ZBA Hearing - December 17, 2024

clear that this would not be compliant with applicable zoning because it does not provide

the requisite buffing buffering to the rear you cannot have parking or a turnaround driveway

located directly on a property line with a residential project site next door that's not

what i said you asked me if i reviewed it and i said no whether or not this complies it was not

my intention to provide for the applicant. I'm willing to do a lot for the applicant, but I'm

not going to prepare a plan for the applicant. I'm just trying to provide an illustration for

what I believe could better achieve the desired outcome of improved circulation and guest parking.

If, for example, that cul-de-sac area is too close to the property line,

one possibility would be to remove an additional unit among the row of four to bring the bulb

deeper into the site. So currently as drawn, where would the headlights of any turning vehicle be

aimed at their turning point? So as you enter the property, whether there's a turnaround bulb or not,

the headlights for entering vehicles will be shining toward the Roxborough Ridge

cul-de-sac bulb, which is closest to the site. And if a vehicle enters a cul-de-sac that may

be provided by the applicant, they would continue to shine in that direction. And then as the

vehicle would turn left to navigate through the bulb, the headlights would obviously sweep in

that direction, just as they would when vehicles would be turning in or out of the parking garages

for the proposed units on the east side of the site.

Except today, there is a 60-foot landscape buffer there.

So with the removal of that buffer and an insert of a cul-de-sac,

you're now shining headlights directly into at least three,

maybe four homes in Roxborough Reserve to the rear of the property.

Is that correct?

That sounds easily solved.

As I indicated, if that row of four units becomes three units

and the cul-de-sac is brought further to the north-northeast,

then you could continue to provide a buffer, which I believe is actually not 60 feet wide

as proposed by the applicant.

But I'm sure that the applicant's team could creatively come up with a way to screen

headlights.

But as drawn, this is not a zoning compliant and it impacts adjacent properties.

This is a depiction meant to show how cars can turn around without having to back up

onto rich cars and long wheelbase vehicles.

Understood.

And the last question I have is with respect to your testimony regarding the turning radius.

Are you aware that those sidewalks are zero curb, they're curbless sidewalks?

I don't know if that means that it's safe for vehicles to interact with pedestrians along sidewalks, but no, I was not aware of the design of the curbing of the sidewalk.

I don't know if that means that it's safe for vehicles to interact with people.

So that's intentional to allow this type of turning radius.

I would also state that the pedestrian use of these sidewalks is going to be less likely than those along Ridge Avenue.

Again, this is a smaller interior space, but we appreciate your testimony there.

Mr. Chairman, would we be able to call our traffic engineer to respond to some of these comments?

Is he here?

Yes.

Kevin Savage.

But before we do that, Council Lockman, do you have any follow-ups after the cross?

Yeah, just one.

Uh, Mr. Tavani, um, in your, uh, opinion, even if it's a curbless sidewalk, is it safe

for vehicles, large vehicles to make three point turns that mount the curbless sidewalks?

I believe not, especially in the case of a proposed development, which could be designed

to try to avoid those conflicts, even if they are not, uh, even if they're low pedestrian

intensity, it's certainly not good practice.

Thank you.

So, Ms. Miserable, before we call your person, I'm going to open it up to questions from the board for the traffic engineer.

And Mr. Tavani, I would like to start.

Your opening testimony, you talked about the original project being shoehorned in place and things like that, and this was a substantial reduction.

So you thought that was a good move?

I believe that.

Your testimony started off, you said this original project was shoehorned in place and things like that, and this was a substantial reduction.

So you agreed with that?

Well, yes.

I mean, I certainly, since I offered that statement, I certainly agree with it, and it is, I believe, fair to say 20 units to 12 is a substantial reduction, yes.

Thank you very much.

Other questions from the board?

This is the previous claim.

Ms. Mismer, please call your client. Could Kevin Savage be allowed to speak?

Mr. Savage? Yes. Do you hear me? Yes, I can. Could you please state your name

and spell for the court sonographer? Sure. Kevin Savage, K-E-V-I-N-S-A-V-A-G-E.

Do you swear or affirm, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but

the truth. I do. Please proceed, counsel. Mr. Savage, would you briefly remind the board of

your experience in Philadelphia, particularly as a traffic engineer? Sure. I've worked on,

you know, at this point, dozens of residential applications throughout the city. My office is

located in the city and worked on a number of larger developments throughout the city over

the previous few years as well. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to briefly have you speak to your

experience visiting the site and the dimensions at Ridge Avenue, particularly of the parking lane

that are directly adjacent to the drive of the development? Yes, I was able to visit the site

yesterday, actually, and measured the width of the shoulder along the site frontage and confirmed

that it is eight feet in width. Great. And are there any no parking signs in that location?

I believe not directly in front of the site. There is a no parking sign, I believe, towards the

the north towards the roxbury reserve uh driveway but there's there's nothing along the site

frontage great um what's the can let me talk a little bit about applicable parking standards

particularly in philadelphia what's the governing standard for requisite parking

uh it's the philadelphia zoning code for this development it would be one space per per unit

and what's the um the standard in this district is one space per unit what's being provided today

Okay. Two spaces per unit are being proposed.

So in your expert opinion, does the project propose sufficient parking?

Yes.

Can you explain the reference that Mr. Devani is making to the ITE for the board so they understand where that 60 number is coming from?

Sure. So the Institute of Transportation Engineers publishes a parking generation manual, which Mr. Tavani indicated is continually updated with empirical research data that's obtained from developments throughout the country.

For this land use in particular, land use code 215, single family attached housing, which I would agree is the closest applicable land use code that the parking generation manual has to this development.

It provides data both based on bedrooms and based on dwelling units.

For the dwelling units category, it recommends an average peak parking demand of 1.4 spaces per unit, which is, you know, met with the parking supply provided at this development.

For the dwelling units category, it recommends an average peak parking demand.

And just so I'm clear, I thought I misheard you. Did you say that that standard is applicable to attached homes or detached homes?

That is attached homes, but in my opinion, it is the closest land use to this development that the IT Parking Generation Manual publishes.

Right. And we're proposing the detached and that one to four is met with our two to one, correct?

Correct.

In your experience, is the ITE used as a standard for parking ratios in Philadelphia?

Not in the city of Philadelphia, typically, no.

Okay. And then I just wanted to ask one question regarding the circulation plan that was prepared.

Can you talk us through that a little bit and what types of vehicles that may include

and how you envision them entering and accessing the site?

Sure. So as was mentioned, the vehicle circulation plan was prepared utilizing a panel van,

which is approximately 20 feet in length. In my opinion, this is pretty similar to an Amazon-type

delivery van. They often may be a couple of feet longer, but as shown in that circulation plan,

And the van could utilize a three-point K-turn to perform a U-turn maneuver inside the development and exit back onto Ridge Avenue.

It's my opinion that, you know, an additional couple feet of length for an Amazon van, you know, would still be able to be accommodated via a U-turn on site.

Right. So in your opinion, a development like this is not going to have multiple delivery type vehicles or other vehicles that are going to be backing on to Ridge Avenue on a regular basis. Is that correct?

Correct.

That would be a rare instance that that would happen.

Correct. And I think especially for these units, they are meant to be owned. So at move-in, you'll likely have moving vans that may need to back into the site. But once those units are owned, the turnover should be relatively low, which results in that being a pretty infrequent occurrence.

And even though it's infrequent, are you aware of other locations on Ridge Avenue where vehicles are backing onto Ridge Avenue?

Yes. Per a quick review of the surrounding area, it looks like there's about a dozen or so driveways in the nearby area that back onto Ridge Avenue.

Now, were this lot configured differently and horizontally located along Ridge Avenue, theoretically, based on its size, it could be subdivided into 12 single family lots, each with its own drive to meet requisite parking. Is that correct?

yes i i've not reviewed relative to you know lot frontage or subdivision criteria but yes if 12

single family homes were proposed um 12 driveways could be proposed along ridge avenue as well

so in your opinion a single central drive is that a better alternative than 12 individual drives

entering and accessing ridge avenue in this location yes that would create less conflict

points along ridge avenue any other testimony you'd like to add based on listening to mr

tavani's report and overview this morning uh no not at this time great thank you miss lagman um

yes um uh hello mr savage would you be so kind as to share your screen so we can see the um

the vehicle circulation plan that you prepared yesterday sure i believe i may need to be

promoted to a panelist? Please, promote Mr. Chavez. Or I can share on my end for him,

if that's easier, either way. Why don't we let Ms. Mismer show hers,

and he'll testify to that. Is that okay, counsel? All right, sure.

are you seeing that it's coming up right now great

okay mr savage do you see that yes i i do see that okay so so can you just explain what this

circulation plan purports to illustrate? Sure. It shows a panel van traveling south along Ridge

Avenue, making a right turn into the site driveway, then proceeds towards the rear of

the development, makes a three-point U-turn, and then proceeds back towards Ridge Avenue,

and again makes a right turn onto Ridge Avenue southbound. Right. And when it makes the three-point

um u-turn how much how far does it intrude onto the the sidewalk space

How far does it intrude onto the sidewalk space?

I have not taken an exact measurement, but the total width of the curve and sidewalk is about six and a half feet on each side.

It looks like it encroaches four to five feet.

And that's for a panel van measuring 19.7 feet, correct?

Correct.

And there are delivery vehicles and just vehicles in general that are larger than that.

That is correct.

And something like a moving van would be larger?

It could depend.

There are U-Haul vans and trucks that are of similar size.

There are some that are smaller, some that are larger.

Yeah.

What about like a truck delivering appliances or furniture?

Do they tend to be larger?

I would expect those to be larger vehicles, yes.

And what about fire trucks?

Those are typically larger as well.

Okay.

Would any of those larger vehicles be able to execute the three-point turn you're showing here, which mounts two sidewalks by at least four feet?

I do not believe a larger, you know, fire truck would be able to make it.

I think, you know, a delivery vehicle that's a couple feet longer could still make this turn.

But I don't believe a fire truck could make a K-turn on site, no.

What about a UPS truck, a FedEx truck, or a trash truck?

It would ultimately depend on their sizes.

I believe some UPS and FedEx trucks are, especially in the city, a few feet longer than this, so they may be able to make that K-turn on site.

Trash trucks are typically larger, so they may not be able to make this K-turn.

In which case, they would have to back out and reverse onto Ridge Pike.

I would expect, just based on my experience in the city, that they may actually back into the driveway so that they could pull out directly onto Ridge Avenue without backing onto Ridge Avenue.

But then just reversing at the beginning rather than at the end.

That is correct.

Okay. And in Europe, oh, if a larger vehicle attempts to make this three-point turn, then of course it would encroach more than four feet onto the sidewalk, correct?

That is correct.

Yeah. And who do we anticipate might be using the sidewalks? Pedestrians? Children?

Yes.

People walking pets?

I would expect the owners of this development to potentially be utilizing the sidewalks.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're dealing right now with what may be possible, correct?

This has not been constructed yet.

In your opinion, is it possible to design better circulation than this?

In an ideal world, I would say yes, but I think the development as planned provides for adequate circulation on site.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Ms. Murray, do you have any follow-ups?

I do.

Mr. Savage, can you please describe for the board how these developments are typically accessed in the case of an emergency?

Sure.

Or a firetruck would typically either stay on Ridge Avenue or pull directly into the site.

And then when leaving the site, the firetruck, you know, firetruck specifically would likely, you know, through the use of firefighters, stop traffic along Ridge Avenue in order to back out.

And in a typical plan unit development, because these houses don't have street frontage, the city of Philadelphia is not collecting their trash, correct?

Correct.

So the neighborhood would hire a private trash collector, which typically uses a smaller trash vehicle. Is that correct?

Correct.

So you don't anticipate a garbage truck backing onto Ridge Avenue to service this development?

Correct. I think that could be coordinated with the local garbage service provider as needed.

Great. Thank you.

Could I ask one?

You can.

Yeah, Mr. Savage, where are the residents going to put out their trash cans for trash removal on the sidewalk?

I don't know that our traffic engineer is the right person to answer that question.

That's not a traffic-related question.

He's answering a lot of questions about trash trucks, so perhaps he can tell us where the trash cans will be located.

He can't speak to the operation of the developer.

Mr. Savage, do you think you have the ability to answer that question?

I am not familiar with the operations of where the trash would be located on site, nor do I believe that a garbage hauler has been contracted at this point, to my knowledge.

I am not familiar with the operations of where the trash would be located on site, nor do

Let's assume that residents place their trash on the sidewalk once a week or so for removal.

If there are trash cans placed on the sidewalk, is it going to interfere with the ability of vans to make this three-point turn because they have to mount the sidewalk?