Home » Accessibility »Featured »Planning & Design »Walkability » Currently Reading:

One ADA Issue at Fields Foods Corrected, Site Connectivity Issues Remain

March 18, 2014 Accessibility, Featured, Planning & Design, Walkability 6 Comments

In December I showed a blatant ADA-violation at Fields Foods, no ramps where the pedestrian route crosses a driveway. Once we got a break in the weather they began busting out concrete to build it how they should’ve in the first place. A friend and I took the bus there on February 22nd, I was pleased:

You can see the mew ramp in the foreground
You can see the mew ramp in the foreground
This ramp is also new, as is the crosswalk paint.
This ramp is also new, as is the crosswalk paint. Pedestrians entering from 14th or from the east still aren’t considered.

I’ve suggested ways to connect to the East once the last part of the site is developed, and I’ve suggested the route, above, be connected to 14th — assuming the 14th St entrance remains open. The other topic I raised was that of conducting multiple buildings within the same development.

The ADA also requires a pedestrian route between buildings within the same development, which wasn't considered here at all.
The ADA also requires a pedestrian route between buildings within the same development, which wasn’t considered here at all.

The other day we needed to get something from Walgreen’s & Fields Foods, I was able to see how easy it would be to connect these two.  Of course, it would’ve been much easier if planned in advance.

We drove to Walgreen's first. It was obvious connecting these two would be fairly simple by extending the Walgreen's sidewalk until it reaches Fields Foods.
We drove to Walgreen’s first. It was obvious connecting these two would be fairly simple by extending the Walgreen’s sidewalk until it reaches Fields Foods.
We then drove the short distance to Fields Foods.  Looking back we can see the direct route or connecting to the existing ramp at Walgreen's
We then drove the short distance to Fields Foods. Looking back we can see the direct route or connecting to the existing ramp at Walgreen’s.  Planned in advance, a sidewalk connecting these two would’ve been easy and been an asset to the development.

Some might say this would result in the loss of two spaces. I’d argue if planned right from the start no spaces would have been placed in the way. The drive aisles are wide, asphalt is everywhere. Poor site planning isn’t an excuse for violating the ADA. Given the proximity and lack of obstacles, it can’t be argued as not readily achievable.

— Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "6 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    The only technical question is whether this is one “development” or if this is a subdivision with cross-access agreements? If the property has been subdivided into separate parcels and sold to individual owners, the ADA may not kick in for cross access. If this were a property where there are ground leases, cross access would likely be required.

     
    • I’ve looked into that, one developer subdividing land and selling pieces doesn’t relieve them from connecting buildings. The ADA recognizes it as a single development.

       
      • tpekren says:

        Steve, I have a tough time understanding your blanket statement that ADA recognizes it as a single development if properties are now under two different ownerships. In other words, where is the legal basis for one owner to make sure the other owner is ADA compliant to each other just because they share a mutual boundary line that so happens to fall on a parking lot? Or another way to put it, I wouldn’t doubt it that it is set forth in court rulings/precedents that if two adjoining commercials properties are ADA compliant to the same public right of way that their is no legal basis for them to be ADA compliant between their own properties. Could you always add better design and ADA on project like this? yes. Would it be good policy going forward to add more/better ADA access when additional development is added next to Walgreens and Field Foods, yes.

         
  2. loki03xlh says:

    I wonder how much extra it cost the developer/owner to bust out the concrete and redo it, plus the paint. Maybe they could learn to do it right the first time.

     
    • wump says:

      they have redone the side walks around carpark village about 5 times now, I think they do it on purpose to give the union guys extra work

       
      • tpekren says:

        I think it has more to do with the quality of design and they lack of quality reviews by the city as Steve noted many of times. The smart union guys who are typically are the ones who get more hours and steady work with one or two contractors because they don’t complain about it. Why mess with a good thing to your pay check.

         

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: (#10) This endpoint requires the 'manage_pages' permission or the 'Page Public Content Access' feature. Refer to https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/review/login-permissions#manage-pages and https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/review/feature#reference-PAGES_ACCESS for details.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 10
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe