current preferred standard of integral sidewalks, with transitions to detached sidewalk at the back of driveway ramps, and (2) allowing the use of detached sidewalks where determined to be necessary and logical due to ADA requirements, based on lot sizes and potential conflicts with adjacent properties and/or where at least 50% of a block already has detached sidewalks, as determined by the City Engineer. DISCUSSION: The subdivision improvement plans for Tract No. 1750 (Unit 3) are nearing completion and approval by the City Engineer. The approved tentative map provides for City standard 6-foot wide integral sidewalks. The Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and State regulations require that the sidewalk at driveway crossings have a maximum of 1/2 inch per foot (4%) cross-fall for driveways up to 20-foot wide or 1/4 inch per foot (2%) for those driveways greater than 20-foot wide. Current City standards of integral sidewalks at driveway crossings do not meet this criteria and thus new designs must be considered and approved. Although City standards show both integral and detached sidewalks, the City Council has adopted integral sidewalks as the preferred design [Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series)]. Detached side-walks are "allowed" in instances where at least 50% of a block already had detached sidewalks or in "unusual circumstances". [e.g. conflicts, such as trees, rock, etc.) [See Attachs. 5, 6 and 7]. Integral sidewalks do not meet ADA requirements at driveways due to the steep slopes needed for driveway transition from the street to private property. Detached sidewalks meet the Federal and State requirements due to the fact that the driveway slope at the location of the sidewalk meets the requirements of ADA. Integral sidewalks may still be used, but must transition in some manner at driveways to meet ADA requirements. Detached sidewalks need no such transitions. The subdivider of Tract 1750 has asked for use of detached sidewalks along the frontages where driveways occur for the remaining units of the parent tract. Consideration of final map approval is expected soon and this issue needs Council consideration and action prior to approval of the final map. Public Works staff supports the current Council policy of integral sidewalks with exceptions granted only in special cases. Staff doesn't believe the detached sidewalks requested are absolutely necessary to meet ADA requirements in this case. A recent action by the Council (May 2, 1995) authorized the City Engineer to make minor changes to City standards without having to wait until review and approval by the Council. However, staff felt this issue was different, in that the request is to change an established Council "policy" favoring integral sidewalks as the preferred standard. Based on the current policy resolution, the City Engineer is allowed to make decisions as to where detached sidewalks are �����► ��Il�lplllu' city of San LUIS OBISpo al�Ill COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT justified. Staff believes that within the current policy no major changes are needed, and that the City Engineer has the flexibility to meet ADA requirements without a complete change in policy. PROS & CONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES A. INTEGRAL SIDEWALKS PROS 1. Allows persons entering and exiting parked vehicles to use a safe, flat and sturdy surface; desirable during rainy weather. 2. Allows wider landscaping area between sidewalk and structures. This provides more "useable" yard and setbacks from the street. 3. Street trees in narrow parkways tend to cause more damage to streets and sidewalks, which are the City's responsibility to repair. (Reasonable minimum width of parkway to support street trees being 5 or 6 feet, even with deep-root planters.) 4. Possibility of more potential for vertical displacement of sidewalks causing trip and fall accidents. 5. Water meters, fire hydrants, poles are clearly visible and not subject to being covered by vegetation. CONS 1. Requires transitions from integral to detached sidewalks at driveway ramps, causing possible problems where driveways are adjacent to property lines and transitions would need to be in front of a neighbor's property. B. DETACHED SIDEWALKS PROS 1. No need to transition from integral sidewalks to back of driveways. 2. Parkway trees and other landscaping may "soften" the street-scape. CONS 1. Lose benefits of level solid surface when entering or exiting parked vehicles. 2. Potential for lack of maintenance of parkways by property owners and/or filling in with brick or other pavers (including concrete) to eliminate maintenance. city of San LUIS OBISPO WA!; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 3. Sidewalks would be closer to residences and wider landscape buffer would be lost. 4. This tract requires 2- foot wide public pedestrian easements behind the R/W line. A 10- foot wide "parkway" is required to accommodate 4-foot wide ADA sidewalk and a 6-foot wide driveway. (This tract was approved with 8 foot parkways.) ALTERNATIVES: Option 1: Adopt a resolution (1) reaffirming the current preferred standard of integral sidewalks, with transitions to detached sidewalks at the back of driveway ramps, and (2) allowing the use of detached sidewalks where determined to be necessary and logical due to ADA requirements, based on lot sizes and potential conflicts with adjacent properties and/or where at least 50% of a block already has detached sidewalks, as determined by the City Engineer. (STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION) Option 2: Adopt a resolution permitting either integral or detached sidewalks as the standard. Option 3. Adopt a resolution requiring detached sidewalks as the standard. FISCAL IMPACT: None CONCURRENCES: The Community Development Director and City Attorney concur with the recommended action. Attachments: 1 - Draft resolution (Option 1) 2 - Draft resolution (Option 2) 3 - Draft resolution (Option 3) 4 - Map 5 - Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series) 6 - Standard Drawing # 4110 7 - Standard Drawing # 4120 8 - Letter from J Wallace & Assoc.(3-27-95) G:\WP51\DRevievAT1750\U30etSW.rep RESOLUTION NO. (1995 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REAFFIRMING THE CITY SIDEWALK POLICY OF INTEGRAL SIDEWALKS AND PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS THEREOF: BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 1. That all public sidewalks constructed in the City of San Luis Obispo shall be integral with the curb, except that detached (separated) sidewalks may be allowed upon approval by the City Engineer under the following circumstances: A. If one-half or more of any block is already improved with detached (separated) sidewalks, or B. In the event of unusual circumstances, due to physical topographical features, or C. Where deemed logical and necessary as a result of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements or other conditions that would render integral sidewalks as impractical or undesirable. Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series) is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR Allen Settle ATTEST: CITY CLERK Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: c.�vtG�-1 I�• ��Q.m�i�.� 0 CITY ATTORNEY Jeffrey Jorgensen G: \WP51\DReview\T1750\U3DetSW C- _Lj RESOLUTION NO. (1995 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MODIFYING THE CITY SIDEWALK POLICY TO ALLOW EITHER INTEGRAL OR DETACHED SIDEWALKS AS THE STANDARD. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: All public sidewalks constructed in the City of San Luis Obispo may be integral (with the curb) or detached sidewalks. Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series) is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR Allen Settle ATTEST: CITY CLERK Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: C.�v�cu1 B C-c�v✓i2'1� CITY ATTORNEY Jeffrey Jorgensen G: \WP51\DReview\T1750\U3DetSW C - RESOLUTION NO. (1995 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MODIFYING THE CITY SIDEWALK POLICY TO REQUIRE DETACHED SIDEWALKS AS THE STANDARD. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: All new public sidewalks constructed in the City of San Luis Obispo shall be detached sidewalks. Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series) is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR Allen Settle ATTEST: CITY CLERK Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY A4rTORNEY Jeffrey Jorgensen G: \WP51\DReview\T1750\U3DetSW UjW RESOLUTION NO . 1512 (1965 Series) A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: I. llmtalUublic sidewalks hereafterconstructed in the Ci of San u;_s_Obispo shall be integral except upon approval of the City Engineer under the following circumstances: A. If one-half or more of any block is already improved with separated sidewalks; or B. In the event of unusual circumstances. P A S S E D A N D A D O PT E D this 20th day of December, 1965 by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Arthur F. Spring, Clell W. 1.7helchel NOES: None ABSENT: Donald Q. Miller MAYOR ATTEST: ClTY CLERK a 4- 0. min. Vorioble See ENGRG. STOS. R Nos.4030 9 4040 r7SIope 1/4" per foot 4��, .d �. . Class "3" aggregate base p „ 4" min. depth. . 8 O 6 DETACHED SIDEWALK Variable 6*-0"min. See ENGRG. STDS. Nos. 4030 5 4040 Slope I/4"per foot � a 4" n . 6? o 6.. Class 3 aggregate base 6" 4" min. depth. r INTEGRAL SIDEWALK OI CONCRETE : 5 sock PC.Concrete, 2"min. 4"max. slump. O FINISH : P.C.C. sidewalk shall be given a broom finish. OSEALING 8 CURING : A pigmented sealing and curing compound shall be used in accordance with the provisions of the Department of Transportation Standards Specifications. ODOWELS : 1/2" smooth bar dowels, 18" long at 24" QC. at expansion joints. and cold joints, to be greased or sleeved on one end. O EXPANSION JOINTS : 1/4" expansion material shall be placed at driveways and B.C.Rs. © WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS: Plastic pulltop quickjoint strips or approved equal shall be spaced at 20' O.C. and 1 1/2" deep. O FOR ADDING SIDEWALK TO EXIST. CURB :04 x 6" dowels shall be drilled in back of curb at 24"O.C. OGUTTER CONSTRUCTION adjacent to existing A.C. paving shall include sawcutting, removal,E replacement of paving 18" min. from new edge of gutter, 2" thicker than existing, 5"minimum. APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER DATE SIDEWALK REVISIONS BY I APP DATE a INTEGRAL 8 DETACHED Nate 8 norJ ,)W/f 1 9-66 • : • • Iffy! dome!spacing MOW WH 12-85 4110 ,,, R R II BACK OF WALK 10' MIN. ••>. R --------------- CURB FACE VARIES WITH SIDEWALK WIDTH AND PARKWAY WIDTH. R R BACK OF WALK 10' MIN. R W_ R CURB FACE RADIUS POINT IS THE INTERSECTION . OF THE PROLONGATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE BACK OF CURB. APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER DATE CITY OF REVISIONS BY APP DA rE j SAN SIDEWALK TRANSITION rlvs /s� LUIS INTEGRAL TO DETACHED Rem rvi OBISPO 4120 _fes JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS i AR 2 4 7995. March 22, 1995 ,ErY�NFFK,N,, Op SAN 'n�a— �IS�'BiS" Mr. Jerry Kenny 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Subject: Tract 1750-Alternative Sidewalk Design Dear Mr. Kenny: This is a request to use an alternate sidewalk and driveway design for Tract 1750. The purpose of the request is to best comply with the current American Disabilities Act(ADA). For this Tract, the primary design impact of the ADA is that at wheelchair and driveway ramps the sidewalk must be constructed behind the driveway ramp(s). This allows the sidewalk to be continuous with no more than a two percent cross fall. Meeting this requirement means that at driveway ramp(s), the sidewalk will be offset from the curb. To better accommodate this, we are requesting that detached sidewalks be approved for this project. To achieve the ADA requirements at driveway ramps with the use of an integral sidewalk would require a 9.5 wide sidewalk throughout most of the project. Compliance with ADA will also require modification of the City Standards for driveways and handicap ramps. Attached are modified details we have prepared for upward driveway, handicap ramp, and a typical plan review for the detached sidewalk. Thank you for your thoughts and assistance in this matter. Please call me if you have questions. Sincerely, JOHN WALLACE& ASSOCIATES Craig-Campbell Director of Engineering Services r� cc: Jon Adams jrU237(3)Vada -/0 4115 BROAD STREET,SUITE B-5•SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 •(805)544-4011 •FAX(805)544-4294 4.0' 6.0' vertical curve varies 10' vertical curve sidewalk 2% 4.0' rFloor of I garege or Face of 5.5" integral 2,p' .56' 25' 06' carport curb driveway ® 9.58% 1.00' 20% max. 2.5' B C y 75' 5 .0' 1" LIP A — — — — 15' .40' 7.5' Back of 10.0' Straight grade A to C sidewalk Slope 1/4" per ft. B to C 6" CURB To be used with residential driveways only where 6" curb exists, or is to be constructed. NOTES 1 — Twenty percent (20%) maximum slope for residential uses. Ten percent (10%) maximum slope for commercial and industrial uses. Five percent (5%) deviation allowed with special construction techniques if approved by the City Engineer. 2 — Maximum rise, and the run, shall be measured for the worst condition between the bank of the sidewalk and the finished floor, at the garage or carport entrance. REVISIONS BY APP DATE MODIFIED UPWARD DRIVEWAY �r t Maximum rise permitted on standard driveways in the City of San Luis Obispo For 6' integral driveways from back of sidewalk to garage finished flow RUN MARIISE M RUN MAXIMUM 10' 1.0' a-Af 39' 6.2' 5,( 111 1.I' 0,9 40' 6.4' 5, 0 12' 12' /. D 4 I' 6.6' e-0 13' 1.3' /. / 42' 6.8' (P,2 14' 1.4' /-Z 43' 7.0' 6, Y 15' 1.5' /,2 44' 7.2' L. C 16' 1.6' /.,3 45' 7.4' 6• $ I7' 1.8' !.3 46' 7.6' 7. 0 18' 2.0' h y 47' 7.8' 7. 2 19' 2.2' /.6 48' 8.0' 7, y 20' $.4"1.B 49' 8.2' 7. e, 2 I' 2.6' 2. 0 50' 8.4' 7. 9 22' 2.8' 2,2 51' 8.6' 41.0 23' 3.0' Z,`/ 52' 8.8' 15.2 24' 3.2' 2.G 53' 9.0' 8•'/ 25' 3.4' 2.49 54' 9.2' 8.G 26' 3.6' 3. 0 55' 9.4' S.Q 27' 3.8' 3,Z 56' 9.6' 9.0 28' 4.0' ,3.y 57' 9.8' 7.2 29' 4.21-3.(. 58' 10.0' %.y 30' 4.4' 3.$ 59' 10.2' 'G 31' 4.6' 9',-0 60' 10.4' 9, $ 32' 4.8' Y,z 61' 10.6' 33' 5.0' y'/ 62' 10.8' /0,Z 34' 5.2' S: C 63' 11.0' /�•`/ 35' 5.4' 64' 11.2' 36' 5.6' s D 65' 11.44 /6- 0 37' 5.8' 6.Z 70' 12.4' //,1 38' 6.0' 80' 14.4' /3. $ NOTE Maximum rise, and the run, shall be measured for the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk and the finished floor at the garage entrance. PARKING $ DRIVEWAY STANDARDS UPWARD DRIVEWAY MAXIMUM RISE ,�, (RESIDENTIAL) 214 E E E E E E E E d E E E E E E E p F f E E � n E E E f p n r E E E E Q Z E E E E E E E D E E F E E E E E E E f E E E E E F E D E E E d E E E E E E E D E E f E E E E BCR a C p D p C a 70 O O v p a p � D v v v �a�ti a a Er E E E E E E E E E E E -9,00pA E E E E E O . O Lo I- Q, Z 1