HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-15-051 - Sidewalk Infill Policy Follow-Up
REPORT TO: Council
DATE OF MEETING: June 1, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Justin Readman, Director of Transportation Services,
519-741-2200 ext. 7038
PREPARED BY: Barry Cronkite, Transportation Planning Project Manager,
519-741-2200 ext. 7738
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: May 29, 2015
REPORT NO.: INS-15-051
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Infill Policy Follow-Up
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the revised Sidewalk Infill Policy, attached to Infrastructure Services
Department report number INS-15-051, be approved; and further,
That staff be authorized to initiate the sidewalk infill process on York Street
immediately, with installation to occur as soon as practical.
BACKGROUND:
Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee considered report number INS-15-035 –
Sidewalk Infill Policy, on Monday, May 25th, 2015. At that time, committee approved the
following:
That the Sidewalk Infill Policy, attached to Infrastructure Services Department report
INS-15-035, be approved; and,
That the Chief Administrative Officer be delegated authority to approve tenders for road
reconstruction projects with Council-approved sidewalk infill, provided the total costs are
within the approved budgets contained in the relevant departmental budgets and that a
report regarding those tenders are provided to Council at its next regularly scheduled
meeting; and,
That staff be directed to complete a review of the Sidewalk Infill Policy following three
full years of implementation, with a report to be provided in 2019; and further,
That the following be approved, in principle, to allow time for additional information to be
provided prior to the June 1, 2015 Council meeting:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
• Sidewalk Infill Priority levels 2 and 3 be collapsed, with Priority 1 and the
revised new Priority 2 reweighted;
• Major Parks be added to the Priority Ranking Criteria with a weight of
more than 5 points, as well as an increase in the criteria points for
neighbourhood parks and trails;
• Inclusion of a provision to provide the option for Council to delay the
installation of a sidewalk until trees that would be impacted by sidewalk
construction have completed their lifecycle; and,
• The inclusion of a provision to have new trees planted in closer proximity
to houses as an interim measure prior to the cessation of the existing
tree’s lifecycle.
REPORT:
Priority ranking system, relative weighting and number of priorities
Through a review of the priority ranking database staff have noted that it had included
approximately 52 km of sidewalk that is to be constructed through development of new
subdivisions. These sidewalks are considered to be missing links as the roadways are
either draft approved or under construction.However, prior to the City of Kitchener
taking ownership of these roadways they will have sidewalks installed on both sides and
should be excluded from the list of missing sidewalks. Removing these locations results
in the following breakdown:
48%
The City’s database identifies five major parks (Victoria Park, McLennan Park, Rockway
Gardens, The Auditorium Sports Complex and Kiwanis Park). These parks are currently
captured in the existing point allocation and will receive 10 points should council choose
to increase the point weighting for “community programs facilities and parks” as outlined
later in this report. While these parks are a regional draw, they tend to generate
automobile oriented traffic and include on-site parking facilities. Outside of special
events they typically generate similar pedestrian traffic to neighbourhood parks. Staff
have not included an additional point category for these types of facilities given that they
contain on-site parking capable of accommodating demand for the majority of uses.
Staff increased the criteria point weighting for “community programs facilities and parks”
and “type 1/Type 2 trails” from 5 points to 10 points respectively. Additionally, the lower
point threshold of priority 1 has been increased to 62 points. The results are as follows:
By increasing points for “community programs facilities and parks” and “type 1/Type 2
trails” approximately 30 kilometres of infill locations shift from priority 3 to priority 2.
Staff recommend that the three levels of priority be maintained rather than collapsing
priorities 2 and 3. Staff revised the policy to clarify the differences between the three
priority levels.
The lifecycle of trees and interim planting measures
The delaying of sidewalk infill until the end of the lifecycle of impacted trees is not
recommended by staff. The probability of all street trees dying in a similar year is
limited due to a number of factors including:
The likelihood of different types of trees planted within the project area;
The varying age and health of trees along within the project area;
The level of care given to each individual tree over its lifetime; and,
The level of monitoring required to ensure new trees are not planted within the
proposed sidewalk location.
It should be noted that the mitigation measures outlined in the policy are intended to
preserve as many mature trees as possible while still maintaining the objective of
installing sidewalks along roadways.
Planting additional trees behind the proposed sidewalk location is also not
recommended by staff. Ideally placed sidewalk is approximately 30 centimetres off of
the property line to permit an adequate boulevard for snow storage and new tree
plantings following sidewalk construction. Planting trees behind the proposed sidewalk
location would result in city staff placing the majority of public trees on private property.
In addition, if the trees are planted long before the sidewalk is installed then their root
system will likely grow into the proposed sidewalk location and be impacted by sidewalk
construction.
Preapproved Sidewalk Infill Projects
Further to the amendments recommended by standing committee on May 25, staff were
asked to investigate an appropriate point threshold for pre-approved sidewalk locations.
The chart below indicates the length of sidewalks in kilometres within five-point
increments. Should council choose to support pre-approval, staff suggest a minimum
point threshold of 90 points, which would result in approximately 9.5 kilometres of pre-
approved sidewalk infill (2.7% of the total missing sidewalk).
Cul-de-sacs and Crescents that serve only local traffic
Committee members discussed adding a negative point column for cul-de-sacs and
crescents serving only local residential traffic. Rather than reducing points to attempt to
reallocate these unique locations into a different category, staff suggest that the
following be incorporated into the policy:
Notwithstanding the priority ranking as defined by the criteria in Table 1, a
residential cul-de-sac or crescent that provides direct access to less than
50 residential units and does not provide direct access to another
roadway, community parks, trails or a public walkway connection may be
authorized for an exemption. The exemption would deem such streets to
be Priority 3. The exemption would only apply to the section of cul-de-sacs
or crescents that serve properties abutting that portion of the roadway.
By incorporating the above, additional flexibility will be granted in these unique
circumstances.
York Street between Glasgow Street and Union Boulevard
York Street between Glasgow Street and Union Boulevard is identified as a Priority 1
location under the draft policy with 100 points. Points are allocated as follows:
Roadway Volume – 0 points (less than 2,000 vehicles per day)
Transit – 25 points (Within 800m of LRT)
Major Destinations – 25 points (within 800m of Sunlife Financial, Grand River
Hospital and 400m of a mixed use corridor)
Schools – 25 points (within 800m of an elementary and high school)
Other factors - 25 points (within 400m of a community arena and park,
completion of a link, within 400m of a health care facility, within 400m of a place
of worship and within 400m of a type 1/type 2 trail)
Staff are recommending that the sidewalk infill review for York Street begin immediately
with installation to occur as soon as practical to address pedestrian related safety
concerns.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This initiative falls under the Community Priority of Quality of Life. “Work with partners,
including all orders of government, to create a culture of safety in our community.”
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is anticipated that the annual budget will continue to allocate resources for the infill of
sidewalks, through both the road reconstruction program and the stand-alone sidewalk
infill program. In the past, the annual budget contained approximately $165,000 for
stand-alone sidewalk infill. This budget allows for approximately 1.5 kilometres of
sidewalk infill on one side of the roadway per year. Based on the current budget
allocation and excluding the cost of inflation, it will take more than 40 years just to
complete the sidewalk network identified as priority 1 if completed through stand-alone
sidewalk infill only.
The annual cost of the infill of sidewalk through reconstruction varies based on the
capital forecast; however that cost will be allocated for through individual capital
reconstruction programs.
It should be noted that the infill of sidewalk can result in municipal seasonal
maintenance (e.g., snow and ice clearing in winter conditions) costs as well.
Maintenance costs will be defined on an individual project basis and included within any
relevant staff reports.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Staff engaged Council and affected stakeholders through strategic strategy sessions
and consulted affected citizens by way of surveys and a public meeting. The public
meeting was advertised in The Kitchener Post and The Record. Additionally those that
were previously involved in the process in any manner were circulated an invitation of
the public meeting.
Other than pre-approved projects, sidewalk infill, when executed, should involve
extensive public involvement and ongoing communication.
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in
advance of the council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Dev Tyagi, Deputy CAO
Attach.
Appendix A – Proposed Sidewalk Infill Policy
Appendix A COUNCIL POLICY RESOLUTION
POLICY NUMBER: DATE: MAY 25, 2015
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
PURPOSE
Sidewalk infrastructure is a key component of the urban environment that
encourages and facilitates active transportation, supports community health,
neighbourhood connectivity, community vitality and safety. Sidewalks contribute
significantly to a sustainable community and a pedestrian friendly environment.
This policy outlines the basic premise of the sidewalk infill strategy and policy
within the City of Kitchener.
SCOPE:
The City should endeavor to have sidewalks on both sides to support a
sustainable community and a pedestrian friendly environment.
POLICY CONTENT:
1. Infill of sidewalk on existing roads
Existing roadways that do not already have sidewalks on both sides will be
subject to the following:
a) Downtown:
Sidewalk is required on both sides of all roadways within the Downtown as
designated within the Official Plan, with the exception of public lanes.
Sidewalks in the Downtown should be a minimum width of 2.1 metres.
b) Scenic Roads/Heritage Conservation Districts
For roadways designated as scenic heritage and roadways within a
Heritage Conservation District, sidewalks shall be provided in accordance
with the respective approved policies and in consultation with Heritage
Planning staff.
KITCHENER Page 1 of 5 MAY 2015
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
c) Funding will be allocated through the annual capital budget process to a
sidewalk infill capital program for sidewalk infill construction independent
of road reconstruction. Council is responsible for the approval of the
capital program.
d) Roadways with a minimum of 2,000 vehicles per day shall have sidewalks
on both sides.
e) Roadways that serve as a transit route shall have sidewalks on both sides.
f) Notwithstanding d) and e), sidewalk infill will be rated and prioritized by
staff based on the criteria outlined in Table 1. The rationale for priority
rating is as follows:
PRIORITY 1 – GREATER THAN 62 points.
i)Sidewalks shall be
required on both sides of the roadway as they connect to a
significant number of pedestrian origins and destinations. Any
sidewalk infill location scoring 90 or more points is deemed to be
pre-approved and will not require additional Council approval.
PRIORITY 2 - 36-62 points.
ii)Sidewalks shall be required on both
sides of the roadway; however, an exemption may only be
authorized by Council should staff not be able to reasonably
mitigate any one or more of the following:
1. The infill of sidewalks both sides of the roadway would
negatively impact the character of the neighbourhood as
identified through a cultural heritage landscape study.
2. The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would
result in significant site specific impacts.
3. The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would
result in a substantial loss of healthy mature trees of a non-
invasive species or other environmentally sensitive impacts
that cannot be mitigated.
4. The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would
result in significant impacts on winter maintenance that may
result in a substantial increase to the City’s annual Operating
budget.
PRIORITY 3 – LESS THAN 36 points.
iv) Sidewalks will be
investigated on both sides, however, should there be any technical
challenges that cannot be reasonably mitigated, or a lack of
majority citizen support identified through the formal circulation to
be provided to citizens within 400 metres of the proposed sidewalk
KITCHENER Page 2 of 5 May 2015
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
location, an exemption may be authorized and sidewalks will be
required on one side only.
g) Notwithstanding the priority ranking as defined by the criteria in Table 1, a
residential cul-de-sac or crescent that provides direct access to less than
50 residential units and does not provide direct access to another
roadway, community parks, trails or a public walkway connection may be
authorized for an exemption. The exemption would deem such streets to
be Priority 3. The exemption would only apply to the section of cul-de-sacs
or crescents that serve properties abutting that portion of the roadway.
h) Should sidewalks be installed only on one side of the roadway, then
preference will be given to that side of the roadway that provides the
greatest pedestrian connectivity and/or limits the impacts on mature trees,
seasonal maintenance and landscaping.
i) Once sidewalk infill has been identified for construction, all affected
citizens within 400 metres of the proposed sidewalk infill project will be
circulated for comment. Circulation shall include the reasoning for the
requirements of sidewalk installation and any potential constraints and
concerns that have been identified.
j) Save and except sidewalk locations with 90 or more points a report will be
brought forward for council endorsement on an annual basis
recommending locations for sidewalk infill. This report will be taken to
Council at least one year prior to proposed installation to outline the
reasoning for the requirements of sidewalk installation.
k) Once a report regarding sidewalk infill has been considered by Council
and a resolution passed, staff shall adhere to the resolution throughout the
project design, tendering and construction process.
l) Should sidewalks be requested by council or citizens, staff will review the
location individually, regardless of the overall priority ranking of the
roadway, and the project may be scheduled in to the overall capital
program.
m) Capital road reconstruction projects that propose sidewalk infill are subject
to the above terms and conditions and terms of this policy.
n) The infill of sidewalks on regional roadways will occur through the Region
of Waterloo’s capital road reconstruction program and will not be affected
by this policy.
o) Sidewalk infill construction will adhere to all legislative requirements.
KITCHENER Page 3 of 5 May 2015
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
p) Should a roadway be identified for an exemption staff will not revisit the
infill of sidewalks along that roadway for a minimum period of 10 years
unless otherwise directed by Council.
2. Mitigation
Where sidewalks are being constructed within an existing neighbourhood, the
following mitigation measures will be considered where feasible:
a) Loss of trees - should tree removal be required due to the infill of
sidewalk, trees will be replaced at a ratio of two trees planted per every
tree removed. One such replacement tree may be at a nearby location.
b) Loss of off-street parking – In areas where a significant loss of off-street
parking occurs as a result of sidewalk infill, alternative roadway and/or
sidewalk designs are to be considered.
c) Impacted landscaping and appurtenances – Privately installed
landscaping and appurtenances within the public right of way will be
relocated with sufficient set back from the sidewalk location. While the
City will work collaboratively with the affected party, the City of Kitchener
is ultimately not responsible for any damages that occur to anything that
has been installed within the public right of way without prior authorization
by the City of Kitchener.
d) Alternate materials – Sidewalks can be installed in an alternate material
other than concrete where design constraints warrant such application.
Alternate materials shall preserve the existing character of the established
neighbourhood.
e) Alternate designs – Alternate designs of the sidewalk and/or roadway will
be considered where design constraints warrant such application.
f) Operations and Maintenance – all alternative designs and materials shall
consider impact to municipal operations and maintenance of affected
roadways and sidewalks. Exemptions may be warranted should unique
design alternatives not adequately address municipal winter maintenance
concerns.
KITCHENER Page 4 of 5 May 2015
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
Table 1
SIDEWALK INFILL PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
ROADWAY VOLUME POINTS MAX
Under 2000 vehicles per day 0
2000-4999 vehicles per day 10
5000-7999 vehicles per day 20
8000 vehicles per day or greater 25
max total 25
PEDESTRIAN DESTINATIONS
TRANSIT
Within 800m of the proposed multi modal hub and rapid
transit station areas 25
On an existing or future bus route 15
within 200m of a bus stop 10
within 450m of a bus stop 5
within 600m of an iXpress transit stop 15
max total 25
MAJOR DESTINATION
Within 800m of the downtown 25
Within 800m of a major employer (500 employees or
greater). 20
Within 400m of a mixed use corridor 20
max total 25
SCHOOLS
Within 800m of a high school 25
Within 1.6km of a high school 12
Within 3.2km of a high school 6
Within 800m of an elementary school 25
Within 800m of a post-secondary school 15
max total 25
OTHER FACTORS
Within 400m of a commercial zone 5
Within 400m of a community programs facility or park 10
Completion of a link along the same roadway 5
Within 400m of a health care facility 5
Within 400m of a place of worship5
Within 400m of a Type 1/Type 2 trail 10
max total25
OVERALL125
KITCHENER Page 5 of 5 May 2015