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>, Jeremiah Bartlett <JBartlett@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeff Tarling 	<JST@portlandmaine.gov>, Michael Farmer <Mfarmer@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	11/7/2013 12:47 PM
Subject: 	133 York Street

Jean ‑ The following are my final comments and represent a status update of my August 23, 2013 comments.

*        Access and egress movements into the garages appear difficult given the narrow pavement area.  The applicant shall provide turning template graphics for a standard passenger car illustrating the ability of vehicles to adequately circulate on‑site.

Status: The applicant has provided the requested turning template graphics.  Given site constraints, I also requested that the applicant provide a simulated site layout in a parking area so that I could determine if vehicles could access/egress the parking garages.  Based upon the field study, some garages will require multiple maneuvers (k‑turns) to enter and exit the garages.  The site is very constrained and the ease in which vehicles can make their intended maneuver will be a function of the design vehicle. My field simulation was based upon a Subaru station wagon and this represents a mid‑size vehicle.  Large Single‑Unit Vehicles (SUV) will have greater difficulty.  With all that said, I do support a waiver from our technical standards for parking lot aisle width dimensions.  The waiver is suggested given the unlikelihood that vehicles will back down the driveway into York Street. There is a significant distance between the garages and York Street, and thus feel that all maneuvers will occur on‑site.  I would note that the bicycle rack should be relocated so that it does not impede circulation.  Additionally, it will be very important that snow removal/maintenance is effective so that snow does not further constrain the site.

*        Pedestrian movements between the proposed building and York Street should be considered.  I would note that I am flexible in the width of the driveway given the size of the development and accordingly a reduction would be acceptable.  The City's Technical Standards permit a driveway width of between 10 and 20 feet (it is preferred that the width allow for two vehicles to pass each other particularly at York Street ‑ so I would suggest 16 feet is the minimum width).

Status: I find the applicant's plan for delineating the pedestrian space to be acceptable.

New Comments

*        There was a public comment regarding site plan standards for delivery vehicles.  The City standard notes the following: Sec 14‑526 Site plan Standards (a) Transportation. 2.b. Loading and Servicing All developments served by delivery or other service vehicles shall provide a clear route and travel way geometric design that permits safe turning and backing for the maximum vehicle length that would service the development and does not impede site access, vehicle circulation, pedestrian movements or parking. The City has historically interpreted this standard as being applicable for large developments that have specific site truck features such as loading docks. This standard is not applicable in the core urban area of Portland and where little or no on‑site vehicles circulation is provided (unless it is a large development).  Accordingly, this standard does not apply to the proposed project.

*        A construction management plan for activities in York Street shall be provided, for review and approval, prior to the issuance of any City permits.  I would note that given the high level of traffic on York Street, it is very likely that construction activity will not be allowed during peak traffic time periods.

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