HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceFwd: RE: Sidewalk Issues and Worl with CS Pagel of 3
Fwd: RE: Sidewalk Issues and Work with CS
From: Alan Gibbs
To: Garza, Venessa; Schubert, Jason
Date: Monday - February 27, 2012 1:26 PM
fyi
>>> "Kaspar, W. Paul" <pkaspar@bryantx.gov> 2/17/2012 5:42 PM >>>
Veronica,
I have added City of Bryan's staff (Planning, Engineering and Building) comments below under each request. Let me know if
you have questions or if it would be helpful to meet to discuss further with College Station. I've copied Alan Gibbs at College
Station as well to facilitate discussion.
Thanks,
W. Paul Kasper, P.E., CFM, ME
City Engineer, City of Bryan
(979) 209-5030 (979) 209-5035 (fax)
pkaspar@bryantx.gov
hftp:l/www.bryantx.gov
From: Veronica Morgan [mailto:veronica@mitchellandmorgan.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:22 PM
To: McCully, Brett; Kaspar, W. Paul
Subject: Sidewalk Issues and Work with CS
Brett,
if you will recall i talked to you about some changes to sidewalk requirements that a development issue committee
has been working on with CS. i mentioned to you that i thought i knew where CS staff was landing on the issue and
needed to see if Bryan might be willing to follow so that we can keep common standards....
Here is the request by the Development Committee along with where CS staff stands...
1.Do not require sidewalks on the "bulb" of a cul-de-sac
CS staff ok with this unless there is a park, school, greenbelt, etc. that this sidewalk might connect to at then end of
the bulb
Bryan currently does not require sidewalks around the "bulb" of a culdesac, so we are fine with this.
2. Sidewalks should be required only on ONE side of RESIDENTIAL streets
CS staff will not support this request - they want sidewalks on both sides of residential streets
Bryan staff feel that sidewalks on both sides of residential through streets are very important based on previous input from
citizens and commissions such as the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, staff would be in favor of eliminating
sidewalk construction (no sidewalks on either side) on cul-de-sacs that are less than 200 feet long (limited number of
houses). Similar to CS suggestion above, if there were a greenbelt, park or school accessed from that culdesac then the
sidewalk should be built on the short culdesac.
http://portal.cstx. gov/gw/webacc?User. context=84984ee4b54bf837c979798cc20783 07a9l4fdb&Item.dm... 6/21 /2012
Fwd: RE: Sidewalk Issues and Worl- with CS
Page 2 of 3
3.Sidewalks on residential streets should only be 4 It wide (3' off b/c) not the 5ft wide as in the current regs
CS staff will not support this request
Bryan staff cannot support this request. The change to 5 ft sidewalks a few years back mirror the State and Federal
requirement for a 5 ft x 5 ft ADA landing every 200 feet along a sidewalk. it would then become problematic to figure out
where the 5x5landing is to be placed and how that interacts with driveways that are not vet planned at the time the sidewalks
are constructed. Bryan staff is interested in changing the 3 ft green space to at least 4 ft of preen space as an inherent design
conflict has come to our knowledge regarding irrigation system installations. Bryan City Ordinance which mirrors TCEQ
requirements for irrigation systems (excerpted below) essentially state that spray heads require a 4 ft preen space between
adjacent vehicle/pedestrian surfaces. This is likely a similar issue in College Station so our suggestion is to adjust the preen
space width from 3 to 4 feet and keep the 5 ft sidewalk width.
`Xj cid:image001.png@01CCED58.468EF260
4. Sidewalks on all other streets (minor collector and up) should only be 51t wide (3' off b/c) not the 6ft wide as
in current regs
CS staff ok with this change
Bryan staff would prefer to see this standard remain at 6 feet. The increased width on major roadways came from a Council
suggestion at the time to increase the width to 8 ft or more along collectors and above. Staff supported implementing an
increase to 6 feet a few years back. I don't think there is anything that would stop a developer from submitting an oversize
participation request for the additional foot width (5 to 6 ft) on minor collectors and above for roadways on which the City
was already participating with the developer for roadway width. If the development needed the roadway width fie no
oversize, then there wouldn't be a request for oversize on the sidewalk).
5. Sidewalks at b/c on minor collectors and up should be 6ft wide and not 81t wide with brick paver inlay
CS staff ok with this change as long as there is a signed bike route or lane on the roadway.
Bryan staff would support this change with the same conditions outlined by College Station with regard to a bike lane or
signed bike route acting as a buffer between vehicles and the pedestrians. Bryan staff strongly feel it is a safety issue to
provide for separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic as much as possible and would prefer to see the sidewalks set
off the back of curb with a minimum of 4 foot green space. This buffer takes into account large/wide mirrors on large vehicles
that stick out significantly that could encroach onto a sidewalk directly back of curb as pedestrians are walking and also gives
the pedestrian more comfort when walking with some separation between vehicular traffic. Additional benefits include not
having trash cans block the sidewalk during pickup days and allows locations for street signs, fire hydrants and street light
http://portal.cstx.gov/gw/webacc?User.context=84984ee4b54bf837c979798cc2O783O7a9l4fdb&Item.di-n... 6/21 /2012
Fwd: RE: Sidewalk Issues and Wort- with CS Page 3 of 3
poles such that they don't block any portion of the sidewalk. It is also easier to maintain ADA slopes when crossing driveways
by maintaining this green strip without it the approaches into driveways tend to be abrupt and cause some vehicles to drag
upon entering There are a number of publications available citing these and other benefits for maintaining the green space or
at a minimum a separation of some kind between vehicular traffic and pedestrians. The 8 ft wide with paver inlay
accomplishes the some effect of separating traffic but adds an aesthetic element — examples of this brick inlay can be seen on
the Brvan/Beck Street project.
Can you and Paul let me know how the City of Bryan staff would feel on these 5 points?
thanks
Veronica
Veronica J. 8 Morgan, P. E. , CFM
Managing Partner
Mitchell & Morgan, LLP
511 University Dr. K, Ste. 204
College Station, TX 77840
(979) 260-6963 (office)
(979) 260-3564 (fax)
http://portal.cstx.gov/gw/webacc?User.context=84984ee4b54bf837c979798cc2078307a914fdb&Item.din... 6/21 /2012