1. The District, in the Wilber Smith Parking Analysis and in public hearing testimony by Mr. Rhodes of Wilber Smith represented that there are 904 junior and senior high school students age 16 1/2 and over. Applying the Zoning Ordinance requirement in § 817.5 of 0.25 times the 904 number equates to 226 qualifying students (assuming they are licensed). The Mt. Lebanon Zoning Officer, Planner, Engineer, Traffic Engineer and Planning Board have agreed with this calculation and 226 figure.
2. Within the Wilber Smith Parking Analysis is a Parking Management Plan (PMP). This PMP is an integral part of the overall District plans and has been accepted by the District without objection (see attachment). The PMP indicated the District will allocate only 203 off street parking spaces out of 542 spaces to students.
3. However, in testimony during the public Hearing on January 24, 2011, and therefore in the record, the high school Principal, Dr. Ron Davis, responding to a Commission question as to how many student parking passes had actually been issued, testified that there had been 285 student parking passes issued as of the middle of December, 2010, and “typically we cut off at 315”.
4. How does the District explain the 285 actual and 315 cut off vs. PMP of 203?
5. The District’s 285 “actual” figure was then disputed by testimony and documentation presented and submitted by resident Cindy Murphy. Mrs. Murphy, in seeking a student parking pass for her son, quoted the District high school staff employee authorized and responsible for issuing student parking passes that this year 306 student parking spaces had been issued against a limit of 315!
6. These discrepancies, in testimony and record indicate reported actual student parking pass issuances exceed the Zoning requirements by between 59-80 spaces, and the official PMP by from 82-103 spaces, depending upon whether either 285 or 306 “actual” passes have been issued. How can this be satisfactorily explained?
7. Proceeding further, the District claims in the Wilber Smith Parking Analysis and in Asst. District Facility Manager Mr. Rick Marciniak’s Hearing testimony, that there are 241 individual District employees based at the high school. However, resident Mrs. Paula Bongiorno testified and provided District documentation that the District reported having 282 employees based at the high school in PlanCon Form E (March, 2010); and, in the District 2009 CAFR 294 employees were reported as being based at the high school. How can such contradictions be explained or tolerated?
8. Taking even the lower District figure of 241 employees, and adding them to the reported student pass issuances, reported above, of 285 and 306 results in parking space demand of 526 to 547 off-street spaces vs. the PMP total available supply of 542 spaces.
9. While some may consider this to be “acceptable for horseshoes” it begs the fact that the figures in item 8 immediately above do not include PMP parking space requirements for:
· Visitors – 32 spaces
· Handicapped – 19 spaces
· Police – 1 space
52 spaces
In other words, the PMP is profoundly flawed and actual student parking pass issuances grossly exceed the Zoning Ordinance calculation and District assertions. This notice also provides doubt as to the adequacy of off-street and shared parking spaces to meet actual and planned demand and needs.
These matters should be resolved prior to any overall and final Commission project approvals.
Links to the January 24, 2011 Public Hearing:
The District contradictions and misrepresentations about the HS Project never seem to end. For just one more example related only to this blog posting, in the muni Planning Board meeting minutes of August 24, 2010, the District reps stated "In 2006 and 2007, 235 parking passes were issued; in 2008, 2009 and 2010, 320 parking passes were issued."
ReplyDeleteBesides demonstrating a poor grasp and control of proper spelling, punctuation & grammer in written communications, the District administration seems unable to master basic math and the ability to have their numbers agree and comply with a plan.
What makes all this even more sad....the Municipal government doesn't even seem to care !
Bill Lewis
Among other things the post strongly suggests is that at some point in the HS process, the District may very well be issuing only 203 student parking passes instead of the current 285-306-320 passes (depending on which District numbers fumbler you want to believe, if any). Hey students, moms & dads, how do you dig that...strong possibility of some 100 student applicants being told no passee, no parkee at Taj Mahal II ? Lets hear that now very familiar entitlement chant.
ReplyDeleteBut, in all likelyhood there will be no District (or Muni mandated)enforcement of the very official PMP, or by the Muni of *no* or *limited parking* on the 7 streets with such signs surrounding the HS. It's PA governance folks....what do you expect ?
Bill Lewis
When the District represents in 3 current, separate District douments that there are 241, 282 and 294 individual employees based at the High School what do you conclude as to accuracy & credibility ? Would it surprise you that the lowest number of 241 was used for the Parking Management Plan....and that the Zoning Ordinance specifies that a peak or maximum number of employees during a working shift be used in determining parking space requirements ? And the Muni accepts this contradiction & discrepency without question ?
ReplyDeleteNeither the District nor the Muni seem to care or notice. Who handed out the *blinders* ?
Bill Lewis
Bill,
ReplyDeleteWhat is really sad is that the Zoning Hearing Board was the only group in the Municipality that listened to the facts. They saw through the blatant lies, inconsistencies and contradictions.
Who would have thought that presenting 4000 signatures to cap the project at $75 million, hitting our local governments with facts, documentation, and recordings, has less weight than a crappy website with incorrect dates and no facts by a small group from Ward 3 with hidden agendas and nothing but smiles and compliments. It is disgusting that the threat of another lawsuit by the District is the driving force here. My hope is that the Commissioners weigh the facts very carefully and give us a fair decision.
Elaine
Someone just emailed me and asked me where the trees were. Here is the answer:
ReplyDelete"2 trees every 3,000 SF IN the (43,530 SF) parking area" statement and Zoning Ordinance section reference documentation was presented several times at Planning Board and Commission meetings. It was not supported by McGill, Desieroth, Magalotti, Planning Board or District. All claimed it did not apply because 129 spaces of the enlarged 172 space SE Lot had not been changed, although the spaces had been rotated 90 degrees, the asphalt paving substantially repaired/replaced and the spaces re-stripped to current non-conforming dimensions....it's all on record ! !
Wow! At least someone is asking the right questions....here's another document reference and issue about the parking lot where trees should be planted IN the parking area according to the Zoning Ordinance, but will not be according to the Municipal overseer's. The SE Lot has been redesigned, will be reoriented, rotated 90 degrees, repaired, enlarged, spaces added, Horsman drive in front of the Fine Arts Theatre removed and instead go around and behind the Lot on 3 sides and continue to Lebanon Ave. as a 2-way street. Some 129 of the planned 172 (now 158) parking spaces that have been rotated and reoriented and repaired will be repainted & restripped to the current nonconforming design and dimension requirements of the Zoning Ordinance....the Muni experts claim these 129 spaces have not changed at all, are grandfathered and do not have to conform to the current Zoning Ordinance. Same as the trees.
ReplyDeleteCompare this to representations in the Districts brief in support of the appeal to Judge James in April, appearing on page 6 of that brief, and we'll do a numbers check following : "The new proposed plan eliminates 250 non-conforming parking spaces (entire site) and replaces them with 250 new parking spaces which meet the current parking standards (Tr.p.70)". The "(Tr.p.70)" reference is to the Zoning Hearing Board hearing transcript and testimony by architect Celli.
Now lets do a numbers check...the site plan shows a total of 502 off-street parking spaces in the entire HS site. The SW Lot will continue to have 221 as-is spaces. So, 502 minus 221 equals 281 remaining spaces. Stadium Drive will continue to have 20 grandfathered spaces...281 minus 20 equals 261 spaces. The Muni says 129 spaces in the SE Lot are grandfathered....261 spaces less 129 spaces equals only 132 spaces left....but where are the "250 new parking spaces which meet the current parking standards" ?
The site plan sheet L100 dated 10/26/2010 shows the North Lot with entirely new and conforming designed spaces of 36, while 2-way Horsman Dr. north of Stadium Dr. will feature 41 new, conforming spaces. The entryway onto Horsman Dr. from Cochran to the entrance into the remainder of the SE Lot will feature 35 new designed conforming spaces. And new spaces in the SE Lot with conforming designs amount to 23. Finally, there are to be 8 entirely new conforming spaces for District maintenance staff and storage (see Proposed Parking Management Plan, Attachment 3, in the Oct. 26, 2010 Update of the Wilber Smith Parking Analysis) in the Stadium entryway area. Adding all these together results in 36+41+35+23+8= 143, which comes nowhere near 250 does it ! The only spaces that could make up the difference are all but roughly 22 of the 129 in the SE Lot....of course Celli was using 250 as an knowledgable estimate.
So, it seems to this analyst that the District...in sworn hearing testimony and in a legal brief to Commonj Pleas Court...has actually represented that most if not all of the 129 disputed spaces in the SE Lot will in fact meet current parking space design requirements and not be grandfathered. However, they in fact as shown in plan drawings do not conform to current Zoning standards in the official plans, and the Muni is letting them get away with it, unquestioned and unchallenged. A free pass !
How disgusting. We deserve far better.
Bill Lewis
Anyone reading my previous comment might reasonably ask - why the big to-do about whether spaces meet the Zoning code ? Well, lets do a Paul Harvey "here's the rest of the story" :
ReplyDelete1) If the 129 disputed parking spaces in the SE Lot were to fully conform with Zoning Ordinance requirements, 29 trees would have to be planted IN, or within, the SE Lot parking area...the Plan shows only 10 or so. If 19 or so more trees were to be added, they would cause the removal of about 10parking spaces. Get the point ?
2) If the disputed 129 spaces were to fully comply with the design, dimensional and spacing requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, a total of about 15 of the currently 129 non-conforming spaces would have to be removed. Get the picture ?
3) Adding these resultant removals yields 10+15=25 spaces, which in turn results in 502-25=477. And, adding the 40 Commissioners Lot spaces 477+40=517, which is below the understated requirement for 528 total spaces ! Now the picture becomes clearer doesn't it.
4) But thats not all...another resident has made a compelling case that the North Lot, completly redesigned, enlarged and rebuilt with an increased number of spaces (25 currently, increased to 36)with all spaces conforming in design remains a non-conforming Lot. Why ? Because the new North Lot has 14 of the 36 spaces within the side yard of the HS site....this violates the Zoning Ordinance ! The Muni is taking the stance that this design is LESS non-conforming than the current spaces, also in the side yard, therefore no zoning variance is required (lets see,now down to 517-14=503 spaces vs. 528 required).
Hold your horses...this was precisely the same argument the District used on lot coverage and number of parking spaces which the Zoning Hearing Board and Judge James shot down in flames ! Yet they're using the flawed argument again, and the Muni is going along with it. They all refuse to recognize Sections 904.41 and 905.3 of the Lebo Zoning Ordinance in Judge James earlier Opinion & Decision for this North Lot flim-flam.
5) But there is also another factor, conspicuously missing in the considerations of our public officials....the superior PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). The North Lot and SE Lot non-conformance issues were originally raised be non other than the District's attorney Irv Firman in his letter to the Muni Zoning Officer of 12/2/2009. The Zoning officer, in his reply to attorney Firman of 1/15/2010, deemed the Lots to be less non-conforming than currently, therefore variences would probably not be required [the Zoning Officer never published that preliminary opinion for 2 consecutive weeks in a local newspaper..a violation of Section 916.2(2) of the MPC, but this is yet another story]. Mr. Firman, in a letter to Dr. Steinhauer dated 1/21/2010 indicated that the North and SE Lots "will be more conforming" after completion of the project....not totally conforming. Again, the Muni buys into this reasoning, initiated originally by the Zoning Officer.
However, there's the fly in that ointment : Section 614 of the MPC and over riding law states "The zoning officer shall administer the zoning ordinance in accordance with its literal terms, and shall not have the power to permit any construction or any use or change of use which does not conform to the zoning ordinance.". It's a black & white issue....either it fully conforms or not. A little more conforming but still not fully conforming does not count or comply with the superior MPC !
But the Muni is steadfast in paying no attention to any of this and all previous of my submissions to this blog posting as well as in public meetings and testimony, as well as those of other questioning residents...JUST WHY IS THAT ?
Bill Lewis
Bill Lewis asks, “Why is that?”
ReplyDeleteBill the only reason I can think of is the school directors overruled Celli on the Zoning Issues – they really don’t care as long as they get re-elected.
The Parking Management Plan contradictions look like the concoctions of a Jan Klein Budget. Is it possible Jan helped Tim and Irv with the numbers for the Parking Plan?
Too bad we don’t have an adult in the corner office to pay attention and put a stop to the District’s nonsense.