Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Afternoon, everyone. It's July 9th, and we're starting our planning board meeting. Hope everyone had a great holiday weekend. This afternoon, we'll start with item 1A, adoption of resolutions. We have seven. All board members can vote. The first is Mahon Village Preliminary Plan. The second, Mahon Village Forest Conservation Plan. The third is Clarksburg Town Center Preliminary Plan Amendment. The fourth is Cabin John Section 1 Preliminary Plan. The fifth is Cabin John Section 1 Site Plan. The sixth is Tevis Place Mixed Income Housing Community Plan Staging Allocation Requests. And the last is

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. The next is item three, regulatory extension requests. We have four this afternoon. The first is Wheaton Lane subdivision preliminary plan and four Final Forest Conservation Planning Extension Request Number 3. The second is Forest Glen Kimball Place Administrative Subdivision Extension Request Number 5. The third is Green Brook Drive Administrative Subdivision Regulatory Extension Request Number 3. And the last is Earnshaw preliminary plan regulatory extension request number one, where staff is recommending approval of each of these extension req

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. We'll take a one-minute break and start with our next item, which is item number five, popular growth sketch plan amendment, preliminary plan amendment, site plan, and forest conservation plan. where staff is recommending approval with conditions of each of these. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome back. We're on item number nine, Poplar Grove Sketch Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plan Amendment, Site Plan, and Forest Conservation Plan, where staff is recommending approval with conditions to each of these. This afternoon, we have Philip Estes from

Function look as a townhouse, but as a range fit the definition of multifamily per the zoning code That's why we reference them as multifamily So they're actually for the stories the first two stories one and the other for two stories on top are the second you need

Okay, because we had some that it come, they were side by side, that everyone, I guess each of them had their own land, but this one they shared the land. It's like a condo unit. Correct.

Yeah. Well, maybe when the applicant talks, they can show a floor plan or something. So we'll look forward to that. OK. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Estes, for your very thorough and clear presentation, you and your team, so thank you very much. So now would the applicant like to come up and provide a presentation? Also, walk us through the floor plans. Thank you.

Can I ask one question? Sorry to interrupt. No, that's okay. This kind of gets back to the point before about where do these units fall within code? And I'm curious about the parking requirements. Like, do they effectively fall within townhomes type parking requirements where it's two per unit?

And how many parking spaces per unit are you proposing?

Yeah, yeah. So is the two per unit for the Biplex, is that, because it's a per bedroom calculation, was that actually the, minimum required, or was this your proposal based on what you think?

Okay, got it. Yeah, thanks. Can you just go over the biplex again? So on the ground level, there's the parking, correct? And then you go up to the both? You go indoors, and then one goes to the third floor. Yes. And so their unit is the third.

So they're basically a smaller unit than the two-by-two?

Okay. Would they be able to be condo-ized?

Okay. And then these will be rental or ownership?

Yeah, I should say I'm happy to see some for sale because we need to offer some for people to own house rather than own rental. Yeah.

So the smaller unit are two bedrooms and the larger ones are three bedrooms?

So are they still, all of them, four stories, but the biplexes, they have garage underneath, and the Two by twos, they don't have garage. They do have garage. So how come then they are both four?

So is there any more parking available for visitors or if someone has more family members?

On-site parking, when you have all these townhomes, do you have any sense of

Last question about the talk. Two questions. How is then the two over twos, are they side by side? So describe going into the building, and how do you get the two over twos?

And then they said traditional farmhouse inspired patterns. What does that mean?

Can we ask MCDOT to come in and explain why they're still requiring it even though the warrant suggests not? And then Vice Chair Linden had a question.

Can I just say one thing to that point? This is an extremely wide right of way where it's over 120 feet to cross. crossing two lanes first space, two lanes second. And I think if you talk to any pedestrian who engages in this kind of roadway, a stop sign does not necessarily make them feel safer trying to cross that distance of right of way. Just to say nothing of the compliance, potential compliance or adherence to stop signs or how drivers would negotiate that kind of intersection when the stop signs are so far apart and the stopping distance is so great. So there's the negotiation that happ

Okay. Yep. But the warrant does not take into account crossing distance.

So two other things, just with a broader neighborhood. We've seen development applications just to the north of the site. I believe there's a large development to the north of Crystal Rock Drive with a lot of townhomes we talked about last year. Black Rock. Sorry? Yeah, Black Rock, yeah. There's other things coming online in the area. You talked about projected volumes, but that's directly related to this particular development. Are you taking into account everything in the pipeline?

I think there's there's other things that you want to get to warrants I'm obviously not an engineer, but I have engaged in transportation planning and transportation projects in a lot of different contexts. Warrants can be really frustrating for actual road users when trying to advocate for things that make them feel safer, and for a whole host of reasons. And one of them is because, as MCDOT just described, historically they've been used really for one purpose, to prioritize operational efficiency and the movement of motor vehicles. that's starting to change. And in fact, although it hasn't b

Yeah, I have a question. I totally understand this additional cost. Is it going to go toward the impact tax, or is it going to be an additional cost?

So this actually would add to the cost of each unit, depending if it is 750, or I was just calculating it, if it is 400,000.

Yeah, it could add like about $2,000 to $4,000 per unit. I do not know if there is any kind of, you know, I understand both arguments, okay? I understand the argument of safety, and also I understand that this is a big cost. I do not know that if there is any way possible to be some kind of cost sharing because, We are asking for safety, but it's not really warranted. But it is a good idea to put it for all the things that's sad. So is there any way to do a cost sharing?

Even though that if it is not required by the studies?

It was a problem with the sight distance. So that's when I understand. I don't know. Maybe they could do all the underground or some of the other things. And when... the traffic study because I always hear that county government says that we just don't install these things unless that we test it out and see it's operational and see if there are issues and I'm thinking that maybe it is a possibility that they do some of the underground, anything that can destroy the pavement or any kind of conduits or anything that could be done. They do it and then make it easier in the future if it was warran

So that's a very good suggestion. Let me just say the start here. It seems like a wonderful project. I love the home ownership options. It looks like an attractive project. It's what we need, the site. So all good. So we're down to the signal. So it would be nice if there was like a, way to do this. You know, I don't know what that looks like, you know, because this project is done in how many phases? I don't know, four phases? And it seems like it's all about, it's about the money. And so, and I don't know if, from a safety, you never, you know, like, these are two agencies, Adam, this is, an

Mid-block crossings. OK, OK. Yeah, but I'm just saying, I don't know. If there's no incremental way you could do this, then we would have to go with what was recommended. Please. Just a clarifying question.

I believe I'm understanding the applicant's argument correctly with regards to what was in the memo and what you were explaining here. I'm concerned with the signal not having a legal basis, essentially. We don't have that. We would love to have adopted that by now. We would love to have... Also, I appreciate that there is an FHA that is not the one that I think of when I think of FHA. There's another one. But we don't have that in the thing, so we can't point to it other than to point to best practices currently within transportation, I think. And if I believe I'm understanding the applicant'

Wouldn't you just have more time to get across?

Well, I'm saying that you're... Yeah, well, with a signal, you have to go between the time and the start of the signals. You have to make the entire... I mean, I'm thinking about doing this with children and strollers and the like, which is how I move across the county mostly. With a four-way stop signal, you're interacting at each individual point of exit or entry with one individual. You have to cross that that point of danger one time and then reset. With the signal, I'm concerned that given the size of the right-of-way, you're having to cross the entirety of Central Boulevard under one par

And I think I sort of tend to agree with you. That's so strange. I'm agreeing with you, James. I agree with you a lot. But if the signal, there are two things. People get bored if the signal doesn't come and it's not enough cars, so they cross. If there is no stop, that creates more danger. And also, it could interrupt the traffic if the signal is too long. And people just wait there, and it doesn't happen. I think that the stop sign may provide more protection. This is pretty wide to do a refuge. Again, I think that maybe they could do some conduit and other things and improve the intersectio

So there's no incremental, like just say there's no, I mean, is there an incremental?

So again, if they did special walkways as if sometime in the future there would be a signal? Possibly. And then initially with stop signs?

But can I ask one question about that? I mean, once you're laying conduit, spent most of the money you were going to spend anyway. It's not that big a difference, is it? I mean, honestly?

I really don't know why it is $750 or $400. Why is it so expensive? Is it underground or is it above the ground?

Well, I still think that that makes it a better compromise for everybody that the underground to be done and fix it for a stop sign and then with the future. So that is exactly the compromise that I have been talking about.

But wait a second. Who would check? If you had a incremental approach, who would check to see, do you trigger, this is time A. At time B, would we?

So there's no amount of traffic that would trigger the number of buildings?

But right now, just say they came up with the same thing that nothing's warranted now, correct? Right. So what if nothing's warranted five years from now?

Keep in mind that in six months, we will have a new MUTCD, which has a different... Maybe it maintains existing, but then it adds an additional layer of evaluation to say, yes, you don't only need to use the warrants, correct? But aside from... When it comes to... The trigger thing for me is a little precarious. I don't really understand the mechanism to kind of force them in the future to do it. But the legal argument, I'm not personally worried about the legality of this being challenged. Throughout the county, there are other cases where different traffic control situations have been implem

I would then, given there is not a way to say if you go to plan, there's a plan A and the plan B, and someone monitors, and if you get to this, just because we can't do that in this thing. You can.

She's correct. She's correct. We can do it at different stages. You can do it even at the use and occupancy, because before they get people to come, they can do another evaluation. And these are all written in the resolution, and DPS makes sure it happens. Okay.

So why don't we do this, because we need to move forward. Is there a timing that the applicant and DOT would be acceptable of what would trigger the next to do with this final warrant in order to determine if this lighting needs to be put in? I mean, if not, we'll just go ahead and do it as in the staff report. I want DOT to be, this is, I want you to be happy around this because it's about transportation and it's about public safety, okay?

May I ask a quick clarifying question? With the red lines across, is that, I mean, assuming that's estimated level of pedestrian comfort based on actual estimation of pedestrian comfort, or is that assumptions based on existing situations in the county?

And not great crossing that level, that extent of... I mean, I'd be more likely to support making sure Century Boulevard isn't a mile and a half wide, but I think that'd do more than anything else. I don't think that's on the table.

Thank you for that. This is staff with DOT and the applicant. Either the two options on the table right now, either to do it now, put it in now, that it's done at, when would, as it is in the report, when would it be done at the time of, as per the staff report, when would that light be in? A right-of-way permit, I believe, is how it's currently written. So that would be at the early part of the start of the project? Correct, yes. OK.

I was going to add that. I think you don't want to get that late, because if they need to do it, they have to do the underground. You don't want to do it at the end of it when they have already built.

That seems reasonable to me. Yeah, so it's designed at the time of right-of-way permit, right? And it's installed by whatever you guys can work. Is it in the phase one or at the certain use of permit? It's whatever you guys can do. So what do you think is reasonable staff and DOT?

Well, we have to vote if that's the case. We haven't voted yet.

That was one of the options. To me, it seems like the consensus is it needs to be installed, and it's just when is it installed.

I don't have that yet. Okay. I do believe that there's to reevaluate at the time that we decide probably for the right-of-way permit. Okay. If at that time it's needed, they install it. If it is not needed, my recommendation is that they put the conduit and put the stop sign. That's what I would like to vote for.

I think the challenge in my mind of having a reevaluation period before the community is actually full of people and before other areas had that have other developments or full of people, is that the evaluation is likely not going to show anything different than what they're currently showing today. And so after they finish their project, I don't know what legal mechanisms we have at that stage to sort of come back in the future and say, hey, now the condition, I mean, I don't know, maybe I'll look to our lawyer colleagues over there to see if there's any sort of post-project mechanism to have

Yeah, exactly. Fundamentally, I'm not at all suggesting that the analysis you've done is slanted. I do think that in the future, if there is an additional touch point, and we haven't even necessarily agreed on what are the criteria we're using, To evaluate what you're using the objective criteria you're choosing to use the county has their own evaluation of safety that is somewhat distinct of what is needed based, you know, compared to what you're using. We're just back at it in a few years or in a couple years or in six months and nothing has changed and so You know, it feels like kicking the

Yeah. OK. So the sound wall helps. The sound wall helps with, obviously, sound, and it helps little bit with air pollution although that depends on a lot of factors there's not a lot of probably vegetation that will remain to help with kind of filtering the air before it gets to the playground the real problem is putting the playground near the interstate i mean we have to be blunt about it um i would i would like to hear from you about why you made that design choice We've talked about this in other contexts. We talk about this a lot in the context of the Clarksburg master plan and how much o

Yeah, but I think the point is you can protect the playground areas. in other ways. What you're showing here is sort of the least desirable design from a public health perspective for outdoor play areas.

Yeah, I understand the use. The use is wonderful. It's great to have a garden. It's great to have play spaces and open spaces. Not to continue to drill into this, but did this come up in conversations at all? I understand it was part of the previous approval, but did it come up in conversation? I'm just trying to understand, was this actually on people's minds when you presented a playground next to a highway?

So is, you know, the community green sounds like a wonderful space too. Do you think there's an opportunity to move the playground to sort of consolidate it with the community green to change nothing else about the site configuration, use more of that space where the playground would have been for vegetated buffer from the highway and kind of just tack on the playground space to the community green and have it kind of a consolidated area? Is that an option?

For like open space, you mean? Yes. How does staff feel about that?

if the REC guidelines are met. Yeah. Is that a possibility? Can we be flexible enough with the open space requirements to allow for a playground? This feels like such a no-brainer. I really hope you can say yes to this.

Well, can we just say this? I appreciate your comment. Can we say, Commissioner Linden, they will applicant to see if they can make it, you know, is that, because not, there's no guarantee, but, and still meet the, does that work with the?

Correct. I don't see the second one on this site plan.

Oh, gotcha, gotcha. So that's, yeah, that's much further removed from the highway. Okay. You're good.

So can we just go back to the transportation? Thanks for being flexible with that. So you have any more thoughts on the wording or anything around the

Well, what you just said is that what most likely is that you'll be back at the same place. And so when they install it, OK, because we're going around in here, and it seems as if so you need to install. I would recommend that you install. Given there seems like there are no well-defined to do this, right, because we'll be back in the same place. And the applicant needs to install it. And we just do it at the site, whatever the site, whatever. What do you, when you apply for your part of it?

Yep, and in the future, it would be nice if there were ways to do this where, I mean, if there could be some staging. But it just seems like right now, that's not the place.

Can you bring it to the board at that time? No. Just a question. So if we stick to the same criteria, we're going to stay in the same place. But we have to put a criteria that is like a third criteria. If we are saying that in six months, then MTCUD is going to come out. And we go based on what? is in that publication, that is black and white. But if it is based on my DOT criteria and something else, then it's going to end up to the same thing. I thought what we are talking about that we are waiting to get the new publication to be approved. And if that approved, We're going to look at the new

I know, Commissioner Peterman, but you just read the new standard that's going to be adopted in when? Isn't it that what you just read was going to be adopted in six months?

I know, but isn't what you read is the new guidelines, correct? Correct.

Is that new guideline requires to have, I heard that the new guideline does not require it. Does the new guideline that is supposed to be adopted require?

It would not include, for example, a warrant that would require it given the current conditions of this intersection, so at which point we're still going back to an issue of objectivity. And the safety is the key factor here. If there's some criteria that we can establish that it would be safer, I'm all for it. But at this point, I don't think there's enough conjecture, and I don't know if that – gets us to any different place, given that a warrant is not coming from the new one. It will just give us to prioritize different things. And I'm already in and of myself here attempting to prioritize

So either we just go ahead and approve of what is in the staff recommendation, or give the applicant an opportunity to, you've got to do it, but it's installed at the X, so save you some time, and I don't know if it helps when it is installed, like after the 50th building permit or after, but you've got to do it. So that would be my recommendation. Go with the staff recommendation or at the end of phase one, but it has to be fully done and approved at the day one. Does that make sense?

Yeah. I'm comfortable moving to approve with staff recommendations, including the signal at this location. So if we're ready for that, I can move for that.

So that's the last building permit of the project?

I don't know. I would assume that it would be largely in alignment with, you know, I don't want to presume what the ultimate recommendation is, but also keep in mind, you know, the master plan or the sector plan, this is a 20, 25-year implementation horizon. And so if there are capital recommendations associated with Century, those will still take a long time Road diet, reconfiguration, you know, probably long after this project is done. So that's just one thing.

And just to clarify, too, any change in the condition will not change the other improvements to this intersection, such as straightening up the crosswalks and all that kind of thing, right? The curb cuts and all that. Like, none of the condition change would affect that, you know, whether or not there's a light there. No. Good. All right. That's what I want to know.

Yeah. So it shouldn't be at the end of phase. I'm fine with phase two.

OK. OK, so we have the sketch plan amendment, preliminary site plan, and final forest conservation plan. So we should take them off here. Is there a motion to approve the sketch plan amendment? where staff is recommending approval with conditions. And are that you're talking about about this signal, is that in the preliminary plan amendment? Or is that in the preliminary plan amendment?

So we're starting with the sketch plan. So there's a motion to approve the sketch plan amendment with conditions.

That would be in the preliminary plan. Preliminary plan.

We've got four to do. Let's go with one first. I'll move to approve the sketch plan with amendments.

Aye. So motion to approve the preliminary plan amendment where staff is recommending approval with conditions including the change in the signal installation.

Before I move, can I confirm on the Additional condition we discussed with Commissioner Linden's comment, not on the traffic. Side plan. Okay. Making sure that we're in the right plan. Trying to scroll through, and there's a lot of pages. All right. In that case, move to approve the preliminary plan with conditions and the adjustments discussed today. Second. I'm second. Second.

Well, I want this preliminary plan approved. I like the affordability that you have in here, and it's something that is unique and is needed. But I'm not sure that if I'm willing to add and to the cost of each unit, another 2,000 or 3,000. We are doing all of these things to make it more affordable for people that probably, hopefully, that would be their first house. I do support the preliminary plan, but I do have reservation for an unnecessary, I understand, and support traffic safety, pedestrian safety, bikeway safety. And I think that we could achieve those with the other ways. But I say I

Okay. So there is a motion amendment. We don't have.

You seconded. Commissioner Linden seconded.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes, none opposed. So it's 5-0. There's a motion to approve the site plan. The staff is recommending approval of conditions, including the comment on the child play area.

Yeah. Moved to approve the site plan with amendments, including the addition of the re-evaluation of the playground and the location of the playground. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it 5-0. There's a motion to approve the forest conservation plan. The staff is recommending approval with conditions.

Move to approve the Forest Conservation Plan with just the conditions that were given to us today. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this project. It's definitely needed and look forward to its construction. Thank you. We're going to break and start with our next item. Thank you. Welcome back. We're on item number seven, Executive Boulevard Bike Lanes Mandatory Referral, where staff is recommending approve the mandatory referral and transmit comments to MCDOT. And today we have Eli Glazer presenting this item. Welcome.

One question on that I'm I it's a great recommendation. We we see it all the time from you all is kind of true up or square up the direction of these these ramps, which is great. Are there does that relate to any other federal guidelines or requirements that also speak to the direction of the ramps? Because it sounds like we've incorporated in county at least guidance, but are there anything federally with accessibility or ADA for that matter?

I see you have representatives of MCDOT as a STANTAC area. Would you like to make a presentation?

Okay. So I just had a couple. One, you talked about raising the bikeways to sidewalk level at all driveways. Is that a lot of work? Is it a lot of driveways, or are you just talking about the intersections? I saw you had some plans. Is that a lot?

My last question is about lowering the speed limit from 30 to 20 on Executive Boulevard, I guess, because it's 20 miles an hour south of Nicholson. What's your thought on that?

Well, big picture, thank you for bringing this to us, and we always love it when you're able to implement your bicycle master plan, so thank you so much. Any other questions or comments? No? Okay. Okay. Okay.

I just have one. Do you have any, because comment from some of the public, do you have anticipated usage? Do you know that what is... What is the anticipated usage of this bike path? Just curious.

Well, that was not what I'm imposing. I just wanted to know what is the traffic, frankly, just that one. I was not imposing that. Don't build it. I know, but the... Maybe we could just tell that how many people are using. That's just a curiosity. But I support the project. I think it's a good idea.

What he's sort of describing is demand is connected to how many places can get safe and that are useful.

I understand that. I was just wondering that what is the traffic? Because frankly, with Old Georgetown Road, I keep hearing from people that it's not being used. So I'm hoping that the traffic has increased. And I agree with you. This definitely would help for people. But probably most of the people that They're using it. I don't know. That's the question that I'm asking you. They're using it for transportation purposes rather than recreational. And to getting from point A to point B in the same area that they need to go probably shopping or just go do something or go to work if they live clos

Thank you. And we know that there are several projects north of the desert projects in the pipeline so that as they get under construction and build out, they will use this. But great question, Commissioner Padawan.

I still didn't get my answer, but it's okay. But he's going to send it to you. It's okay. I still didn't get my answer, but that's okay.

Okay. So we have one more project. So when we wrap a hearing or seeing no other comments or questions, is there a motion to approve the mandatory referral and transmit comments to MCDOT? Okay. I will move to approve the mandatory referral and transmit the comments.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. Thank you so much. Oh, there you go. Okay. We have one more project. Let's just take a one-minute break and quick break, and we'll start with our last project, Burlington Avenue, 13th Street, separated bike lanes, mandatory referral, where staff is recommending approval to transmit their mandatory referral comments to MCDOT. Thank you. Good afternoon. We're on our last item of the day. It's the Burlington Avenue 13th Street Separated Bike Lanes Mandatory Referral, where staff is recommending approving the mandatory referral and transmitting comments to

Can I ask one? I apologize for an early question. But just on this map specifically, I just want to make sure my understanding of the current plans are correct. Does the King Street segment still reflect the current plans for connecting to the MBT, or has that changed?

Got it. So Selem, is that Selem kind of getting up to the bridge and then going down the bridge east to connect to Fenton again? Is that, that's the current MBT route?

So it'll link up directly with this project?

I have a question here. When you put these concrete buffers, does it going to interfere with the drainage of the lane, through lane? Or how do we, because it's sort of take away from the road, correct? So how?

And the water goes through the bike path and then reach to wherever that currently is?

So say you're going east, trying to connect going north on the MBT. How would this design accommodate that travel pattern or that movement in a safe way?

So that makes sense given this current design. Do you think it's worth having signage plans to help cyclists understand? I guess you don't want signs to necessarily encourage cyclists explicitly sidewalk riding. But if, I mean, I could see how this could be sort of confusing at least the first few times you do it, or maybe the first time you do it. After that, I guess you could probably figure it out. But, you know, it's inconvenient to have to go all the way down to Fenton, cross, circle back. sidewalk riding, you know, it's not a memory service, not a particularly wide sidewalk west of Salem

Do you have a plan you could, excuse me, a plan you can show what this trail, so people can see what Vice Chair Lynn is talking about?

Right. And so I assume then, was it infeasible to have a two-way protected north side, a two-way on the north side, basically from Georgia? Well, I mean, just say the whole thing. Was that infeasible along the entire stretch to have a two-way on the north side?

Just for my own information, what is the rationale from the state's perspective about why they would consider a two-way crossing different than two separated one-way crossings?

What's interesting is there's examples of trails crossing state highways. Like the one that comes to mind is Sligo Trail that crosses Colesville. which is very explicitly a two-way. Trails are inherently two-way. And SHA doesn't seem to have any problem with that. And there doesn't seem to be any functional difference between a trail and a two-way protected bike lane crossing a state road. But anyway, that's a separate conversation.

Yeah. Thanks for talking that through. Yeah, I understand kind of the limitations and constraints. Hopefully there is something that we can do to help cyclists navigate who want to make that movement, whether it's through signage or something else. But yeah, in the future, maybe there's also another opportunity to revisit this.

I have a question. I don't understand. I'm just curious what that means. The first line is based PM delay 679.

So how could the build improve it dramatically? And it still is F. It's still F.

I'm wondering why they didn't do it now, because we are not adding any lane. So why haven't we done it so far? Why are we waiting? What is it we are waiting for?

These are actually in second, Eli. 679 is in second. Yeah, assuming it's the one lane.

Now, while I'm on the microphone, you may do it later. I don't know. Are you going to do a parking analysis also? Because I haven't seen which part of the road you removed the parking, and is that going to hurt anyone? I don't know if there are businesses there or... you know, what the parking currently is being used, if we remove them, is that working?

Okay, so there is convenient parking place. Okay. That sounds good.

Does MCDOT think it's possible to, presumably along that entire stretch of... you know, where those shops are, there's not the need for access continuously, right, from east to west. Are there any opportunities for just like one or two kind of shorter concrete barriers where there's not like a garage entrance directly there to at least, you know, another sort of like visual cue, another reminder, even though maybe it doesn't provide a lot of functional value, but kind of in line with what Eli is talking about?

MCDOT will need to acquire those yellow properties in order to implement this plan.

Okay, great. Yeah, I know there's a very active park community garden there. So, yeah. All right, thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you. Also, on 13th, is it 13th Avenue or 13th? Right at Kennett, just north of that, the parks is going to open up the new park, the Bottle Works, which is, I don't know if there's going to, between 13th and the next street, I mean, I don't know if there's a path there or a bicycle thing there, but I know that probably will be more actively used given that the urban park is going to open soon. So this is great. Thank you for this presentation. We want more and more bike paths. We want more people to feel more comfortable biking, either to work or to run errands or just for f

I mean, just in general, how do we monitor bike usage around the county? Is there... Are there counters at places, or how do we do that?

Thank you so much. All great work. Any other questions or comments from the board?

I think the wayfinding is a very good idea. Of course, we don't want to have a lot of sign that people cannot read it. But I'm very much for anything, anywhere, to put wayfinding. It makes everything sound safe.

My only suggestion is maybe we don't constrain it to just wayfinding. There could be paint on the street, for example, or I guess that counts as wayfinding. Or old wayfinding.

Okay. Great. Thank you. So there's a motion to approve the mandatory referral and transmit comments, including the web binding to MCDOT.

I'll move to approve the mandatory referral and transmit the comments.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you so much. Thank you all for attending our board meeting today, and we will see you next Thursday. But don't forget to come tonight, though. We also have a speaker series on agrivoltaics. So look forward to seeing you there. Thank you.