ST1002-CS110915 (2)(10/26/2011) Keith Marvin - RE: RE: Accessible Parking Requirements Page 1
From:
Keith Marvin
To:
Yancey, Greg
CC:
Hurley, Mindi
Date:
9/15/2011 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Accessible Parking Requirements
Ok. Thanks.
We'll get the necessary changes made.
Keith
>>> "Greg Yancey" < gregyancey(@_venzon.net > 9/15/2011 9:16 AM >>>
You're correct, the locations are general. We explained to the RAS that we
would need to coordinate the spaces within the streetscape to make these
work. He was fine with that.
Thanks for making these additions,
Gregory K. Yancey
Provident Company
(214) 215 -9400 v
(214) 276 -1709 f
gregyancey(c net
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Keith Marvin [ mailto.kmarvin(cb-coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:15 AM
To: gregyancey(c
Cc: Mindi Hurley
Subject: Fwd: RE: Accessible Parking Requirements
Greg,
Dan from Freese & Nichols sent me the following feedback on the proposed
additional HC spaces. The one item we need you to answer is whether you
were precise in the locations you need the spaces, or can we move over one
space in either direction? We are trying to avoid a conflict with the light
poles. My assumption is that your requested locations were general in
nature, and could be shifted, but you know what can happen if I assume
something...
There were no other objections noted, so we will adjust the plans and issue
a change once we hear back from you.
Thanks,
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304 -3681
>>> Dan Prendergast < drp(@-freese.com > 9/14/2011 2:53 PM >>>
(10/26/2011) Keith Marvin - RE: RE: Accessible Parking Requirements Page 2
Keith,
The following are a few issues that I see with adding accessible spaces to
the locations shown:
1. We will need to re -grade the cross slope in the affected parking areas to
1.5% so we do not exceed 2% in any direction and reissue paving sheets with
updated spot elevations.
2. 1 suggest that we adjust the location of the accessible spaces on West
Main St and Main St to avoid adjusting light pole spacing (see attached
pdf).
3. We need to include a curb cut for the future ramp on West Main St
4. We'll need to update the striping and signage plan to include the
additional accessible spaces.
These are all minor changes. I'll call you shortly to discuss.
Thanks
Dan Prendergast, E.I.T.
East Transportation /Infrastructure
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
1701 N. Market St., Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75202
214- 217 -2216
www.freese.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Keith Marvin [ mailto.kmarvin(cb-coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:18 PM
To: Gary Sieb; Matt Steer; Dan Prendergast; Tricia Hatley
Cc: Clay Phillips; Mindi Hurley
Subject: Fwd: Accessible Parking Requirements
Fyi... Greg and his architect are recommending the installation of 6
additional handicap accessible parking spaces. See the attached plan.
This will result in a net loss of three total spaces. The cost implications
are minor.
Let me know if you have any objections to this change.
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304 -3681
(10/26/2011) Keith Marvin - RE: RE: Accessible Parking Requirements Page 3
>>> "Greg Yancey" < gregyancey�D_verizon.net > 9/13/2011 6:44 PM >>>
Hi Keith:
Bill Peck and I met with Jay Heilman of Accessible Solutions today. He's a
registered accessibility specialist and does all of Bill's jobs.
We explained the shared parking agreement and the on -site parking behind
each commercial building. Bill and I wanted to make sure he would approve of
our site plans as each lot is developed.
His recommendation to us was that additional HC parking be installed as
shown on the attached.
The revised TDLR rules effective in March of 2012 will exempt any parking
area of 4 spaces or less. This will effectively exempt all of the cottages
from any required on -site HC spaces behind the buildings. Retail #1 & #5
will also be exempt, but all other retail /services buildings will have to
meet TDLR percentages of HC parking, so there will probably be one van
accessible space at the rear of every building unless we obtain an unlikely
variance.
I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning of this, but he said the
project looks similar to a strip mall built in multiple phases requiring a
reasonable distribution of the spaces since it is not possible to place them
"closest to the door" of the building.
These additions exceed code, but I would prefer to do anything possible to
avoid sawing out new concrete.
What do you think we should do with his opinion?
Thanks,
Gregory K. Yancey
Provident Company
r
24" WHITE STOP BARS (4)
�THAMMOND STREET
STOP � f � STQP -
I I
TA 1 +57.43 I STA 1+60.76
TRAVIS ST 8 SPACES 0 9', 60' TYP c I HOUSTON ST
BEGIN TYPICAL CENTERLINE PATTERN "A" BEGIN TYPICAL CENTERLINE PATTERN
i LOT 1 I �� 8 SPACES ® 9', 60'
BLOCK D
.1 f'
I � I
® - 9', 6 TYP I I
LOT 1
0 SPACES 0 9 , + BLOCK A
1 STOP Add 2 spaces 60' TYP 10 SPACES 0 9, 601
9 SPACES 0 9', 60' � 1 1
20 SPACES 0 9', R9 I I I
WEST MAI ST R ET _ 60 TYP
+ • _ f v�
— —•...
�
o
60' 1 yp S B
..
I
(5
8 SPACES 0
wo p
o
In 11 1111 1 I Ill
�
9
, 0r TYP
60' TYP
MT.
P �,
1
•
24" WHITE STO� BAR
TO CITY OF COPPELL STANDARD DETAILS AND
i
_
STANDARD DETAIL 23020.
ETAI L "A"
DEVICES" (TMUTCO), LATEST EDITION.
Tip 11 SPAC S 0 9',
60' P
10 SF
C y5 o v
10 S sa
R9
T
1
Add 2 spaces
{
_
9 SPACES C� 9', 60' TYP 10 SPACES
' 60' TYP
9',
1
60' TYP
E
9-
—
—
ST
N
B
CK
�{ A
3 SPACES 0 9',
+
] 8. SPACES 0 9', 60' TYP
9 SPACE
P
wt MAI
S R EET
60' TYP f sr �' ACES C� 9', ST
�0'
0
2 +[�
I I —
LOT 2�' TYP
'
9 SPACES 0 9,
] BLOCK E
LOT 1
B CK E
I— o
r
/'•
— I
—
10 SPACES
60' TYP 7 SPAC
� 9`,
90' TYP
90,
—247
10 SPACES @ 9', 60
EVF
10 SPACES 0 9', 60' TYP t
STA 9+60.00 HOUSTON ST
END TYPICAL CENTERLINE
60' TYP
II
L6 S
A ES 9',
1
10 SPACES 0 9',
—_
I
STOP
TYP
PATTERN "A'
24" WHITE STOP BAR
I
60 TYP
EAST IN STREET
— —
1
�
ROAD
}
S. COPPELL ROAD
3 SPACES
9',
99
90'
TY
a
LO
t
LOT 1
1 Ly V { pp 4t00
0 <
BLQ
K C
RI [ % R
0o xor
10 SPACES
9 , 1
STEP RETvfOVE E7
60' TYP
1,
7 SPACE
8 SPACES @
9
Add 2 sp ace
1
SPA
s
s',
Y O
1 a
ACE
SPACES
0
',
2
w H1
GL'
60' TYP
9 +50
�-
+0 —
z +00
T. 0
-N �T-REE
60
60' 1 yp S B
(5
REFLECTARIZED 3M SERIES 290,
*
n il I IlTl
In 11 1111 1 I Ill
YELLOW ACRYLIC DOUBLE
9
PAC 0 ',
P (n
ROADWAY,
-
10 SPACES 0
2. TRAFFIC SIGNAGE AND MARKINGS TO CONFORM
6. FIRE LANE MARKINGS, THOUGH NOT SHOWN,
TO CITY OF COPPELL STANDARD DETAILS AND
SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
"TEXAS MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
STANDARD DETAIL 23020.
ETAI L "A"
DEVICES" (TMUTCO), LATEST EDITION.
T
1
I
60' TYP
E
9-
CAL
RAMS
ENT
ST
N
B
CK
+
9 SPACES 0
9 SPACE
P
R
A'
90' TYP
90,
—247
WHIA
STU
EVF
STA 9+60.00 HOUSTON ST
END TYPICAL CENTERLINE
24 WHITE
II
1
—
—_
I
PATTERN "A'
24" WHITE STOP BAR
I
STOP BAR
— —
1
�
ROAD
- _
S. COPPELL ROAD
1, LINES SHOWN IN PLAN VIEW REPRESENTING
4. ALL RAISED PAVEMENT BUTTONS SHALL BE
PAVEMENT MARKINGS REPRESENTS THE
REFLECTARIZED 3M SERIES 290,
4" ROUND
ALIGNMENT OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC BUTTONS
YELLOW ACRYLIC DOUBLE
ONLY. LINES SHALL NOT BE PAINTED ON
5. ALL THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO
REFLECTIVE BUTTON
�I (3M SERIES 290)
ROADWAY,
BE 3M STAY MARK.
2. TRAFFIC SIGNAGE AND MARKINGS TO CONFORM
6. FIRE LANE MARKINGS, THOUGH NOT SHOWN,
TO CITY OF COPPELL STANDARD DETAILS AND
SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
"TEXAS MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
STANDARD DETAIL 23020.
ETAI L "A"
DEVICES" (TMUTCO), LATEST EDITION.