No. When I say it's not consistent with the plan that was submitted to the Planning Commission, it doesn't agree with the ordinance. In the ordinance it says it begins 77 feet down from Fitzwater. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Going south.
Going south, from the house line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But what is depth of that lane?
That depth, that's consistent on the plan. It's the nine foot six inches. There's no -- they're consistent on both plans and the 82 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the ordinance. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So your concern has to do with the length of the layby?
No. That's where they're inconsistent. The inconsistency is the 77 foot one inch, it says, from the house line, but it's actually from -- it's from the curb line at Fitzwater Street. The ordinance says from the curb line of Fitzwater. It's actually from the house line of Fitzwater Street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm a little confused. The house line, are you talking about what the width of the sidewalk we would be left with after the layby?
In the ordinance 20 it's saying beginning from the house line, and it's actually -- it's saying -- the layby begins so many feet down from the curb line down from Fitzwater, but the plan is dimensioning it from the house line. So there's an inconsistency 83 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. there. I can show you on the plan if you want me to show you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. I'd like to see that, and maybe we can bring up -- Mr. Chapman, you have something, some visuals, for myself and the Committee?
What Frank is talking about there is actually the location of the layby lane, not the dimensions of it.
It's 77 feet one inch from the house line. The ordinance 15 is saying from the curb line. That's one of the inconsistencies I'm mentioning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that changes your position on support?
No, it does not. That's just an inconsistency. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. I want to get to the heart of what the width and the depth are as it relates to -- put it on the side, if you can. This way we won't block the witnesses. 84 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. So at the bottom right there, the inconsistency that Mr. Morelli is talking about is, in the plan it's 70-something inches from that -- if you could point that out, Mr. Chapman.
Yes. For the record, Thomas Chapman, Blank Rome, representing the interested party here. What Mr. Morelli I believe is saying -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth, Frank -- is that the bill 13 describes the beginning of the layby lane as being measured from the curb line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Of Fitzwater Street.
Yes. When it really should have said from the house line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The house line. But that's not a deal breaker. We can amend that. Is that correct?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So the 85 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Streets Department will be fine if we make that correction?
And the description is -- the description is what's different. The location of this layby is exactly where it was presented to the Planning Commission. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is the objection again on the proposed nine foot six inch depth of the layby; that is, taking it from the curb line into the property line? They're proposing nine feet six inches, which, in your opinion, your expertise, would create two parking lanes in the layby
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is acceptable to the Streets Department?
Normally we do not encourage layby lanes when there is an existing parking lane where the property 86 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. owner could apply to the Parking Authority for a loading zone for pick-ups, drop-offs. And when you have the parking lane there, they're adding nine foot six inches to the depth there. So you have nine foot six inches of depth, then you have another eight foot, which was the parking lane. So now the inside of that curb now is almost feet 11 from the travel lane. The cars that are 12 in the layby lane will not be able to see 13 the oncoming traffic in the rear-view 14 mirror. The oncoming traffic will not be 15 able to see the entire layby lane as 16 they're driving down. And so we see 17 that, one, for the sight distance problem 18 and also if you have two rows of cars parked in there -- there's enough room 20 for that -- you're stacking up cars, and we have a real problem with layby lanes and cars being stacked in layby lanes, because it becomes very dangerous to pedestrians then. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I 87 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. understand that. I do understand and appreciate your concern. However -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you're suggesting that layby lanes when you have a parking lane is not something that you support. That's something that you would rather not see. Is that accurate?
Yes. We would prefer not to see that. There are cases where they -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you would say put a loading zone. So eliminate the layby and just create a loading zone?
We prefer them to -- yeah. We prefer for people to go to a loading zone first and then -- before they start taking up the sidewalk. We do have a problem with Philadelphia sidewalks not being walkable, and the layby lanes take space away from the sidewalk, which means there's less room for the pedestrians. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I 88 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. understand that. I'm getting to that question. Before I get to how much sidewalk would be left under the developer's proposal, if you create a loading zone, it means the curb line is the same all the way from Catharine to Fitzwater.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My concern -- and I'm not an expert in this -- is that people then begin to discharge into a traffic lane. So for me -- and, again, I'm not an expert -- a layby makes more sense. Maybe not to the extent that's being asked for here, but a layby, which the purpose is to get people away from discharging into the traffic lane.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if that scenario were to play out, where we would agree on a layby, what would be the maximum depth of the layby that you would be supportive of? And if you're not 89 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. supportive, say that as well. If we came to an agreement on a layby.
We were looking at a four foot deep layby, is something that the Streets Department could support. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that similar to the laybys that are on Market Street, as an example, in front of 1234 Market or Loews? Is that similar to that?
Actually, the last three layby lanes that came through our office that were approved -- actually, one of them is the 1400 block of Arch Street, where the parking lane is rather narrow, and using that as a drop-off would be unsafe for a hotel there. We approved a three foot deep layby lane. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's for the bill we just heard on the 1400 block?
Yes. Yes, it is. We had another one -- we had two others, similar circumstances. One 90 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. of them was for a senior center, which needed appropriate space to drop off, for Paratransit to drop off, in which case we got the three foot there to allow that extra space to be able to open up the door. So there have been instances where we've approved it once we agreed that a layby lane was appropriate in those cases. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Go back to a question Councilman Greenlee is going to ask, but I had it on my list as well. If the proposed layby -- the layby area that is proposed by the developer, were it to become a reality, what would be left of the sidewalk in that portion of the layby? How much space would be left from that curb line of the layby to the property line?
It's currently a 22 foot wide footway on Broad Street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we're backing nine, ten feet out. So you wind up with a 12 foot sidewalk? 91 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Yeah. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is a typical sidewalk on Broad Street?
Twenty-two feet. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's pretty consistent all the way down?
So basically you're cutting the sidewalk in half. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Even on the west side?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Symphony House and all, that's feet? 17
Twenty-two. 18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It doesn't 19 look it. Maybe the building kind of 20 distorts it. But when you get further 21 south of Washington Avenue, it probably 22 changes, because you have row house steps and stuff coming out, right? I mean, if you took it from the step, from a person's step, on the 1300 block or 1200 92 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. block of South Broad --
Steps may extend into the right-of-way. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They extend into that foot. 7
There's a lot of 8 cases where stairs extend into the 9 right-of-way, planters, signs, and that 10 reduces what's left of the usable space. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. 12 1300 block South Broad east side, Jimmy 13 Tayoun's neighborhood, they had those 14 extended garden areas, whatever. What's 15 the width of that sidewalk; do you know? 16 But it's less than 22 feet. 17
I can check on 18 that for you. 19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. All 20 right. 21 I'm sorry. Councilman Green. 22
I guess my question is, did you raise the objection with respect to the layby at the Planning Commission level? 93 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
It went to the Planning Commission. I wasn't aware of this project. It didn't come through the Streets Department originally.
So the Planning Commission didn't hear this objection and then say, no, we want -- they've never heard your objection to this.
They usually do. This was something that it didn't come our way, but most projects do.
They don't ask you your opinion about this before they approve plans?
Do you know 94 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. what happened?
Okay. That's all. I just -- so you would oppose it at the Planning Commission level and at this level?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe we can hear from Mr. Chapman and Mr. Roller and whoever else on the developer side.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Tom Chapman. I'm with Blank Rome. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Before you begin, Mr. Chapman, just for purposes of -- so if my colleagues aren't familiar, this is on the east side of Broad between Fitzwater and Catharine. It's apparently a vacant lot. At one time it was a hospital, Broad Street Hospital, and St. Theresa's Church was at 95 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Catharine, and where this dark part here was used to be the Broad Street Hospital. They use it pretty much for parking when Cirque du Soleil is in town. Right now it's just a pebble, gravel, empty, vacant lot on Broad Street. Just so you get some familiarity with the site. Thanks. Here's a photo. It tells you exactly what it is.
Mr. Chairman, excuse me for recycling some photographs that we used for the Zoning Board hearing, but they do indicate the current condition of the property. It gives you a view of the property from across Broad Street from Fitzwater and Catharine Street and a view from the property looking north and south on Broad Street. I don't know if I stated this or not, but we represent the interested party here, Carl Dranoff Properties and 777 South Broad Street Associates. With me here today from JK Roller and Associates is Jerry Roller, principal of 96 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the firm and architect for the proposal, as well as Rich Stewart. As was previously stated, this bill authorizes the placement of a layby lane for the development of the property that's known as 777 South Broad Street. The site contains approximately 85,400 square feet and is zoned C-3 Commercial, C-2 Commercial and partly R-10A Residential. In January of this year, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a modification of a previously approved development plan for this property. Back in November, the Zoning Board had granted variances to allow for a mixed-use development at this site that included residential and retail commercial at the ground floor. The previous approval allowed for the development with 146 apartments, including 20 one-bedroom units and 126 two-bedroom units, about 19,000 square feet of retail commercial use on the ground floor and 155 parking 97 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. spaces. The change approved by the Zoning Board was to reduce the height of the building from six stories to five and to allow for accessory parking to be contained with the interior courtyard of the site. Originally the site had been proposed for below-grade parking. There was no change in the unit count. We have had the support of the community association, the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition and we have a Memorandum of Understanding with them that's dated August 3, 2007, and we also had your support, Councilman DiCicco, when this has gone before the Zoning Board. The revised plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. That was at its meeting of October 16, 2007. We had been requested by the Commission to revise the plan so that the curb cut on Broad Street would be limited to ingress only. Originally 98 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. in the previous iterations of this plan, that curb cut had been for ingress and egress and there was no layby lane as part of this proposal. We agreed to do that, and that's basically what led to our request for the layby. The layby allows us to load and unload passengers out of Broad Street lanes of traffic. It provides a better situation, especially for children and the elderly, as well as in instances where there's a resident that has packages to contend with. By limiting the curb cut to ingress only, it limits our ability to pick up passengers when leaving the building, since vehicles can't exit out onto Broad Street. The layby provides a safe and reliable place to pick up and drop off passengers at the main entrance to the building. We have met with representatives of the Streets Department, as well as representatives of 99 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the staff of the Planning Commission in an effort to address the concerns of the Streets Department, but we were not able to agree on a compromised solution. Streets has expressed concerns regarding the establishment of the layby in general, as well as with its length and depth. The length is approximately 112 feet, but a good portion of that length is due to the fact that the layby also incorporates the driveway into the site. In other words, if this were simply a layby lane, we wouldn't need it to be as long as it is. As was stated earlier, the sidewalk is feet wide at this location 18 and the proposed building is set back as 19 much as six feet five inches from the 20 property line along portions of the Broad 21 Street frontage.
Even at a width of nine 22 and a half feet, there would still be 12 and a half feet of public sidewalk left for pedestrian traffic. And just as a point of reference, I believe that both 100 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Chestnut Street and Walnut Street for the better part are about feet wide. 4 We believe that the creation of 5 the layby does not significantly impact 6 on the walkable and usable area of the 7 sidewalk. 8 We thank you for scheduling 9 this hearing, and we would be happy to 10 answer any of your questions. And as I 11 stated, we do have Jerry Roller here, the 12 architect for the project. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. All the chairs are rolling up, as you noticed. We don't have copies of your testimony.
I'm sorry. I actually do have copies. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you can, because Councilman Greenlee missed something when you said that the plan was submitted with the layby or something like that.
Yes. When this 101 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. proposal was considered back in October by the Planning Commission, the layby lane was indicated on the plans, was shown on the plans at that time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I see it on the last page in the second paragraph. "We had been requested by the Commission to revise the plans so that the curb cut on Broad Street would be limited to ingress only. We agreed to do that." Mr. Roller, do you have anything to add to that or do you want to wait for some questions?
I'd be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess the big question for me is, why is it -- and I think you touched on this a little bit, Mr. Chapman. Why is it necessary that the layby be nine feet six inches, whatever, wide as opposed to the three foot, four foot, which the Streets Department would be somewhat acceptable of? 102 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Well, at three feet or four feet, we believe that we can't get an entire -- the entire width of a car out of the lane of traffic. We're trying to establish an area where you can fully put a car. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That goes to my comments earlier, that people discharging out into a lane of traffic. So four foot -- what's the typical width of a car? Four foot maybe?
Yeah. Cars typically -- a parking space is eight foot, nine feet. So a car is typically six foot wide. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm talking about the width.
Six foot wide. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So even with four foot, you'd be discharging into a travel lane. That's why you're looking for the nine foot. Is that --
Yeah. The other purpose of bringing the layby in is to 103 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. address the discharge and the distance between the car and the cover over the canopy, because the sidewalk on Broad Street is so extremely wide, if you keep somebody out at the curb, you've got a 7 foot distance to go before you get under 8 cover and that's a problem. When the 9 Planning Commission asked that we not 10 bring people out onto Broad Street from 11 the cover that we have, the only other 12 choice is for people to exit the parking 13 onto Catharine Street, then make the turn 14 and come up Broad Street, and that's when 15 we introduced the layby at the request of 16 the Planning Commission so that we could 17 bring people under cover for pick-up and 18 discharge. 19
If I could just 20 add, both Fitzwater Street and Catharine 21 Street are westbound at this location. 22 So there's really only one way for you to get out of the property and around to pick someone up, and that's exiting out onto Catharine and you would make a right 104 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. onto Broad and then around to the front of the building. So if that lane, what is currently a parking lane in front of the building, is all parked up, then you're kind of out in a lane of traffic picking someone up. And, of course, that's not going to be every time that you leave the property, but on the other hand, there are going to be folks with infants and elderly people that are living there, and you kind of want to get that out of the lane of traffic. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Now, there will be parallel parking along the curb of the entire project but for the layby? There currently is now.
Yeah. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't continue. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess I'm just trying to -- maybe this isn't the right answer or the right solution. Hypothetically, if on-street parking were eliminated, then maybe the layby wouldn't 105 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. have to be as deep. No, it still would have to be, because that becomes another lane. All right. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quickly, because I think my question was answered, but I'm still totally not clear on this, because I can picture the area. But, Mr. Chapman, I'm reading your testimony now. So it was the Planning Commission that originally requested or suggested that you apply for this; am I correct?
I'm using your words. "We had been requested by the Commission to revise the plan so the curb cut on Broad Street would be limited to ingress only."
If I may, Councilman, the Planning Commission did 106 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. not ask us to create a layby. Let me be perfectly clear about that. They did ask us to limit the driveway to ingress only, and that led to our coming up with this request.
That's okay. I probably just missed it. That's okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Jones and then Councilman Green.
Just a point of information. Did you say in your testimony that originally this project was to be six stories and it was reduced to five?
And you said it did not impact the number of units? 107 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
How was that accomplished? Did you widen the footprint of the building?
It reduced parking slightly. We still have more than one-for-one parking.
What's the width of a Paratransit vehicle, multi-passenger, average? Anybody know?
Or greater? I raise that point because your original request was how wide?
The length of it is approximately three cars plus the driveway.
The point that I tried to make, Councilman, part of the length of the lane is dictated by the fact that it includes the driveway. If this were strictly a layby lane, it would probably be at least one-third less in length than what we see right now.
I'm just -- I know we're increasing our activity south of Broad. I'm aware that we're marketing our stadiums. At certain points in the season Broad Street traffic is going to be horrendous, and I would be 109 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. less than responsible if we didn't try to kind of minimize some of the impact by that layby. What it gives you is a safe haven for people and you don't obstruct traffic. The question I think most of us have is, does it have to be that wide, in your opinion?
In our opinion, it has to be that wide in order to get people close enough to the cover of the canopy of the building so that they can exit and get under cover appropriately. This was a trade-off with the Planning Commission. When they said we can't pull under the building, the request was, well, then if you don't pull into the building, could we use a layby to accomplish the same thing, and that's what the Planning Commission accepted as their compromise on traffic on Broad Street.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman 110 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Green.
Thank you. I'm glad you clarified your testimony, because I was going to call you on it, when you said at the request of the Planning Commission, we created a layby, and that was misleading in the most generous use of that term. I assume it was a mistake. The other thing that is very troubling to me is that you testified that you have had discussions with the Planning Commission and the Streets Department since the last Planning Commission meeting or prior to coming here today. You were unable to resolve them, and we didn't find out about that until we sat down for this hearing. In other words, the people on this Committee did not know that there was a disagreement on this, and I don't know how we're expected to be the judge of what the right thing is to do. None of us are Streets engineers and none of us 111 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. are members of the Planning Commission. So I don't understand how we're coming in here with this disagreement between the developer, Streets and Planning Commission, which it sounds to me didn't have the advice of Streets, and I don't know what you expect us to do, except vote against it or hold it until you can work it out with the Planning Commission and Streets. And, finally, although I'm not a Streets engineer, it's clear to me the reason they want three feet or four feet is specifically so that the car will abut the parking lane and you don't create a second place for cars to stack up, which creates a larger safety concern, in their view, than the need to pull cars all the way in, because obviously everybody can exit the vehicle on the curb side. I also note that your testimony emphasized that the priority here was to get people under a canopy; in other words, to keep them dry if it's raining 112 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. or to keep them out of the snow versus the public safety concerns raised by the Streets Department, and I find on balance the public safety raised by the Streets Department to be far more important than whether or not someone who lives in a half a million dollar apartment gets wet. Would you characterize that as accurate?
Councilman, I know that I testified that safety is one of the prime concerns. I believe Mr. Roller testified about the placement of the canopy on the property, but if you look at the top of my testimony --
Yes, sir. Yes, Councilman. You know, it is clearly, in my opinion, my belief and in my testimony, that a good part of the reason for having this is a safety concern.
And the Streets Department, who worked for the City and the citizens of Philadelphia, 113 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. are saying despite what your training as an attorney, they may have a little bit more information on this. They're saying it's a safety issue to have it go to nine six. So how do you react to -- what does your safety expert say? That's what they do.
That's what they do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'd like to bring up the Streets Department folks again, please. And stay there, Mr. Chapman and Mr. Roller. Just pull an extra chair up. For the record, Mr. Chapman, are you an attorney?
Yes, I am. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I didn't realize that. I knew you worked for the planning -- I never knew you were an attorney. I apologize. I didn't realize he was an attorney. 114 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Either one of you testified about the 1400 block of Arch Street and the layby that has been approved or recommended for the 1400 block of Arch Street as being three feet deep?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would not people who are discharging from the driver's side, won't they be discharging into the street, into a lane of traffic?
No. They'll be into the parking lane, because you're adding three foot to the width of the parking lane. So on Broad Street when you add nine and a half feet to the eight foot parking lane that's already there, the curb is now almost 18 feet from the travel lane. That was our objection. One other point about the driveway, the ingress and egress of the driveway, the Streets Department does not have an objection to their driveway being two way. We're not sure why the Planning Commission required it to be one way. 115 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are either one of you going to speak to that issue? Or if you don't, you don't. I'm just curious, because he's making a statement that the Planning Commission made that a requirement. Or was that part of the design feature? Does that make more sense?
That was a request, a recommendation, of the Planning Commission. I'm well aware of Mr. Gatti, the Streets Department's objection to that. We've discussed -- we've met with Mr. Gatti and other folks from the Streets Department, and I think that I've made it clear at least to your office, as well as to folks in the Administration that we had attempted to -- we had at least discussed the matter. We weren't able to resolve our differences here, but we did meet. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I want to go back to this one point again, because maybe I'm not absolutely clear on it. 116 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Arch Street will have a three foot deep layby, so that people who are discharging from the driver's side of their vehicle will be discharging into the parking lane.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Hypothetically, someone comes to the extreme westerly end of that curb line where it meets the layby. They're going to back in or pull in and then back out. Aren't they somehow competing with each other discharging from the car? As the car is going to be parking, he's going to pull in. Because you are, in effect, even though it's a parking lane, you have to drive either forward or in reverse to get into that parking spot. Now, I'm not trying to split hairs here, but it's still somewhat of a lane in which traffic will be moving in until the car is parked and it's stationary. But getting in and out of it requires some activity in the parking 117 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. lane, which would be competing with the layby. Does that make sense what I'm saying to you? Do you understand what I'm suggesting here?
If someone is pulling into the layby lane at the same time as someone getting out of their car, there could be a conflict, and that goes -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me stop you a minute. Someone who is parking in the parking lane where it meets up with the layby.
No, because there's a "no parking" zone at the beginning of the layby. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How far back?
To allow for site distance. I believe it's like 20 feet usually. It depends on the case. Sometimes it's greater, but our standard when we put like what they call the X in 118 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the box, we put them at intersections. We put them at the beginning and the end of the layby lanes to make sure that you have proper sight distance pulling in and pulling out. And we would have the same thing in any case for a layby lane where you would have that so you wouldn't be that close. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right up to the layby.
Point of information, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Thank you. That is certainly a safer situation, the one Councilman DiCicco just described, than a normal parking lane where people -- you're going out into traffic as opposed to having the extra five or six feet that you have as a result of the layby; is that correct?
Right. Just as an 119 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. example, right out on Arch Street behind our building, which everyone is kind of familiar with, if you park there, you open up your door, you're taking your life into your hands, because you're opening your door right into the driving lane, because in that particular case, the parking lane is rather narrow. Most other cases the parking lane is a bit wider where you have a little bit of room, but there's always some conflict on a normal parking lane.
Have you sat with the Planning Commission? Where are they on your objections right now?
Okay. So maybe you guys should talk to the Planning Commission.
That's one of the things we've been trying to do, is to set up a meeting to find out what's --
They've already 120 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. approved this plan, so although they may sympathize with our objections, they've already approved the plan.
But will they talk to you? Are you telling me the Planning Commission won't talk to you about your objections and whether or not they would be happy with your recommendation for changing?
Our Chief Engineer had sent a memo to the Planning Commission, and I'm not sure what the response was. The previous Planning Commission had approved this.
The current Planning Commission really didn't have anything -- wasn't part of the negotiation. So the people that we need to talk to aren't around anymore, and I 121 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. think that's where part of the problems come in. If we were involved earlier on, which is the normal case, one of the things that we could have done was discussed the idea of the entrance being one way versus two way, which might have helped the developer's plans a bit. Unfortunately, we were not part of those discussions, and we're not sure why the Planning Commission had requested that, because both our Transportation Office and our Traffic Engineering Office, Charlie Denny, my counterpart, agreed that that driveway could have been made two way. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wasn't there some concern -- point of order. Wasn't there some concern from the community? Did that change the --
No. 22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- ingress/egress on Catharine or Fitzwater at one time?
No. 122 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wasn't that part of that discussion?
No. That was strictly a request from Planning Commission and its staff. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I haven't been involved in this for a long time. I have several projects. I wasn't sure if that was an issue. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know we can analyze this to the death, but to the gentleman from the Streets Department, just so I'm clear, the two main problems, one is the stacking issue, right, and the other is what you are saying are the sight lines, trying to pull out? Is that basically what we get down to here?
On the sight lines and you pointed out on Arch Street you have -- and I didn't know if you had these by laybys -- like sort of 123 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the boxes to give a little clearance. Is that -- you do have that, or you could put it in? Let me put it that way.
That will be put in when that layby lane goes in. That's going to be later on, much later on in the project. It's been through the review. I'm not sure if the final approval is done, but we're not objecting to it. And when it does get built, we would have the line striping at the beginning and the end of the layby lane to allow better sight distance.
Okay. So that would improve at least what we're talking about here, wouldn't it, your concern of pulling out and sight lines and all? I mean, if the cars aren't right up to there, would it be -- maybe it would not be ideal, but we have a lot of non-ideal things in the City. Wouldn't that improve things by having those boxes in? Am I making sense?
They reduce the 124 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. risk somewhat, but it really does not improve anything. We're still --
Well, if it reduces the risk, doesn't it improve it? I'm not trying to pick your words apart.
If you have a street where there's no parking and we have a layby lane, that layby lane has to be at least seven feet deep, generally about eight to nine feet deep, if it's approved in some of those cases, because you have to have a parking lane. And there's cases where we bump the curb in to make the intersection safer. When you already have a parking lane, you already have that buffer between the traffic and the curb and then you extend that, now you're pulling -- now you're pulling everything further away from the traffic 125 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. lane. People aren't looking that far out of the traffic lane. They're looking at the line of parked cars as their -- when they concentrate. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information. Councilman Jones.
Other than in my garage, where is it safe to get out of a car?
Could I just finish on one thing? I'm sorry. On the stacking issue, because wouldn't that car parked there, the stacking car, that would be illegal parking; am I right? Because you're blocking in another vehicle. And if it is illegal parking, could there not be -- and you guys would know better than this -- but either a box or something, some sign that you could not park there? Because if it's illegal parking, there 126 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. must be something that can be done to try to avoid that or have cars avoid that. Am I making sense? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah.
The City has not been very successful in the enforcement of preventing double parking. As a matter of fact, the Marriott right outside here of City Hall --
-- has been a real problem where they're blocking SEPTA buses, and we get complaints all the time about that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I want to go back to one more thing, because I know we're beating this thing to death. The sight line, typically is it -- the setback for the on-street parking, is it generally 20 feet back 127 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. from where the layby begins?
Our standard, what they call, X in the box -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me interrupt you. What would be your recommendation here on this project? How many feet back? And, look, if you're off a couple feet, I'm not going to hold you. I'm just curious. Is it ten feet, 15 feet? 16
Normally we do 20 17 feet at the beginning and the end of a 18 layby lane. 19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 20 Hypothetically, if you move that sight line piece, that first parking space back another ten and opened up 30 feet, would that not improve your sight line?
It improves the sight line a bit, but you still -- the 128 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. person parked up in the curb of the layby lane still will not see traffic in their rear-view mirror. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thirty feet back?
Because your rear-view mirrors aren't looking out to the side. They're looking more behind you. We're looking at the sight lines. There's two sight lines, the sight line of the driver driving down Broad Street and there's also the sight line of the parked car out their rear-view mirror, which is a limited sight line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When you come out of a parking space on any City street, which is parallel parking, you're always looking to see if traffic is coming, and there is no space between where you're getting out of your car and the travel lane. I mean, that's typically the way we drive. We look in either side mirror or look back. And I'm 129 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. thinking that if you did 30 feet, it gives you an extra ten feet of open space clear sight line that may eliminate some of those concerns.
But if your cars are stacked up in there, you're not going to have that sight line, and that's what really makes it dangerous. You have two rows of cars where people -- you're not going to see someone getting into a car possibly and pull into that spot and hit them. We don't want -- well, whenever you have stacking, it's really unsafe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Look, and I know you're doing your job and I appreciate that, and you guys do it well, but I'm so familiar with South Philadelphia parking, St. Rita's -- every funeral home down there, they're double parked, stacking up. I mean, that doesn't mean it makes it right. It's reality as it relates to the environment that we live in. And we don't live in suburbia where we have wide swaths of 130 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. land where we can create all these -- we got to try to figure out how to make this work and promote development at the same time where we try to make it as safe as we possibly can. In a perfect scenario, you guys would be absolutely right on target, and I do appreciate your comments and your concerns, but in the reality of living in Philadelphia, in a congested area, we're never going to have it the way we'd like to have it, so we have to kind of bite the bullet sometimes and do the best we can.
And that's why we're willing to negotiate to a four foot layby lane, which basically gives you the safety that you need and we think is the safest solution. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, but we don't get the other stuff that the Planning Commission about the discharging onto the sidewalk with the canopy and everything else.
Councilman, one 131 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. other thing, this project never went in front of the Utility Board of Review. That's where all the utilities would be contacted if there was a conflict with any of the utility lines. So I did a quick look, and there was a conflict. I contacted the gas company, and there was an eight inch gas main. The gas company is very concerned about that this would be a conflict with the gas line under there.
Mr. Chairman, we're aware of that. That was also brought to our attention by the Streets Department, and we've contacted PGW about that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me ask you a question before I recognize Councilman Green. Does that issue, could it potentially change some of the stuff we're talking about here? Where I'm going is, I'm going to call the bill up. Whether it passes this Committee or not, I'm not sure yet, but assuming we vote it 132 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. out, I know you guys are likely to get a suspension, but can we get an answer maybe before we recess, assuming it gets a favorable recommendation from this Committee?
Sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because if it's going to change any of these issues that we've been talking about for the last hour, then everybody, including yourselves, we need to know that.
Mr. Chairman, if it involves the relocation of this line, we're prepared to take on that expense, if that's the case. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not concerned about expense. I'm just talking about functionality and do you have -- I know there's some subway grates along that street. Does that come into play if you had to move it either way? Yes? No?
No. 133 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Councilman Green.
I just want to confirm briefly the testimony of both sides so that we've got enough on a bunch of issues, but I want to make two things clear that I think are clear. Number one, it's the testimony of the professionals at the Streets Department that you would be willing to accept a four foot layby and that is the safest option, in your opinion?
Okay. Leaving aside the utility issue. And it is the testimony of the people representing the developer that the reason you don't want a four foot layby is because people will have to walk five feet in the rain?
Well, that's the only rationale for going -- that I've 134 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. heard from the architect from going from the four foot layby to the 9.6 foot layby. That's the testimony. Every time he's testified about it, it is so that people can get under the canopy and not get wet. So the only difference here between the two of you, it appears to me, is people getting wet or not getting wet. So why not go with the safer option and let them get a little wet and rely on the professionals who work for the City of Philadelphia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Roller, do you want to take a stab at that one?
I'll take a stab at it. We feel -- and we disagree professionally with the folks at the Streets Department, but we're --
No. I'm an 135 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. architect.
Okay. Thank you. I don't know how you can disagree professionally when you're not a street engineer.
Well, we do do a little bit of land planning as part of our responsibility, so I would beg to differ, and you can judge for whatever that's worth in regard to the safety. We feel that it is safer to pull those cars completely out of any other traffic lane, whether there are parked cars or are no 15 parked cars there, because it's not terribly busy. If you look at the pictures, there aren't any parked cars there now. It's hard to know what will be parked there. So we believe that to get the car completely out of any part of the street is a safer situation.
We also believe, by the way, that stacking is not an issue 136 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. at an apartment building unlike someplace like a hotel where you have a lot of people. There is no valet parking with this building, so that anybody who is going to drive there is driving their own car and unlikely to wait for somebody to pick it up.
In this location, we'll now have three cars stacked. You may not be familiar with the area. At any rate --
At any rate -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: He lives in Queen Village.
Okay. At any rate, I want to put my lot with the professionals that the City of Philadelphia hired, who is telling us the safest thing to do is have a four foot layby, and so for that reason, I would -- I will be opposing this. I would be 137 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. amenable to an amendment that had a four foot layby. Is that something that's unacceptable to the developer?
I'm sorry, Councilman. Yes. We believe that it doesn't work for us at four feet.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, we did have a traffic study done for this proposal and I have a letter, a memorandum from Orth-Rogers and Associates dated December 19, 2007, and as part of the traffic analysis, Mr. Orth also looked at the proposed layby lane. And if I could just read one sentence into the record. "The proposed layby lane should eliminate or at least minimize potential conflict and delay with northbound foot traffic, which might otherwise be caused by motorists dropping off or picking up passengers or packages at 777 South Broad Street." I have a copy that I'd be happy 138 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. to submit for the record.
I have one question about that, if I may, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Thank you. Did the traffic study compare the alternatives of a nine foot six layby lane and four foot layby lane?
So maybe you could ask your -- it seems to me that your traffic, based on what our professionals are saying, your traffic engineer might conclude that a four-foot layby lane would be safer, and you have no -- you're not submitting any testimony that essentially refutes the City's professionals who are here before us today.
Councilman, I'll submit the traffic report that we have, 139 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. and it's just a point that we just have to agree to disagree here. We have our architects. We have --
Okay. I have your answer. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, this will close the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now go into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for an amendment to Bill No. 17 08016 -- no. There's no amendment on that one, is there?
The first one? No. 21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for a motion on 080162.
I move that Bill No. 080162 be reported out of 140 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 080162 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 22 is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 080163 be 141 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080163 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 21 is approved. Councilman Greenlee for the amendment to Bill No. 080164, which all members have received a copy of.
142 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Mr. Chairman, I move the passage of the amendment to Bill 080164. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080164 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee for the amended Bill 164.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080164 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that 143 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Bill No. 080164 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 13 is approved. Councilman Greenlee for the amendment to Bill No. 080406.
Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the amendment to Bill 080406. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill 080406 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) 144 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080406 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080406 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those 145 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. opposed?
No. 4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Three yes, one no. The majority passes. The bill 6 passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for a motion on Bill No --
Just a quick point of order on this. I think we're getting to 380. The sight line in the -- there was a difference in feet to begin with and we don't have -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That will be done at the time of final passage. The language didn't come over yet. We can amend it on the floor.
Okay. I'm still going to vote against this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080380 be reported out of this Committee with a 146 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 080380 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
No. 16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let the record reflect there are three ayes and one nay. The majority having passed Bill 19 No. 080380. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 080404 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first 147 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reading at our next session of Council (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080404 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 18 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080129 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first 148 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080129 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 17 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for an amendment to Bill No. 20 080382.
Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to Bill 080382. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has 149 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080382 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080382 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080382 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. 150 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for an amendment to Bill No. 080383.
Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the amendment to Bill 080383. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080383 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. 151 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080383 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080383 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 24 is approved. Councilman Greenlee for an 152 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. amendment to Bill No. 080384.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment to Bill No. 080384 be approved. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080384 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. Councilman Greenlee.