Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Center Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears options, safety concerns for proposed covered walkway at senior center; rough cost $300,000–$350,000
Summary
Staff presented a design and costing update for a proposed 23‑foot covered walkway at the new senior center entrance, while police and fire leaders raised public‑safety and circulation concerns.
City staff presented alternatives on April 14 for a proposed covered walkway at the new senior-center entry, describing a roughly 23‑foot covered span and a rough order of magnitude cost of $300,000 to $350,000 for design and construction.
The walkway discussion included parking design. Director Schultz said the site will have about 360 parking spaces; the plan shows 17 van‑accessible/ADA spaces and 21 limited‑mobility courtesy spots. Staff described the limited‑mobility spaces as unenforceable courtesy spaces the city has highlighted for senior members. Staff said the existing senior center’s portico observed about two to four single‑passenger drop‑offs per week and that many users park rather than use the portico as a drop-off lane.
Nut graf: Council asked staff to weigh accessibility benefits against public safety and circulation limits. The fire and police concerns centered on the short curb-to-curve run in front of the proposed walkway and the difficulty of getting large fire apparatus (a 60‑foot ladder truck) into that space if vehicles were stopped at the curb.
Public-safety note: The police chief and fire/public-safety staff told council the main front drive is a travel lane and a key circulation point; standing vehicles there could prevent fire and EMS units from maneuvering. The chief noted the area contains a hydrant connection near the curb and said accommodating standing vehicles in that short run would be “not feasible.”
Alternative options discussed: staff said architects advised a covered walkway off the front could look like an afterthought and that planting canopy trees could be an alternative that provides natural coverage. Staff also said an attached 3–4 foot overhang at the back member entrance (where staff must badge in) would be provided to protect people fumbling for fobs.
Council members questioned cost drivers; staff said unplanned steel, footings (four required), bollards and rooftop electrical tie‑ins drove the estimate higher than initial expectations. Staff confirmed occasional vans from assisted‑living facilities bring groups for events, and that the site has appropriate access for those vehicles.
Ending: No formal decision was taken. Staff said they would continue to study alternatives and return with refined design and pricing; chief and staff will also look for public‑safety solutions that maintain emergency access.
