From: 	Tom Errico <thomas.errico@tylin.com>
To:	Jean Fraser <JF@portlandmaine.gov>
CC:	David Margolis-Pineo <DMP@portlandmaine.gov>, Katherine Earley <KAS@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeff Tarling <JST@portlandmaine.gov>, JeremiahBartlett <JBartlett@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	8/10/2012 8:59 AM
Subject: 	Jordan's Site -- Phase II

Jean ‑ The following presents a status report on my June 6, 2012 comments and this email represents my final comments for the project.

June 6, 2012 Comments

*        The traffic study indicates improved intersection operations are expected at the India Street/Middle Street 	intersection following implementation of an all‑way STOP controlled intersection.  My initial opinion is 	that I support this change.

Status: I support the change to an all‑way STOP location and the applicant should be responsible for all costs associated with implementation.

*        The traffic study concludes that a traffic signal is not warranted at the India Street/Fore Street intersection.  	I need to review the data in detail and assess intersection conditions as it related to safe pedestrians 	provisions.

Status: I find conditions to be acceptable at this location.  Bruce Hyman did identify drainage ponding on the northwest corner of the intersection that impacts the sidewalk ramp.  If would be beneficial if this problem could be corrected, although considering that this is a newly constructed area, I do not believe the applicant should be required to make this change.  If through construction of the building this corner is disturbed, consideration of correcting this problem is suggested.

*        I have reviewed the parking demand analysis and in general the methods seem acceptable.  I need to 	review this in more detail.  I would suggest that the applicant conduct a second parking occupancy survey 	to assess parking demand characteristics during the busy summer time period.

Status: The applicant has indicated that Phase II of the proposed project will require a parking supply of 192 parking spaces.  I find that this parking demand estimate reasonably predicts an average parking demand condition for the site.  The applicant conducted a very detailed parking analysis and the methods included factors that take into account, travel demand management strategies for the commercial uses, urban transportation choice considerations, shared parking adjustments that take into account the differing parking occupancy characteristics of hotel and office land uses, and building floor area adjustments accounting for bulk storage space.  I would note that this parking methodology is site specific and is unique to this project and I do not endorse use of these methods for City‑wide projects.  I am comfortable with the estimate given that the TDM Plan includes actions that require project monitoring that will seek to ensure the project meets targets for minimizing traffic generation to the site, and thus parking generation by the project, and this mechanism will be a beneficial tool to managing future parking conditions.

*        The applicant should provide details on plans that specify parking lot layout dimensions and note if any 	waivers are required in conjunction with not meeting City standards.

Status:  Several waivers have been requested by the applicant as noted below:

o   The applicant is proposing compact parking spaces that are slightly narrower and slightly longer than City standards.  Given that the parking spaces will be used by valet services, I support a waiver from the City's Technical standard.

o   The applicant is proposing a greater percentage of compact parking spaces as allowable by City standards (49% vs. 20%). Given that the parking spaces will be used by valet services, I support a waiver from the City's Technical standard.

o   The applicant is proposing tandem parking stalls that have a shorter length (17.5 feet vs. 18 feet) as compared to City standards.  Given that the parking spaces will be used by valet services, I support a waiver from the City's Technical standard.

o   The applicant is proposing parking stalls that have a shorter length (17 feet 9 inches vs. 18 feet) as compared to City standards. Given that the parking spaces will be used by valet services, I support a waiver from the City's Technical standard.

o   The applicant is proposing parking aisle widths that will be narrower (22 feet vs. 24 feet) then City standards require.  While parking maneuvers will be tight, I support a waiver given that the Fore Street parking level will involve experience valet parking personnel, and the Middle Street parking lot is relatively small and slow vehicle maneuvering activity should not result in widespread issues.

o   Some parking spaces on the Middle Street level exceed the width standard (9.5 feet vs. 9 feet) allowed and therefore a waiver is required.  Given that structural support columns are located in the areas where these wider parking spaces are proposed, I support a waiver from the City Technical standards.

o   Some parking spaces in the India Street level exceed the width standard (9 feet 2 inches vs. 9 feet) and a waiver is required.  I support a waiver from City standards.

o   Some parking spaces in the India Street level exceed the length standard (18 feet 8 inches vs. 18 feet) and a waiver is required. I support a waiver from City standards.

*        On‑street parking spaces should not be delineated with paint.

Status: A note has been added to the plan that indicates the spaces are not to be delineated with paint. I have no further comment.

*        The no‑parking areas near the Middle Street driveway should not be delineated with paint.

Status: The plans have been revised and I have no further comment.

*        The driveway width exceeds City standards and accordingly will need a waiver from the City's Technical 	standards.  I support a waiver, but would like the applicant to provide recommendations on how best to 	design the driveway for optimal pedestrian safety.

Status: I support a waiver from the City Technical standards given site conditions and limited use of the loading area.  With that said, I would suggest that distinct pavement treatment be used in the area of the sidewalk crossing in from of the loading area to provide some visual warning of a change of condition.  I would suggest that a condition be provided that requires the applicant to submit a proposed material treatment for review and comment.

*        The TDM Plan needs to craft specific details for implementation (e.g. designating carpool spaces).   I will 	make suggestions on specific requirements in the future.

Status: Working with Planning Staff, I have provided comments on the TDM Plan and accordingly I have no further comment.

*        Based upon the fact that the project will be utilizing the parking supply at the Gateway Parking Garage, the 	applicant should contribute money towards pedestrian improvements at the India Street/Middle Street 	intersection.

Status: Based upon prior contribution levels, the applicant shall contribute $5,000.00 towards the noted improvements.

New Comments

*        Detectible warning panels should not be provided at the Middle Street driveway.

*        The sidewalk ramp located on the southwest corner of the India Street/Middle Street intersection should be 	shift to the south to better align with the future crossing to the opposite side of the street.  It may make 	sense to flip the street tree with the sidewalk ramp.  I would further note that the configuration of the curb 	extension and ramps are subject to change during final design.

*        A portion of the sidewalk at the northwest corner of the India Street/Free Street intersection is located on 	private property. A pedestrian easement should be provided.

*        I have reviewed the applicant's construction management and traffic control plan. The plan assumes 	sidewalks will be closed along the entire perimeter of the property during construction.  At this time I do 	not support full sidewalk closure.  It is my recommendations that sidewalks remain open for as long and 	possible or temporary sidewalks constructed.  Accordingly, the applicant will need to submit details on 	schedule and phasing of construction in support of any sidewalk closure.  Any construction management 	plan will need to be reviewed and approved by DPS.  I would also not that for any temporary sidewalk 	detours, the facility must meet ADA requirements for accessibility. The applicant should also identify the 	location of temporary parking spaces to replace the lost hotel parking spaces during construction.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Best regards,

Thomas A. Errico, PE
Senior Associate
Traffic Engineering Director
[T.Y. Lin International]T.Y. Lin International
12 Northbrook Drive
Falmouth, ME 04105
207.347.4354 direct
207.400.0719 mobile
207.781.4753 fax
thomas.errico@tylin.com<mailto:thomas.errico@tylin.com>
Visit us online at www.tylin.com<http://www.tylin.com>

"One Vision, One Company"
Please consider the environment before printing.