HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 6/11/2007
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
To: Andy Limbird, Planner II
From: Jim Polston, Assistant Project Manager
Date: June 11,2007 I
Subject: Sidewalk in the alley north ofB Street
r
As a result of the request from the Planning Commission meeting of June 5th, I have looked into the
effects of installing a sidewalk in the alley north of the secure parking area of the Justice Center. The
request was to install a three foot wIde walkway along the alley to make pedestrian travel quicker and
safer at this mid-block location.
A three foot walk is acceptable under the Americans with Disabilities Act as long as a five foot wide
passing lane IS incorporated at least every two hundred feet. This could be accommodated in this area;
however there are other factors to consider prior to requiring a walk in this area.
1. If the Sidewalk is IDstalled wIthm the alley right-of-way it will give vehicles less space to
maneuver making the alley less safe for them, while offering only limited protectIOn to the pedestrian,
unless the sidewalk is raised behind a curb.
2 The sidewalk (whether in the R-O-W or not) would likely need to be installed on the south side of
the alley because existing conditions on the north SIde, such as poles, fences and driveways would make
construction along the north side problematic.
3. The City of Springfield Engineering Design Standards calls for the minimum sidewalk width to
be five feet. Whi]e it does not specifically mention SIdewalks along alleys, sidewalks along residential
and cul-de-sac streets are to be five feet minnnum.
4. The Springfield Deve]opment Code requires a five foot wide landscape setback along the north
side of the Justice Center Project. If this sidewalk is installed in the alley one of two problems occurs.
A. If the sidewalk is to be mcluded m the landscape buffer then it reduces size of the
planting area which creates conflicts between code sections, impacts the survival of the landscape
plantings by reducing planting area and creates opportunities for tree roots to damage pavement
B. If the sidewalk is mstalled between the alley and the landscape buffer then the secure
parking lot would have to be redeSIgned. It appears that to accommodate this situation the secure lot
would lose at least six parking spaces. It would also elimmate open space currently reserved for the
expanSIOn of space in the ancillary building lost during value engineering.
4. The SIdewalk would have to be built behmd a curb or to road specifications or vehicle traffic
would damage the sidewalk not designed for vehicle traffic.
In discussmg this with the Engineering and Traffic Divisions of Public Works it was suggested that
allowing pedestrIans and bicycles to use the alley without a sidewalk is an acceptable solution, because
most, if not all, alleys currently have thIS type of shared use. Also the pavement width in the alley IS
sufficient for shared use. The alley IS a low speed area, by ordinance, and that mixing uses in this
situation should not be a problem here because it has not been a problem in other locatIOns. In this case
the design of the secure parking lot also eliminates several ingress/egress points to the alley greatly
reducing the amount of traffic that access the alley Finally the street-side Sidewalk system in the area
will be uninterrupted throughout the area giving people the option to detour to A or C Streets if they do
not feel safe sharing the alley.
As a result it IS my recommendation to leave the design as is and allow pedestrians and vehIcles share the
alley for m1d-b]ock access, without a sidewalk, should they choose to do so.
bate Received:~ '.f:poo1
Planner: AL
SAWCU
~
/~
/ / 33+57
1/ J;Y 33+62.
I I
f', I -
-+- I I
"r. 1/ I SID CbNC 12
-cROSSH"'TeHfi3:\ i ill.../ ~"),,..... I CURB ~
"S.1RIPltlG 'eY 1~C5_ -I-Il.
(2) PARKING STAUS ~g rill: ~ 24'
(1) H C STALL . I~ I
r-- ~- I ~ - J' j~ lal I ~~
II -I- th ~
. 1/ I ~-
I WHITE SiRlPING~
(TYP.) STD AC PVM'T 15\
/ ~
_ -- - - J - ~ -- --- ---
(n~.PARI NG 'rTALU ..~ J..........i {1~ PAl KING STALl
~ -CONe. ~ -
CURB (l'fP,)~ _
WHm:. SlRIf'II<lG~ CONe RE"ADER" n4'
(rlF.) ./ WI WHEEl. STDPS'e;Y
/7' ,.. m "P.ARKlNG STALLS
~ I//g
Ii ~V
" ;/ IV ! "- ./
:73'. 1/ ~
~~ I ~~
-1_ I -J,....
......z I ~z
,UJ ;2' I OJ ~
00 c;- J err
"- I "-
~t : ~ 5
~~ I ~~
SR I eR
E : g
- -- -= I-~~ --
I I
I I
I I
I ." . !:------1 C'J Ll I
I ,,/ SlD .cONe- 0
..-: ~~ VCURB (TYP}1l2:Y _
I _j,- ~ CR.oSSHATCHf13,
...-1 /" SlRIPING 'eY
I f-I- I
[
~ L ~ .~ ~9"\ 9'" 9" ( FA KlNG TAllIS
I iT- :'\ :l}}:C S:All.S
[~- ~
-
i5::?'
-
-
t-
f- I
I I
I ~ Ii
I I
I II
~
i!Jc
I I ~
t- I I e.
~ II
f-
i"-
l-
f-
""f-
~
o
l~
I
-.....- - - --- I
'\510 CONe. ( 1\ I ~
CURe (TYP),€ DI :
Ancillary :
Building :
ExpanSion
R!
I
It> I
~ i
I
I
I
I
!=!
'~ ----
- "
I"'-. 510 CONC (Z\
CURB (TYP ~
-:::-
k8J
_: ~[gJ
~
2
a:
""
II
,..,
~
J ~r-
ILl-
I
~
<II
H ~
5<
'"
I--l ~
<.>
sm_ "'c PVM'T @
",- (:rIP ) :;
lTi
H
,
/1
11
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I t....::::::::::
'"
'"
+-
o
o
510 CONe. 12\
lcuRS (TYP ~
-L__ _ 181 I- ~
1,=== E
i II- . ............
",<> ..........--
~~ I If- ~
i~C'J lil----I:v~
O~"P
......><
....a: I ___
.......it, 0 I""';'L--""'"
""-= -;;?
/~
lh
e
-
-
><
!i I
I-
I:
1-
'"
....
-+
18
Wl:ll'lE s:JRIPIIllG~ g
(:rIP )
-
o
C'J
--~--
-
(
By moving the landscape buffer to the south by five feet all other dimensions WIthin the
lot must also be moved south by five feet. The dark line on the drawing above,
represents a critical area., which when moved south will cause the parking spaces along it
to be narrowed below a useable size and therefore must be eliminated. Also note that
while we anticipated losing a few spaces when we expand the ancillary building, the shift
caused by the sidewalk will impact the size of the building as well.
"II j 2LJrrJ
Date Received: ,- 1
Planner: Al