September 17, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 roadway grades. He implied that there were roadway grades on this site greater than ten percent. To be clear, for minor access roadways RSIS does permit up to a ten percent grade. In fact RSIS permits a little bit more than that in areas such as this where you have hilly terrain, you could actually add 2 percent and not be in violation. So in fact Mr. Anderson could have designed up to 12 percent on profiles on the roads. None of Mr. Anderson's road profiles exceed ten percent. They vary, seven percent, four percent, they're all over the place. But they are certainly compliant and Mr. Anderson has testified to that and he continued to represent the design of his plans. With regard to grades, Mr. Litwornia also seemed to suggest that he thought based upon his looking at the plans that some of the side street approaches, the driveway approaches to the, to the, to the minor access, to the minor arterial, which is supposed to be graded at five percent within 50 feet of the intersection for reasons that he explained, snow and stopping and so forth, he thought they were exceeding that. The plans are clear Mr. Anderson did design to RSIS standards. In my review of them and talking to Mr. Anderson, we meet the 50 feet, five percent grading, in fact many of the driveways are graded at 2 percent or less. I didn't

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 find any instances, in double checking Mr. Anderson's plans, in the grading plans, where I thought he -- it might be questionable. Certainly if your review engineer has any questions on that or needs to see something, I also saw nothing in the plans that indicated that we can't achieve five percent or less. So I think that was important to clarify. Mr. Litwornia also then went on to discuss the improvements at Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue and I gave lengthy testimony to those improvements a year ago, I won't rehash them, but basically the applicant by the settlement agreement and has documented in the Traffic Impact Study, will be constructing improvements at Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road. Those improvements will include widening of Eagle Rock Avenue to provide a left turn, a suggesting of Mr. Litwornia. He would have seen that if he read the documents. It will include signalization of the intersection and it'll include proper pedestrian accommodations as we talked about with this board a year ago to accommodate crossings and so forth. Mr. Litwornia suggested that that intersection, based on my analysis, would be operating at a level of service C. Again, to refresh the boards memory and the public's memory, engineers, traffic engineers boil down

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 all of our calculations to a simplistic rating of A to F. A being excellent levels of service and operation. And F being failing conditions. Doesn't mean gridlock, it just means you might show up at a signal at the end of a cycle and have to wait a cycle to get through or you might be in a que of three or four, five vehicles at an unsignalized intersection, but bottom line, it's delays that are a little less tolerable to residents. The fact of the matter is the intersection calculations that we provided in the analysis show that that intersection will operate at the A level of service during both peak hours. He also inferred that our analysis did not consider the fact that we do need to coordinate the signals with Laurel Avenue. That is untrue. If he had reviewed our analysis documented in the report, he would have seen the analysis, that the analysis specifically considered a coordinated system. It incorporates the anticipated offset will be designed and that level of service A reflects that coordination and operation. Lastly Mr. Litwornia with regard to the signal referred that I'm violating some type of the law in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices with regard to spacing. He suggested the signal is 400 feet from Laurel Avenue. It is not 400 feet, it is actually

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 between 800 to 900 feet, depending on whether you measure it centerline to centerline or stop bar to future stop bar. Regardless, there is no law in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that says you can't have a signal within 1000 feet of another signal. And certainly can coordinate signals and there are multiple times that we built signals closer with much closer offsets. What Mr. Litwornia was reporting to in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is one of the causes that we use as traffic engineers to determine if a signal should be implemented and in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices there are a series of criteria called warrants and there's specifically different criteria in warrants that traffic engineers use to determine if a signal should be considered and/or is appropriate to be installed. The majority of the warrants that we use as traffic engineers are actually the first four warrants. They are basically volume based warrants. There's an eight-hour warrant, you meet certain criteria eight-hours a day. There's a four-hour warrant, you meet criteria four-hours of the day. There's a peak hour warrant, that's usually used for unique situations like a manufacturing facility letting out a bunch of people at a time. As documented in the traffic study, we meet the volume warrants. The

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 eight-hour volume warrants, the four-hour volume warrants and, as I had testified to, we will be certifying that for the county and we know the county does not have an objection to a signal at this location. What Mr. Litwornia was referring to, I had to read through the MUTCD because I was a little concerned, and he was referring to a substandard within warrant six. It's a unique warrant. In 40 years I've never used it, didn't really even know it existed and that's a warrant that is used in a situation if you have an unsignalized intersection that would not otherwise warrant a traffic signal based on the typical volume warrants and it's basically an analysis that's done to see if installation of a traffic signal at that location would benefit the operation of a car and that's a coordination warrant. And within that there's a substandard that basically says you should not use this warrant if it's within a 1000 feet of another signalized intersection. Has nothing to do -- it is not a law, it is a restriction and certainly engineers, traffic engineers design traffic signals all the time that are much closer than a 1000 feet and there will be no issue designing this signal and it will operate at good levels of service and as I testified to will benefit the residents, the existing community as well as accommodate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 the additional traffic generated by this site. Mr. Litwornia also went on to suggest that our sidewalk system, which is quite robust and was described by Mr. Anderson and verified by myself, was not ADA compliant because it does not -- did not meet five percent grades. Again, Mr. Litwornia unfortunately is incorrect. Under the ADA guidelines a sidewalk that runs adjacent to roadways can run the slope of the roadway. So we have a ten percent roadway, ADA compliant sidewalk is built behind the curb at the running slope of the roadway. So all of the sidewalks designed by Mr. Anderson are ADA compliant. Certainly all the handicapped ramps and landings are ADA compliant. And his assessable routes I'll leave, it's his plan stamp what they are and he's testified to it. Mr. Litwornia identified that the RSIS does require sidewalks on both sides of the roadways. If you recall in my testimony from years ago we did identify that and we did indicate that we we're requesting a de minimus exception from that standard. The only place where that, we don't meet that, is on the section of Warner Drive extension from where it meets the property line up to the roundabout. There is sidewalk provided on one side and then on Road D from the roundabout heading up to Building D we opted to put a sidewalk on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 one side. If you recall the proofs, I'll give them to you again, with regard to Road D it's simple. We have two sidewalks that connect the community from the amenity building and the other buildings to Road D. Mr. Anderson just opted to take that sidewalk and rather run the lengthy route along the second side of the road, he put a direct route, ADA compliant path between Building D and the amenities. So it is a better use of sidewalk and pavement area for that connection. With regard to the connection down Warner Drive, as I testified to we have three sidewalks that run down to the adjacent community. Two along Kuzik all the way down the property line and one along Warner. I would respectfully suggest that provides more than adequate pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent community that has no sidewalks and there is no point of destination on the side of -- the side the road of Warner Road that pedestrians would want to get to. So I think this board is well within it's right to recognize and grant that de minimis exception and I would support that it is not, and give it the and/or change, but robust walking paths that are provided within this site. So I thought that was important to revisit. We did agree with him on that and we did provide the proofs for that. Mr. Litwornia went on to discuss parking to a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 little extent. Parking is RSIS compliant. Mr. Anderson has stated we will be providing 15 percent EV ready parking throughout the site. He has some external to the building and there will be some internal to the building, but we will be providing that as part of the design of the MEP for the building. The other aspect of parking that Mr. Litwornia suggested is that the tandem parking that we are using under the building is not permitted by RSIS. That actually is not true. RSIS does not define how you assemble the parking standards. It defines the sizes, the 9 by 18 parking stalls. The aisle widths, the 25 foot aisle widths, but it does not prohibit how we put those elements together. In fact RSIS does recognize tandem marking. In a townhouse community a garage driveway combination is tandem parking. There's no difference between a unit having the tandem parking in the garage under this building, versus somebody who owns a townhouse building, a home with a single car garage that parks in the garage and parks on their driveway. It's controlled by the same people and the movement of the cars are controlled by the same people. So there is no prohibition under RSIS with regard to that design and as testified by the architect it's common in design these days when you design parking or under building

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 parking. So I just wanted to clarify there is no prohibition on that from RSIS. It is a designers and owners choice with regard to the assemblage. That really, I think, summarizes -- oh, there was one other thing that disturbed me a little bit. Mr. Litwornia suggested that there was no air quality analysis submitted because there was a law requiring air quality analysis for parking garages over 100 spaces. In 40 years I've never seen that requirement, I did look for it. I am not aware of it. I am aware that in design of under building garage and parking decks there are requirements for free air and how much of the facades have to be free and if not you have to do a mechanical ventilation system. That is a building design and building permit issue and the architect will comply with that, otherwise we will not get permits. So if mechanical ventilation is needed in these buildings it would be done. But there is no requirement to submit to the Planning Board an air quality analysis for parking with over a 100 spaces. And I think I hit the points that I wanted to hit that I thought needed to be touched on. MR. PLOCKER: Can we get some of that free air in here? All right. I have nothing further, Mr.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 Pehnke. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions? MAYOR McCARTNEY: Mr. Pehnke, thank you very much. So Mr. Litwornia's report starts with the cul-de-sacs, that's how he starts, and I didn't see anything on the maps that he provided, I didn't see a cul-de-sac on here. So my question would be that, it's not a cul-de-sac that that means that the numbers that his ADT, Average Daily Trips, they would have to -- they would have to be different? THE WITNESS: Correct. So for a minor collector and the ADT that differentiates going from a minor collector to a major collector, is 3500 vehicles per day. We're generating more than just a residential access, which I think is a 1000 to 1500, something in that area, but we're generating below 3500 trips per day. That creates the minor collector characterization. And, and that's the difference. The cul-de-sac, when you have no other way to service the site, is where you start to get into, and there's two differentiations, it's interesting, in RSIS, because he was right, it's not a volume issue because there's more than enough capacity to handle operations.