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 Pike and Rose Phase 2 Building two site plan staging allocation requests. Do I have a motion to approve of these seven resolutions? Move to approve the seven resolutions.

I second.

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 requests. Do I have a motion for approval of these four extension requests? I'll move that we approve the four extension requests.

Second.

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 the Planning Department presenting this item. Welcome.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Phillip Estes here with the review team for the Poplar Grove applications. Just for the record, the applicant has met all the signage and noticing requirements. The public hearing notice was mailed by staff. And to date, we have received no public correspondence regarding the project. You can see here this is an aerial image of the subject property. It is 27.15 gross acres of mostly undeveloped land. There is a historic cemetery present on site, which is identified there in red. The property is located north of Father Hurley Boulevard and east of Century Boulevard. To the west of the site are townhomes. To the east, as you can see, is the I-270 corridor. And to the north is an existing office building for Viastat Communications. Zoning of the property is commercial residential, and it's also under the Germantown transit mixed-use overlay zone. To the north and northwest are CR zones. To the east is R30, the townhouse community. To the south is also CR, and to the west is I-270. Just a note about the existing approvals. This image here is the existing sketch plan concept, which totals 1,206,000 square feet. of total density, 686,000 square feet of residential, and then 520,000 square feet of commercial density. And you can see here what was originally proposed for the overall plan would have had offices, residential mixed-use townhomes, additional retail, and a future CCT station. As you know, the CCT transit line and the stations are no longer planned. And also the market conditions for offices has changed significantly, while the demand remains very strong for more housing. So these are really the primary reasons for the amendments. The sketch plan amendment would total 1,010,000 total square feet, 998,000 square feet of residential, and 12,000 square feet of commercial. The applicant proposes a mix of townhomes and multifamily units, which are biplex and two over twos, and I'll get into that in a little bit, and then a little bit of residential mixed use. proposed phasing plan, which consists of four development phases shown here. Phases one to four are part of the sketch and preliminary plan applications. Phases one to three are part of the site plan application, and then phase four would be part of a future site plan application. Preliminary plan amendment, as I mentioned, has the same density as the sketch plan application, and this would, of course, create all the lots and parcels for all four phases, the public and private roads. The cemetery would be on its own parcel, and then parcels for the public and common open spaces would also allow temporary uses on the phase four portion of the property. The plan would allow 93 townhouse units and then 268 multifamily units, which consist of 156 bi-plex units and 112 two-over-two units. The project includes 45 MPDUs and provides common and public open space, and as I mentioned, also will rehabilitate the historic cemetery and create a water's walk public space.

Can you explain what is a biplex?

Yes, I will, right here. So since we're kind of introducing new terms, these are new terms from the applicant, a biplex unit and a 2 over 2 unit. So both the 2 over 2 and the biplex units are essentially one unit over one unit. And you can see the biplex is on the top. The 2 over 2 is in the middle. The townhouse string is on the bottom. So the essential difference between the biplex and the two-over-two are essentially the floor plan. The floor plans are different, but both unit types provide their own private entrance from the exterior. And as arranged,

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

The two over two is basically two floors over two floors, so one unit over one unit. And the biplex, the flooring is different, and I might let the applicant explain the details of that, but it is still one unit over one unit.

So they still share the same footprint?

I'm sorry?

They share the same footprint? Yes.

Yes.

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.

Yes. And I believe the sum of the two over twos, maybe that's a question of the applicant if those will be condominium units.

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.

All right. And so that explains some of the unit types here. We do want to note that the materials were inspired by traditional farmhouse patterns. And just to note that the architectural features include front gables, bay windows, and dormers. Few things to highlight about the overall site design. Kinster Drive is shown here as the primary entrance to the community. It will provide a central community green along Kinster Drive. And then Kinster Drive Plaza is a focal point feature at the end of Kinster Drive. Garden Street is a street that is a central east to west street and includes wide landscaping panels. This area here denotes the historic cemetery and the water's walk. I just want to note that the historic cemetery terminates the focal point of Garden Street, and then at the other end is another focal point terminating at Garden Street, which will feature a pergola as well as a playground area. The applicant's proposing a community garden with fruit trees, a playground, and a dog run. fitness trail that extends across the site, and then that's the property that will be part of a future site plan application. Showing some of the details of these community features. The central community green you can see here will be designated as public open space and it features a large open lawn area that would be available for programming, pathways, picnic and grill area, seating, bicycle parking, and then ample landscaping with shade trees. Which was at the at the rear site is also public open space that will feature a community garden and fruit orchard a playground dog run benches and shade trees and The focal point at the end of Kinster Drive, seen here in plan view, will be a landscape plaza with a footbridge over a planted bioretention facility. It also provides shade and ornamental trees and seating as well. And the other focal point at the end of Garden Street will provide a pergola and a playground with an open lawn and shade trees as well. The applicant will be rehabilitating the Waters Family Cemetery and the creation of Waters Walk. So this is a rendering that shows the cemetery on the left-hand side in the grassy area. From that point to the right is Waters Walk, which will be a landscaped area with trees, seating, and spaces for community gathering. And in this rendering, you can also note the architecture, the materials and colors. And this, I believe, are the biplex units. Just to note, the parking lot that you see here in the lower portion is really here just for concept purposes. That's part of the Phase 4, which is not included as part of the site plan. Another view of the water's walk looking towards the cemetery. And towards the cemetery. And this is a view from within the cemetery. We do want to note that these are not the actual headstones that are conceptual, really just to show context. And additionally, the ultimate appearance of the cemetery may be different as the applicant continues to refine that with the HPC and also develop a long-term maintenance plan. Transition to transportation.

Thank you, Philip. For the record, this is Justine Ivan with the Transportation Planning Division, and today I'll be discussing the transportation element of the subject application. So to start off, the proposed development will help vehicular access and pedestrian access through three curb cuts along Century Boulevard. The county-owned and maintained public town center street with a master plan right away 100 feet per the plastic plan of highways and transit weights. The project will create a network of public streets, except for the loop street along parcels B, C, and B, D, which is illustrated with the yellow star on screen, and the alleys. Those will be privately owned and maintained. As you can see on screen, Garden Street, as previously mentioned, which is the orange line, is the main spine street connecting the entire development from east to west. And then Street A, red line, Kinzer Drive extension, which is the green line, and then Street D, which is the purple line, connect the Garden Street and allow access in and out of Century Boulevard. In terms of frontage improvements along Century Boulevard, the applicant is responsible for constructing an 11-foot wide asphalt side pad separated by a landscape street buffer except for the segment along the pond area, which is illustrated by the blue star on screen. Due to several constraints, the applicant will provide a fee in lieu of construction for this segment to cover the cost of installation in the future. Now, to provide a little bit more of detail on the street configuration, as previously mentioned, Garden Street, which is the orange line, connects the development east to west. And as you can see in the crown sections on screen, it will be built to neighborhood street standards, featuring 10 and a half foot wide travel lanes, six wide sidewalks with landscape street buffers on both sides, a garden street for public open space, and along some of the segments of the street, on street parking. Public streets A and D, which are the red and orange lines on screen, will also be built to neighborhood street standards and include 10.5-foot-wide travel lanes, 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalks with landscape street buffers on both sides, and along some segments on street parking. And Kinster Drive, which is the yellow line on screen, similar to Streets A and D, will also be built to neighborhood street standards and include 10.5-foot-wide travel lanes, 6-foot-wide concrete buffers with landscape street buffers on both sides, and some on-street parking in some of the segments of the streets as well. Private streets A, B, and C, which are the red, purple, and blue dotted lines, will also be built to Niagara Street standards and include the same as the other streets, which are like ten and a half foot travel lanes, six foot wide concrete sidewalks with landscape street buffers, and along some of the segments on street parking. Under the existing approval, the applicant conducted a transportation input study addressing local area transportation review guidelines. This TIS took into consideration, of course, a more robust proposal and had a number of upside improvements as their part of the mitigation responsibility. The applicant requested to revise the previously approved TIS to determine if these were still required considering decrease in density. Based on the findings of the revised TIS, planning staff and MCDOT determined to waive five of the six previously approved conditions for the off-site improvements. As summarized on screen, conditions 15A, 15C, 15D, 15E, and 19 were deemed unnecessary, and therefore we support the removal of these conditions. However, planning staff and MCDOT are in agreement that Condition 15B is a critical component for the project and the surrounding areas. To this end, we are recommending keeping Condition 15B, which will enable the applicant to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Kinster Drive and Century Boulevard. Context regarding condition 15B. As part of the traffic input study resubmission, the applicant conducted a signal warrant analysis at the Century Boulevard and Kinster Drive intersection. The warrant study concluded that the signal warrants are not met and therefore a traffic signal is not needed at this intersection. As a result, the applicant is asking for the removal of this condition. MCDOT and planning staff do not agree with this assessment and do not support the removal of this condition for several reasons, the first being safety. As you can see on the screen on the left, this is a wide roadway with a total of six travel lanes and posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour. And now for a motorist perspective, if a car needs to do left turn into the side or a right turn out of the side, it will need to cross several travel lanes before being able to enter the side. Further, if a car wants to go straight out of Kinzer Drive, it will need to cross a total of six travel lanes which clearly creates a safety hazard for motorists. Now, from a pedestrian standpoint, it is even more appalling. Not having a traffic signal here will mean stripping away the opportunity for pedestrians to have a phased signalized crossing, which will allow them to enter and exit the site in a safe manner in a place that has been deemed with undesirable crossings under the pedestrian level. of Comfort Map. Based on the aforementioned reasons, planning staff and MCDOT is requiring the applicant to install the traffic signal at Kinster Drive. I'll turn my part to Molly's statements.

Thank you, Justine. For the record, Molly Stamets with the Environment and Climate Division, and I'll be talking about some of the environmental considerations for this project. So given the location of the project, a traffic noise impact analysis was prepared by Phoenix Noise and Vibration on April 29, 2026. And from this analysis, it was found that based on the proximity to Interstate 270 and the off ramp, a 29 foot tall noise barrier is recommended to attenuate noise for the playground area. If you look on this image, the proposed barrier is represented in a dash black line on the top upper left of the screen. And the playground is represented in that rectangle below. The community park nearest the I-270 off ramp will be partially impacted by noise above the recommended noise level if you look towards the center of the project, the upper center, that rectangle there. But due to the topography of the site, a additional noise barrier in this location would cause crowding. And since the space is narrow, it could create a canyon effect. There the applicant has submitted the final forest conservation plan number F20250770. The subject property has no existing forest or specimen trees on site and previously preliminary forest conservation plan number 820190060 has satisfied the 1.41 acres of off-site forest mitigation that was required. and was recorded through the Conservation Easement Agreement, Library 49037, Folio 237, in January of 2021. So an existing stream and stream valley buffer on the south end of the site. And while normally we do require reforestation of stream valley buffers, there are already many existing encumbrances in the stream valley buffer, including stormwater management easements, unavoidable utility crossings, and WSSC connections. And these are all allowable uses under the environmental guidelines. Therefore, the stream valley buffer is not being reforested with this application.

We have one, a couple of revisions. The applicant has requested a revision to the public open space amount for the sketch plan and the preliminary plan. So this is a proposed revision to the data tables. As I mentioned, phase four will not be part of the site plan. And so this request removes that public open space component from phase four. It would reduce for the sketch and preliminary plan the public open space from $142,000 to $135,000. the total combined open space of public and common equals 29% these are well above the minimum 10% required also the public public benefit points remains above the minimum 100 at 112 points so staff supports this revision and Just to mention that the open space will be reviewed as part of phase four if that future application comes in. And the second revision is the applicants requested for condition number 21. This is actually part of an existing condition under the preliminary plan. So this would be carried over to the amendment, allowing rough grading and stockpiling of This is really given the grade differences across the site and the redevelopment, a significant amount of fill would be required. So this revised condition would allow the applicant to store fill on site as it becomes available from other projects and locations. And it would ultimately be used for the development on site. And staff supports this revision too. Analysis finds the project substantially conforms to the master plan and satisfies all applicable development standards, codes, and regulations, and therefore recommends approval of the Poplar Grove applications. This concludes our presentation.

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.

Absolutely. Erin Gerard with Lurcherley & Brewer on behalf of the applicant. That's why I took a moment to come up here. I wanted to make sure I got the description right. I don't know that we have floor plans available, but just to describe to you what the 2 over 2s and the biplex are. And I think just globally, that's what makes this project really exciting is these are unit types that we haven't traditionally been seeing in the county, and they're going to provide housing for a certain layer of affordability that we haven't seen before. So I just kind of wanted to get that plug in. The BIPLEX units are one and a half over one and a half. So the first floor is a garage that has two cars per unit. And then you go up. There are stairs that go up. One goes all the way. You know, it kind of skips that second floor and goes to the third where it shares living space there and then the top floor. The other one just goes up one and it has that floor and then shares a half on the next level.

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?

unit or is it technically multi-family technically multi-family so yeah so it's my multi-families by um bedroom so it is a little different but in this case it doesn't really matter because we're still providing the the parking that the code requires so in this case parking on the ground floor and it's a total of four stories parking then you have three living stories above

And how many parking spaces per unit are you proposing?

So in the Biplex, there's four. Four Biplex, okay. And in the, in somebody, two per unit.

Two per unit.

And then in the two over twos, there's garage that has two, two spaces, one per unit. And then there's two, exactly what it sounds like, two living, a two-story house on top of a two-story house.

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?

It was more that the design dictated what would fit, and it happens to fit with what the code requires for multifamily, if that makes sense. So the parking was not driving the design. It was the design that was kind of driving the parking.

Okay, got it. Yeah, thanks. Can you just go over the biplex again? So on the ground level, there's the parking, correct?

There's a garage, yes.

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 own half the third floor and the fourth floor. The other person owns all the second floor and half the third floor.

I see.

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

Yes. So they would be smaller than the two-over-two.

Okay.

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

They'll have to be condo because the ownership is vertical.

Okay. And then these will be rental or ownership?

They're all for sale. The entire project right now is envisioned as for sale.

Great. Thank you.

Of course.

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.

Right. Yeah, and like I said, this will have a little something for everybody because of all the different unit types.

Are they three bedrooms, all of them?

I think some are two. Some are two and some are three.

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

Okay, thank you. You can come up to it.

I can only go so far with my knowledge.

Good afternoon. I'm Ines Vega from Vega Development Group on behalf of the applicant. We've been for you recently at the end of last year with Miles Coppola. We got that plan approved. We actually just got a grading permit, and it contains this one and a half over one and a half biplex unit, very similar to the one we have here. We've changed the architecture to match the requirements of this area. And so to answer your questions, we approached this project, as we did Miles Coppola, trying to fit a wider range of affordability within market rate units. And that's why we developed concepts that would allow for two bedroom units that are slightly smaller, could be more affordable, but maybe it still needs a two car garage. Actually, I believe we have the option to, and have discussed with staff at staff's request, the option to convert one of those garage spaces to livable space if the owner decides to, and kind of prioritize their needs as things get along.

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?

All of the units, market rate units here can be up to four stories. The townhouses included have the option to have loft level. And they are just configured differently in the width and length to allow for that different product. The two over twos typically have a full driveway length. in most cases on this project, and that allows for another car to be parked in that driveway for the owner of each unit. So it's just, again, we're trying to hit a wider range of buyers with pricing and options to accommodate more people and hopefully have more homeowners in our county.

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

Yes, we did exhaustive parking studies and analyses with staff and went back and forth. A lot of the space is within the alley spaces. We have some parking areas, as well as in making sure that the... Street parking that actually also helps for these streets to have slower traffic moving through them and make them more pedestrian friendly are present. So we definitely had an extensive conversation with staff and we reached a point where I believe everybody was satisfied.

Okay, thank you.

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

This is Justine with the Translation Planning Division. For on-street parking, off-site parking, there is no requirement, but we do explore opportunities to provide parking for visitors. And in this case, the applicant would work with us and MCDOT to meet all the requirements to provide as much parking as possible for visitors and people visiting from outside.

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?

Yes, so the two over twos, there's the one car garage for each unit in the rear. In the front, you enter one unit straight, and the living space is in the first floor. You go up one level, and the bedrooms for that lower level unit are in that floor. For the upper level unit, you enter at the ground level, go up two stories to the third floor. That's where the living space is. And then the fourth floor is the bedrooms and family areas for the upper level unit. So the upper and lower units are in the rear, first floor. Front of the lower level unit is the living space. Then bedrooms are either for the lower level unit on the second floor or the fourth floor for the upper level unit. Third floor is living space for the upper unit.

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

was done as bringing forward some of the original approvals through the sketch plan and preliminary plan that were in place before. And because of the history of the site, wanting to respect and appeal to the fact that this was the home of the Walker's family throughout history, and with the cemetery in place. So that's where the farmhouse architecture comes through. And we tried to incorporate, again, those gable elements and other elements. Thank you.

A couple other things to hit. I was remiss. I should have started by thanking staff. I wanted to say what a long effort this has been. We actually initially had conversations with Robert and Patrick over two years ago on this project and just saying, obviously, the approved office isn't working. What can we do? The sector plan is very specific. It's being updated now, but the existing one is very specific about what it wants to see on the site. And so we had a lot of conversations that ultimately move this forward. Phillip and company have been great. As he noted, I was paying him even this morning on some of the conditions. So I really appreciate the responsiveness and all the efforts of staff. There were a number, as you can imagine, a project this size, there are a number of issues to work through. How does the fire access work in some of the public spaces? What are the turning radii of the road? So all the agencies really came together, and we worked very hard to get where we are today, and we're thankful for that. So there is, as much as we've worked hard to get through all the issues, there is one issue that we were not able to resolve and that we're bringing to you today. You will see in your staff report, attachment F is our letter and Mr. Drybin's letter talking about the traffic signal that you heard about a minute ago. This is an amendment to the preliminary plan. And obviously, that original preliminary plan envisioned something vastly different. This project will reduce traffic generated from the site by 70%, which I think we can all agree is pretty substantial. In MCDOT's letter, they have four brief paragraphs of why they think a traffic signal is warranted. And in contrast, we have submitted 13 pages of detailed analysis that cites to objective criteria and studies regulations that are used every day to determine whether or not a signal is warranted. And it's not warranted for any of the reasons stated by MCDOT or any of the objective criteria. The reason this is such a big issue is a traffic signal here would add $750,000 to the cost of the project. This is not a little thing. And so in a county that is trying to encourage housing, it just seems crazy to me that a developer would look at a project, they would run the warrant analysis and say, it's not even close to being warranted. And then as they get through the review process, surprise, here's a cost that we want to add. Again, if it was warranted for any reasons, I can imagine there are scenarios in which it would be appropriate. But we feel strongly it is not appropriate here. and no one has fully explained to us why a four-way stop would not meet the concerns that staff and MCDOT have expressed. The other thing I want to flag is in MCDOT's letter, and I am quoting here, they say, implementing the signal now prevents the county from incurring installation costs when residents slash visitors inevitably complain about unsafe access conditions. Now, this is A little frustrated that we're going to be setting a precedent where we're worried about what future residents may see and we're not, again, applying objective criteria. All projects in the county pay transportation impact taxes. Future residents of this project will be paying taxes. Those are what should be going toward transportation improvements. And it's unfair. And frankly, I think the constitutional nexus is missing to try to impose it on this project that has already, and I should have mentioned this at the beginning too, this project contributed in the construction of Century Boulevard back in 2014, millions of dollars in a participation agreement with the county to build that road. So this project has already done more than its fair share. And we think that... We think it's unwarranted to try to impose that condition. Nick, I understand this is a very technical issue. I do think it's accessible to a layperson. When I was reading his report, it made sense to me. He's not going to go into a ton of detail, but kind of hit the high points. And then obviously, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Good afternoon. Nick Driben with Lenhardt Traffic. As Aaron mentioned, I prepared a detailed analysis, not just of the signal warrant, but prior to that, of the transportation conditions for the site and the impacts of the proposed changes to the site with respect to transportation. You heard staff mention in their presentation that five of the six original conditions have been, they're in agreement with removing five of those six conditions. That's not charity. That's the result of traffic analysis showing that those six conditions are no longer necessary as a result of the 70% reduction in traffic being generated by what's currently proposed for the site. The sixth condition is no different. So as a starting point with respect to that condition requiring a traffic signal at Century Boulevard and Kinster Drive, I'll point out that the original preliminary plan did not require the traffic signal. It required the applicant to perform a future signal warrant analysis and install a signal only if the analysis demonstrated that a signal was warranted. That analysis has now been completed. We used the methodology outlined in our scoping document, which was reviewed and approved by parking planning staff, by DOT staff, by SHA. And that methodology is detailed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is a 1,000-plus page document that's the national, state, and local standard for when a traffic signal or other traffic control devices should be installed. As part of our analysis, we looked at existing conditions. We looked at background conditions, which is all the development, including BlackRock in the immediate vicinity of the site. And we of course looked at conditions with the total traffic, including the site traffic. So everything I'm about to discuss is based on total conditions with all of those traffic volumes considered. You heard staff say in their presentation that they do not agree with the decision to remove a traffic signal requirement here. However, none of the following that I'm about to lay out, which is also laid out in the memo I prepared, has been contested by staff. The results are clear that the intersection does not satisfy the warrants within the MUTCD for a traffic signal. Every objective measure points in the same direction. The intersection operates at level of service A, which is the best possible level of service. The side streets operate at acceptable levels of service. That's Kinster and the site access. A gap study was requested by the county, meaning Are there enough gaps in traffic for a long-sensory boulevard for vehicles to turn in and out of the site? We conducted that gap study and found substantially more acceptable gaps than are needed for vehicles to safely make turns into and out of the site. We reviewed crash data at staff's request. There are zero reported intersection-related crashes at this location. Despite these uncontested findings, staff is recommending a signal based on engineering judgment. While I'll acknowledge that engineering judgment is important to our field, the Maryland MUTCD is clear on the issue of how engineering judgment should be applied to signal warrants. Section 4 of the Maryland MUTCD is unequivocal about how signal warrants should be applied. In the very first sentence under guidance of this MUTCD section, I quote, a traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the warrants described in this chapter are met. We have not met any of the warrants, even with all of the site traffic considered. The MUTCD goes on to state, traffic control signals are often considered a panacea, this is a quote, for all traffic problems at intersections. This belief has led to traffic control signals being installed at many locations where they are not needed, adversely affecting the safety and efficiency of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, end quote. The requirement for a traffic signal warrant to be met in order for a signal to be installed exists for a reason. As outlined in the MUTCD, unwarranted signals can create unnecessary delay, reduce operational efficiency, and increase certain crash types, creating liability concerns for the operating agencies. The applicant was asked to perform a signal warrant analysis. We did so. The analysis demonstrates unequivocally that a signal is not warranted now and is not expected to be warranted with the site's traffic under future build-out conditions. That is uncontested. For those reasons, we respectfully request that the signal warrant condition be removed. If the board believes additional traffic control is desirable, there is a reasonable alternative. As Mr. Ard mentioned, an always stop would directly address the concerns raised by staff regarding left turns, pedestrian crossings, and protected intersection spacing while avoiding installation of a traffic signal that does not meet MUTCD standards. I'll just quickly touch on, I've been doing this for 20 years in the state of Maryland with Lenhart Traffic. Most recently, we do traffic impact studies and traffic signal warrants throughout the state, including plenty in Montgomery County. Prior to that, I was a reviewer for the Maryland State Highway Administration, where I reviewed traffic impact studies and traffic signal warrant analyses to determine if signals could or should be installed And prior to that, I had a job with STV Incorporated where we had on-call contracts with Montgomery County Department of Transportation, working directly for them as their consultant, reviewing and completing traffic impact studies and traffic signal warrant analyses. I have never in my 20 years seen a condition for a signal to be installed when a MUTCD warrant is not met. This is a first. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I have not seen it. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions, but we would respectfully request that the signal not be required here.

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.

Rebecca Torma, MCDOT Development Review Manager. I've been with Montgomery County for 11 years. I've been doing development review for 26 years and in transportation for about 15 years. Let me clarify a couple of things. $750,000 is not how much traffic signal costs in Montgomery County. It's around $400,000. That's what we have seen. That's what we have done in the county. And then the other thing I want to clarify is impact tax. How does impact tax work? So the applicant did do impact taxes. They paid for some work to be done. And then what happens is they come in and ask the county, say, hey, I spent $2 million. And then the county gives it back, the $2 million. And then that goes towards their, when they come in and pull building permits, and they ask for, they pay impacts. They say, you have to pay $50,000 for impact taxes. I'm making that up. And then they come back in, and they take that money and pull from that money. So the impact taxes, yes, they did pay early. They did pay up early. And then they will get that money back when they develop the site. A couple of things. We've been working with this project since about 2018 or so. And we have noticed that they have reduced the development size. We have asked them. We previously had several conditions, including a park and ride lot, to be on the site. All those conditions have been removed. What we see is this is an operational issue. This is not an LATR-related issue. It is, how do you get out to your site? Can you get out safely as a pedestrian, as a bicyclist, as a motorist? And one thing is, I'm not sure, did you all do a speed study out there? The speed study was, there wasn't a speed study. What we've seen in other parts of Long Century Boulevard is that it is a high-moving facility. moving or fast moving vehicle. The target speed is 25 miles per hour. We are trying to reduce speeds on roadways, and this would be one of the places where we would do it. We had asked for the traffic signal because we thought that what we have seen in the past is residents do come in after the fact, and they say, I can't get out of my neighborhood. How do we adjust for that? And so we like the applicants to pay for their residents to be able to get out of that site. This is Matt Johnson. He's with me. And then so what we look at is we look at how the pedestrian gets out, and are they able to get across safely? We didn't feel that a stop sign is going to suffice, and we had asked for the traffic signal to continue to be warranted.

Yeah, Matt Johnson with the Division of Transportation Engineering. I just wanted to weigh in a little bit on the MUTCD items that were cited before. I think it's critical to understand that currently in Maryland we use the 2011 Maryland Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2011 was many, many years ago, and there is a new what the Federal Highway Administration calls 11th edition, or the 2023 edition of the manual that came out federally. That came out in January of 2024. States have 24 months to adopt that, two years. We're past that period now. Maryland has submitted its state manual to the Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Highway Administration, largely because of the 40% staff reduction that happened as a result of this administration's actions last year, is way behind. So we actually don't know when Maryland is going to have a new manual. But what I can say is that the 11th edition of the federal manual made major revisions to emphasize the importance of safety for all roadway users, as opposed to the efficiency of moving motor vehicles through the transportation system, which has largely been the focus of the manual. The warrants were largely created to ensure that we weren't installing, quote unquote, unneeded signals that might delay traffic. The manual does recognize that there may be adverse things that happen if we install unneeded signals. But the new text, I just want to read the new text. This is not yet effective in Maryland because Maryland has not had their manual approved by the Federal Health Administration. But I think it's important to consider what the new federal guidance says, which is likely going to come in place in Maryland within the next six months. We just don't know when. And it says, this is paragraph 20 in section 4C01 of the federal manual. The safe and efficient movement of all road users is the primary consideration in the engineering study to determine whether to install a traffic control signal or to install some other control of roadway configuration. Installation of a traffic control signal does not necessarily result in improved safety in every case. In some cases, the installation of a traffic control signal at an inappropriate location could adversely impact safety for one or more types of road users. The purpose of the engineering study is to evaluate all of the factors that are relevant to the specific location. The satisfaction of a warrant is one of the relevant factors in the engineering study, but it is not intended to be the only factor or even the overriding consideration. Agencies can install a traffic control signal at a location where no warrants are met, but only after conducting an engineering study that documents the rationale for deciding installation of a traffic control signal is the best solution for improving the overall safety and or operation at the location. There has been a revision in thinking at the federal level in how we apply the warrants. And it's not solely about moving cars through the system anymore. That application is not yet effective in Maryland. So the old text that was cited is currently the law in Maryland. But this new text is expected to be adopted in Maryland within the next six months. And I think it's important that we're using the most relevant data when it comes to looking at the manual as opposed to stuff that was published by the federal government in 2009 Actually, it was published in 2007, adopted in 2009 by the federal government, and then adopted by Maryland in 2011. So this is data that's two decades old, or what was cited as two decades old and does not reflect the current state of the practice.

Can I have an opportunity to respond? I mean, we didn't. This is all new, so it feels like we should have an opportunity to respond to some of that. Thank you. I hear about that it hasn't been adopted yet. I'm not sure that the quote actually supports the argument. The quote is that, as I heard it, and this is the first time I'm hearing it, is that maybe if a warrant's not met, that doesn't mean it's not warranted, but you need to do a detailed analysis. And I think that's exactly what Nick did in his In his memo, he looked beyond the warrants. OK, warrants aren't met. You said that you were worried about pedestrians. Well, we looked at that. You said you were worried about crashes. We looked at that. You said we did go through all that. And again, I'm not hearing why a stop sign would not meet the same thing.

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 happens between drivers. But just from a pedestrian perspective, I'm not convinced that a stop sign would make a pedestrian field safe at that intersection.

I think Nick can address that.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that. If I could just briefly, we'll come back to that momentarily. If I could just briefly respond to what DOT quoted in terms of MUTCD. The warrants between the edition that the MD, the Maryland MUTCD is using and the 11th edition have not changed in terms of what those warrants are. One of them is specific to pedestrians. There's a pedestrian warrant. We looked at that as part of our analysis. It is not met. And that is under both the old edition and the new edition.

Can you define which warrant that is?

Yes, it's warrant for pedestrian volume. Which is? And it's based on the volume of pedestrians crossing the intersection.

Currently.

Projected. We looked at it with projected volumes.

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

I promised I would come back. I will. I will. I will come back to that. Yep. I'm not losing it. I just want to respond quickly to what was said before. The other piece, just quickly on that, is... the new version of the MUTCD still has the same language stating that a signal should not be installed if a warrant is not met. That is still in the new version. And again, no warrants are met. Coming back to your question, Commissioner Linden, there is language in the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO Green Book, which is a highway design manual that's used nationally, locally, state, discussing median widths. And I have it. It's in the analysis that I prepared. I'll quote it here for you. This is, quote, median widths over 60 feet are undesirable at intersections that are signalized or may need signalization in the foreseeable future. The efficiency of signal operations decreases as the median width increases because drivers need more time to traverse the median. It goes on from there to explain why. And I'm happy to read the rest of the quote. But again, it's included in what I prepared. But there's specific guidance stating that when you have a wide median, you should not have a signal. And so the actual pedestrian crossings, we are proposing a protected intersection here. We've been coordinating with staff on that. enhanced pedestrian crossings in terms of markings, in terms of shortening those crossing distances. And so the actual sections that are being crossed are not outside the realm of what would be comfortable to cross at a stop-controlled condition, in my opinion.

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?

Black Rock, I believe.

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?

Yes. This includes everything in the pipeline based, again, on scoping correspondence with all three agencies. It includes BlackRock. It includes a couple of other nearby developments. It includes the potential future connection of Darcy Mill Road, which is not funded for construction But is funded for land acquisition, I believe in 2030 But we included the projected volumes from that as well as the projected volumes from our site So all of that is taken account when I say the warrants are not met That's all part and parcel of the volumes that we use to analyze that the final I just want to say one final thing on this and then You know on this on this topic.

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 been adopted in a different context, some language around, say, stop signs has incorporated more subjective criteria instead of just objective historic warrant information to allow for stop sign consideration if pedestrian movements and bicyclist movements are sufficient or are conflict with other movements in a way that we would just want to prioritize safety, even if there's not the volume, even if there's sort of a intersection mismatch in terms of the liability per the warrants. There are, you know, that's where the conversation is moving. That's where the MUTCD is moving. And I think that's where we should move to. And if staff is saying that they feel like this intersection is not comfortable and looking into the future, it will present, you know, real conflict situations. And, you know, obviously we can't speculate about exactly what the concerns, the specific concerns and what we may hear from future residents. But this type of intersection is not unusual, right, in this county. We've seen this in other places, and I'm personally not comfortable just saying, yeah, let's throw up a stop sign, call it a day. We'll hope for the best. I think that we really should be proactive about safety, and I understand the cost implication. It sounds like there's this misunderstanding between $400,000 and $750,000. I hope it's the former. I really don't want to add that much cost to the project, but We're talking about people's lives. I mean, I think we need to keep some things in perspective. Yes, we have a housing crisis. Yes, we have an affordability crisis. But this is the safe. We need to sort of prioritize the safe entry and exit. Also hoping that lots of people walk and lots of people bike in this area too, along with all the new developments coming elsewhere in the area. So more people are going to be traversing Century Boulevard and crossing. So that's where I'm landing on this. I'm comfortable with staff's recommendation for the signal here. For all those reasons, I understand what you're saying about the warrants and the objective criteria. But in my view, that's not the only consideration here. Okay. Other commissioners?

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?

No, this is not. So impact taxes is for capacity improvements, and this is not particularly a capacity improvement because it's an operational analysis. If the road were constructed with the traffic signal at that time, then it would have been eligible for credit, but it is not under the code eligible for credit. They have other things like the shared use path and the Century Boulevard that they constructed or helped pay for that is eligible for impact taxes.

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.

How many units are there, you said? 407 total.

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?

The county requires developers to install traffic signals for their developments all the time. So we've done it.

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

No, we have for safety purposes to being able to get out. So say West Bard Avenue, if you're familiar with that, There was a traffic signal that was installed there because the people were pushed back so much. The vehicles would be set back so far from the roadway.

So it was not a sight view.

No, this was not.

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 warranted. And they see that there are a lot of issues there, then they do that. That's what I use always here from county government, that we don't do it just because we are having a new.

I don't think we're doing it just because. I think that we've talked to the traffic staff in our office, and they've agreed that it should be installed. So, but there is an alternative if you wanted to do that. They'd have to do some striping, the undergrounding the conduit. They could do, so they do undergrounding the conduit, the striping, and fix the curbs and everything and put everything in place so that when the traffic signal. Yeah, I'm just saying that just some kind of compromise. But again, the county doesn't have the funding for that traffic signal, so.

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, and our team recommending one. And I don't, you know, safety is important, right? So I just want, is what there, if there can't be like an incremental, you put in the conduit and you put in, I don't know, is it, I'm not a transportation, but is it, Do you know those hawk things? They wouldn't work here, would they?

The hawks are for mid-block crossings.

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's argument, probably the point is pedestrian safety. I'd be more willing to accept at this point a different condition that improves the structure of... Engineering of this particular type of intersection rather than a signal at this point given that we don't have a volume and don't have speed and don't have Even projected Increase in vehicles less concerned than pedestrians one pedestrian or a hundred. I don't care that much Cars what I'm concerned about and I think that given Alternative of a four-way stop sign in the size of the median defer to Commissioner Linden over here. I think with a four-way stop condition, the size of the median gives a less... options for interaction with cars, but I'll defer to those that better know this. The signal indicates a limited amount of time to cross what is a fairly substantial space that way, whereas a stop sign allows for the pausing of the median and accommodation of additional vehicles stopping at the sign, and I understand concerns about compliance with that. But I'm still not entirely sure that we get safer with a signal than we do with a four-way stop condition. And there's a legal question. There's the adoption question. But I'm still not convinced that we're safer with a signal than we are with a four-way stop, given the current configuration and the development at this point. So that's my concern. My concern is also pedestrian safety. But the signal, given the size of the right-of-way

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 particular time frame or wait it out in the median while you do so. And I don't know. I'm deferring to Commissioner Linden because you're more knowledgeable about traffic signal than I am. But I'm concerned that the signaling doesn't get us any safer than a stop does for navigating each interaction that you have with a car on the asphalt, essentially.

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 intersections Meanwhile, they could have the stop sign.

I will say people actually have to stop at the stop sign. So if they assume that there's nobody there, then they might go through. So that's one of the reasons why it's not as safe. Also, when you have multiple people stopping, if two cars come up, one car comes up at one time, one car comes up at the other time, the pedestrian has to judge when to go, and the vehicles have to stop for the pedestrian.

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

There is an incremental. Again, what I mentioned, you know, the stop signs, you know, DPS would have to agree to the stop signs, but they have to fix. They're already fixing the ramps to make sure they're ADA compliant and the crossings and everything. And then they can do the conduit as well in there.

So again, if they did special walkways as if sometime in the future there would be a signal?

Yes.

Possibly. And then initially with stop signs?

Yeah. In addition, they'd have to do some kind of signal plan or something to make sure that everything's put in the correct location.

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?

Yeah, I mean, it's both. There's underground conduit, wiring, cabling, and then the above-ground structures that you see. I think when I, as I said, I've been doing this for 20 years. When I first started, typical cost for a signal was around $250,000 to $300,000 throughout the state. That's what I remember. That's from 20 years ago, or maybe 15 years ago. I mean, construction costs in general, I think everybody's aware, have gone up substantially. post-COVID, and we have seen in our signal design and implementation of signals that the range is between 500,000 and 750,000.

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?

We really haven't had much success with doing them outside of when we have a trigger. We've had several issues with traffic signals, making sure that they are installed when they're supposed to. We generally like them installed right up front. But if you wanted to just do an incremental, You would just do what we talked about, the conduit. And they have to fix the ramps and the striping as well. And that would be it. That's what we had talked about. We didn't talk about moving anything further than that. You could, if you wanted to, you could time it by building permit. And then site plan enforcement would ensure that they had done the requirements at that time. Building permit, 100th building permit, whatever, like that, if you wanted to do it further. Otherwise, the incremental improvements that we talked about would be done right up front with the right-of-way permit.

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

I mean, you could ask them to do a new warrant study in the future. and see if it triggers that. And that would be based on either building permit or some other trigger.

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?

Then they wouldn't have to install it.

You want it installed.

Yes.

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 implemented, even though it doesn't meet the letter of the law of the MUTCD. You'll often hear DOTs talk about liability issues with doing something unwarranted, which is something that can come up. But for me, it's a bigger liability issue if we're talking about this now. We don't do it, and then something horrible happens in the future. And to be frank, that kind of situation happens all the time, all the time, where we talk about particular safety improvements, nothing happens, and then in the future something horrible happens. To me, that's the bigger form of liability for DOTs for the most part, but also for development applicants. All of this is on the record. The legality of it is not a super big issue for me. I take your point that you can think about the crossing in different ways depending on different contexts. I don't think there's kind of one definitively better traffic control for all situations, but I do think that the majority of crossing situations would benefit from a firmer control of the intersection. The time to cross is an issue operationally, but that's a signal operation issue that can be adjusted. That can be adjusted all the time. You can adjust signal timing all the time. based on conditions of the road. So yeah, I understand.

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.

You can. What you would do is you'd say, OK, at this time, you're required to implement these things. And then once you get closer to the final, everything's been finalized and you've built most of your project, like 70% of your project, you go do another evaluation. And if the evaluation says yes, and MCDOT agrees, then you install it. If it says no, And MCDOT agrees, and they don't, like, it's based on building permit, basically, or something, I don't know, planning can weigh in.

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?

Okay. So I don't have a, my number I would pull out would be an arbitrary number unless planning staff can provide something.

We would be willing to agree to the end of phase two to take a look.

For the record, Richard Brockmeyer, transportation planning supervisor over the regulatory team. So it seems like there could be a few options. One would be to have them re-evaluate the signal warrant at a future stage. Another would be having them install a conduit or keeping what's in the staff report currently as the condition. I guess there's three options. I think the preference would be that we get the signal installed. If we're thinking that that is take, I'd recommend re-evaluation at a future stage. We'd have to determine what that would be. We also have prepared an alternative condition if we just want to talk about that they install the conduit. So they do a lot of the work to be able to provide a future signal. The issue there is somebody else would have to actually install the signal.

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?

That is based on our pedestrian level of comfort methodology on what the existing pedestrian level of comfort is.

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.

It is worth noting that the sector plan is being updated. I don't know what the sector plan is going to recommend for Century. I don't know whether it's going to recommend a road diet or what, but it's probably worth putting that on the table because it's going on right now.

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.

Versus at maybe? You could do it at building permit. You could do it at use and occupancy. You could do it at use of occupancy of a specific number of units. Phase.

Yeah, yeah. You do want it submitted with the right-of-way permit so that they don't have the right they plan for, because it does take a while to get everything, all the equipment and everything.

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.

There could be a condition where you have the signal design done by right-of-way permit and installed by a certain building permit number or use of occupancy number.

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?

So just for clarification, the applicant would be installing it, correct? Yes. It's just a question of when they install it. Yes.

Is that what we're understanding, that that's the direction that it would be installed, but it's the timing as to when that? Yes.

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 them come back, but I don't see any pre- project completion difference in the evaluation that would happen.

Can we make a suggestion? I mean, just to point out ideas. I think we could agree, too. It has gotten a little lost. We are doing a protected intersection here, no matter what. So we would do the protected intersection. We would put in the conduit at the beginning of the project. And then we would study what is actually going on on the ground at the end of phase two. That may tell us what happened with the sector plan. It will tell us what's actually happening on the ground, how many pedestrians are using this intersection. And then if we can agree that it's warranted at that time, then we would install.

That seems reasonable to me.

I think that could work. I think the only question is, do we get into the same position of there's a disagreement on if it's warranted or not? Again, because then we're right back to the same conversation.

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 can down the road. I think we have an opportunity to make a decision today. And I would, you know, I would move in that direction. But can I, before we get there, because I feel like this is like the main thing, I just have one additional thing to bring up kind of unrelated to all this transportation stuff before we move on to the motions. I have to ask about the playground location. And you're right next to the interstate. And staff has proposed a wall, a 29-foot sound barrier. Is that something that you've agreed to? Is that something you're willing to build?

All of the improvements that were in the staff report, that's what we're building.

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 of a buffer we need from 270. This is a playground for two-year-olds up to 12-year-olds. The most sensitive age for air pollution is kids. It's where it can trigger asthma, lifelong asthma, among other things. But it's harmful for all ages if you're close to air pollution. You're not going to find any greater source of air pollution than a 70-mile-an-hour highway that carries 150,000 cars a day. So, yeah, if you could just go into a little bit, we're so far down the road now that it feels to me like it's not entirely fair to ask you to move it. But I would like to understand kind of the thinking about putting it there in the first place and how we got to this place where it's located right next to a highway.

I'm happy to talk about it. So again, this is an amendment to the approved sketch plan. There's certain community elements throughout the site, like they were presented early on. There are two playgrounds on the community, as well as the community green. We actually, in cooperation with staff and responding to staff's suggestions of how the open space should be used, we created the community green in the location that it is. It's meant to be an open, unprogrammed space where people can throw a ball, sit around, have a picnic. So the reason that the one playground And again, that's just one of the playgrounds. The other one is also close. The entire site is either close to the highway or to Century Boulevard.

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.

We have outdoor play areas throughout the site. And again, this was the location of one of the original playgrounds on the site. So it is combined with an orchard and a community garden. that isn't labeled on this exhibit. But in that other red area, within that area, the idea is to have a community garden. The kids, the adults, can be in that area. And then also, there could be a playground that can complement the use of the community garden.

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?

There is other elements that were discussed of amenity space, and we did address the concerns that were brought up at that time by staff.

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?

Because there are certain recreational points that each element meets, I'm afraid to say yes without knowing if the community green can be reduced in size to add a playground and still meet the requirements.

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

I'm certainly, you know, we'd be happy to relocate the playground for component.

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.

Yes, staff is certainly open to that. But she's right. They do need to achieve a certain number of recreational points. But I mean, we can certainly work with the applicant to make sure that they comply with the rec guidelines.

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?

We'll be happy to do that.

And we can, staff can work on that in terms of a certified plan, just making sure that that's done, you know, post- Post-decision here. Okay.

Mr. Chair.

And again, this is the, sorry, and this would be the playground that is close to the northern end of the site. I just want to make sure because we have two playgrounds.

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

It's not labeled, but it's next to the community park. Next to the community park. We also have a playground there.

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

Allie Myers from the Office of General Counsel, for the record. Just to clarify, I think for this proposed change to the condition, I would recommend adding a C to condition 29 of the proposed preliminary plan conditions that would memorialize the agreement to before submittal of certified preliminary plan for the applicant and staff to have those discussions about the playground. just so I know where to put it in the resolution.

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

The only thing, so you could do the, they'd install the conduit and everything with the right-of-way permit, first right-of-way permit, and then the traffic signal, if you wanted to have that installed, or if you, did you want to have it installed, or did you want to have them re-evaluate? If the re-evaluate, if it's re-evaluation, the condition usually would say, unless DUT, it would be basically DUT would make the final decision. And so, again, you'd be back in the same place. So We could just stick with the other alternative that we had, which would be just the installation of the conduit and everything. Again, we'd be back in the same place.

Yeah, I guess we still need direction on which direction you want to take. Are they installing it or are they reevaluating it? That's the primary question.

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?

It would be at right away permit. At right away permit, yeah.

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.

And do staging and everything of the condition. It's the question of who decides the final, who makes the final decision of whether or not the traffic signal installed. So if we disagree, and they disagree with our condition.

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 conditions of the traffic and everything, plus the one in proposed, whatever development would be there, plus that we have done our Germantown sector plan, what is recommended there. We're going to put all of those together, and then if it shows that it needs it, then we go. That's what I thought we were going to do, and that's still my recommendation.

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?

There's not a specific timeline, again.

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?

No, I think it would look at things differently than the current, but I don't think we can say one way or the other, but it would require it or not.

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 safety in the first place.

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.

We have kind of a draft of what that condition, because we have to replace condition 15B regardless, because it is kind of back to their previous plan before all the changes that they've made. So we have to change it no matter what. I can read one idea. So before the issuance of right-of-way permit, the applicant will need to submit all designs and receive approval from MCD DOT for the traffic signal installation at Century Boulevard and Kinster Drive. Before the issuance of the last building permit, the applicant is responsible for installing the traffic signal, including all conduits. and accessible pedestrian crossings and hyper-visibility crosswalks, all four legs of the intersection to meet ADA and complete street standards for protected intersections, additional striping and median and traffic control devices as required by MCDOT.

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

Yeah, for the installation. So they'd have to do the design at right-of-way permit and then install at the

Could I suggest that we tie it to a phase because if phase four never comes in, then it would potentially not happen.

So pick a phase, a phase two or – Could we also propose some language, though, for reevaluation if things do change with the sector plan and something is recommended that's different? I mean, we don't want to install a signal and then have – you know, there'd be a recommendation to take out a lane of traffic, you know, and then the conditions are recommended to change.

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.

Do you want me to try it again? Yes. OK. Before the issuance of right-of-way permit, the applicant will need to submit all designs and receive approval from MCDOT for the traffic signal installation at Century Boulevard and Kinster Drive. Before the issuance of the final building permit of phase two, the applicant is responsible for installing the traffic signal.

Can I ask for clarification? This condition 15. Is this within the prior preliminary plan, or is this from DOJ's letter?

Yes, this was a prior condition.

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?

Yes, this would be. So we'd remove the previous 15b condition as they requested and replace it with a new condition, which would be the one I read. Okay, great.

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

Where is the signal in which plan?

That would be in the preliminary plan. Preliminary plan.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

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

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

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'm the only one, looks like it, that is there. So I'd approve it, but I want to make sure that I put in the record that I'm not happy about increasing each unit, cost for each unit. So that's yes.

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

Sean, did you hear?

You seconded. Commissioner Linden seconded.

Did you approve?

No, we didn't vote.

Oh, okay. I thought I voted.

Commissioner Linden. Okay.

All in favor?

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.

Thank you, Chair and members of the board. My name is Eli Glazer, Transition Planner with Montgomery Planning, here to present the Executive Boulevard Bike Lanes Mandatory Referral. Just a reminder, the mandatory referral law requires all capital projects to submit for a review by the commission for advisory purposes. The outline today will go through key information about the project, describe the corridor, talk about the community feedback received, do our review, and then conclude and open to questions from the board. Key information to know, this is a proposal to construct one-way separated bike lanes on both sides of Executive Boulevard, Grand Park Avenue. The road changes its name along the three-block extent between Nicholson Lane to the south and Old Georgetown Road to the north. So from Nicholson Lane to the south, Old Georgetown to the north. This is funded through the county CIP. and staff recommends approval and transmittal of comments. On the north side, this project would create a low stress connection to Pike and Rose, which is immediately north of the red circle. It links to separated bike lanes currently in design along Old Georgetown Road, between Town Road to the west, and Rockville Pike to the east. At the southern end, it connects, it would extend existing one-way separated bike lanes on Executive Boulevard between Nicholson Lane and Wood Glen Drive. Wood Glen Drive is the on-street connection for the Bethesda Trolley Trail that continues to the south. Further afield, if we zoom out, This project will connect to the existing Neville Street separated bike lanes, the Marinelli Road separated bike lanes, and then the Josiah Henson Parkway shared use path. So this is, I would say, an integral connection in the North Bethesda bikeway network. We're very excited that Montgomery County DOT has brought this to us today. Existing conditions, this is Executive Boulevard facing north from Nicholson Lane. You can see the existing two-way separated bike lanes in the foreground here. in the lower part of this image. This project essentially proposes to extend that in the same general configuration to the north. It proposes to do that by, sorry, in the surrounding area, we have local park, we have condominium communities, we have on the east side, Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, and then like I said, just north of the site is the Pike and Rose project. In the development pipeline, there is one project, Evolution Labs Phase 1, which is 236,000 square feet of R&D space where the yellow star is just north of Wall Local Park. That project is conditioned to provide a 6.5-foot one-way separated bike lane with a 5-foot concrete buffer along their frontage. If, in the event that the proposed project for MCDOT is constructed before the Evolution Labs development, the bikeway along the frontage will be updated at the time of development. Moving on to the corridor description, in general, the bikeway will have five foot wide bike lanes with a five to five and a half foot buffer in both directions. This is the same configuration as Executive Boulevard South, and the bike lane space will come from removing one travel lane in each direction. The typical cross-section is shown. 11-foot travel lanes, a 10-foot shared left turn lane, concrete medians of varying width, like I said, between 5 and 5.5, basically, and then 5-foot bike lanes. The intersections we're talking about here, not recommending any changes to signalization here. Old Georgetown is signalized. Banneker Avenue has side stops. Marinelli Road and Nicholson Lane are both signalized. And in terms of the intersection design for this project, The proposed project includes protected corner islands where intersection geometry permits, bike turn cue boxes, and green cross-bike markings, as have become standard for Montgomery County DOT projects. In terms of traffic analysis, the project design reduces the number of travel lanes in each direction from two to one. It also changes the approach configuration at all three signalized intersections, generally from a left lane, a through lane, and a right lane, to a left lane and a through right, which you can see in the graphic to the right or in the staff report. Intersection counts for the traffic analysis were collected in April and May of 2024, with particular attention paid to the North Bethesda Marriott and Convention Center use, which had expressed concern about Saturday traffic volumes. So the staff did a Saturday count as well and did analysis on Saturdays to confirm that the changes would be consistent. We're just going to walk through very quickly the traffic analysis from north to south. Essentially, we're comparing the AM base and the AM build condition. So the two gray ones here show overall in the morning. There's about 0.3 more seconds of delay per vehicle overall in the morning at this intersection. In the evening, in the afternoon, there's about 1.3 seconds more of delay. And then on Saturdays, there's like 0.6 seconds more of delay at this intersection. I'm going to keep moving. Marinelli, so we don't keep power. Similarly, Marinelli Road, there's 0.3 more seconds of delay per vehicle in the morning, 0.2 seconds in the afternoon. And then on the weekend, 0.3 additional seconds. And then at the far south, Nicholson Lane, we're at 0.5 additional seconds in the morning, 0.2 additional seconds, and then 0.4 additional seconds on Saturday. This is not, obviously, a lot of delay. This is insignificant. The feedback that has been received, Montgomery County DOT held a public meeting on February 10th of this year. Those who supported the design liked it because it increased low-stress connectivity in the area and to surrounding neighborhoods, and it improved safety. Those opposed... Conveyed that they thought it would have low ridership. It would be redundant with bike lanes already on old Georgetown Road and would increase traffic congestion We've received some correspondence about this that's in your packet largely that correspondence pans it would say to not add more unused bike lanes and that Barrier-protected bike lanes are not necessary for the amount of biking that happens, and that striped bike lanes are sufficient. I think from the traffic analysis that has been done, these lanes have negligible impact on traffic congestion. And just the way the geometry of this corridor is, the difference between a striped bike lane and a barrier bike lane is very minimal from a traffic perspective, but obviously has massive safety benefits for separating bicyclists. In terms of our review, from a general plan perspective, the proposed project is consistent. Obviously, building out a network of safe, comfortable, and appealing pathways is really core to Thrive and to creating complete communities. On the master plan of highways and transitways, the proposed project is not consistent. For one main reason, the plan identifies this corridor as a downtown boulevard with four travel lanes and a 25 mile per hour speed limit. The project would reduce the number of travel lanes to two with a 30 mile per hour posted speed limit. So, by reducing it to two, that would point to an inconsistency with the master plan of highways and transitways. That being said, because the Evolution Labs approval from June 2023 already proposed removing one of the southbound travel lanes, the design of this project is consistent with what has already been approved and conditioned for the corridor design. So this is sort of an unavoidable impact and inconsistency. And I think I would also say that keeping in, as we sort of look forward to amending the mastermind of highways and transitways in the future, this road really acts more like a downtown street than a downtown boulevard anyway. So two travel lanes was much more consistent with sort of that vision. So I would anticipate amending in that direction moving forward. The proposed project is consistent with the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan because it's providing the one-way separate of bike lanes that are planned, and then it's consistent with the White Flint Sector Plan because it provides links to existing and proposed transit facilities as well as the bicycle and trail network. In terms of transportation best practices, the Complete Streets Design Guide, the target speed exceeds what the design guidance is for this sort of street. The protected crossing spacing is in line with what we would expect for this type of street. The street buffer is partially achieved in places, and then the bikeway is consistent because the five-foot width meets the minimum width for the facility. In terms of pedestrian level of comfort, generally the pedestrian pathways score as uncomfortable or undesirable today. You can see in the image here, there's a sidewalk immediately adjacent to the travel lanes without a landscape buffer. With the addition of the one-way separate to bike lanes, which obviously buffer the pedestrian space from the travel lanes on the roadway, the pedestrian level of comfort score in these locations will change from undesirable to to uncomfortable in places. And then further north, between Marinelli and Banneker to the north, we would see changes from somewhat comfortable to very comfortable. So by providing the buffer, we're seeing improvements in pedestrian level of comfort. And then in terms of bicycle level of traffic stress, changing from an on-road condition to a separated bike lane condition, we see a change from high and moderate stress for the whole corridor to low stress. Our comments are pretty straightforward here, that the speed limit on this corridor should be reduced from 30 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour. Currently, it's 30 miles per hour in this corridor, but immediately south on Executive, the same street south of Nicholson Lane, it's 20 miles per hour. So our proposal, because this project removes a lane on the roadway, changes its character and the expectation that drivers have when using it, we would ask that we would match the target speed for this type of road with the posted speed. So a 20 mile per hour posted speed will improve visibility for all road users and help reduce crash severity. We would also recommend raising the bikeways to sidewalk level at all the driveways, as shown in this graphic. Clearly, a sidewalk level bikeway encourages drivers to yield to bicyclists as they cross the bikeway in the same way that they yield to people walking. It reinforces bicyclist priority and really helps visually distinguish the bikeway from the roadway. In addition, it also can act as a speed hump, slowing turning vehicles to and from the driveway, which improves visibility and reduces the likelihood of severe injuries by reducing the speed. And then lastly, we recommend that the curbs at a few locations are updated to provide separate directional curb ramps at Executive Boulevard in Nicholson, at Executive in Marinelli, and then at the southern corners of Grand Park and Old Georgetown. I think the image on the right is of Executive Wolvard and Marinelli, where the red arrows indicate the direction of travel if you were to follow the curb ramp. And they're all pointing into the street, not along the proposed path of travel. So providing curb ramps that actually guide you along the crosswalk direction is the recommendation, which is in line with the Complete Streets Design Guide and also the county's accessible design guide.

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?

Thank you, Commissioner Landon. Matt Johnson from County DOT, for the record. No, there's no federal requirement that the curb ramp align with the crosswalk. It's a best practice. It's not a requirement. And in this case, just to address the comment, we are not touching the sidewalks as part of this project or the curbs, and so we're basically just leaving them alone and adding lightweight buffers. That's why they're not adjusted here is because it's sort of out of scope of what the project was contemplating.

Thanks. Those are the transportation comments. From an environment and climate perspective, the project area crosses through two watersheds. But the proposed work takes place within the existing right-of-way and existing roadway, which really minimizes the environmental impacts. There is an approved forest conservation exemption that was issued on November 21st, 2025. There is an approved stormwater management concept from November 19th, 2025. In terms of historic preservation, the proposed work has no direct impact on any historic resources. And then from a parks perspective, while a part of the proposed improvements are a long portion of the wall local park frontage, parks feels that the proposed bike lanes will improve access to the park and that there are no direct impacts to wall local park at this time. But as always... If design changes and there are proposed temporary or permanent impacts to parkland, the design is required to go through the parks concept review and the park construction permit review processes. But MCDOT and parks have collaborated on this design to reduce impacts and eliminate impacts to parkland. I do not believe there's testimony on this item. And with that in mind, we can conclude.

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

We don't have a presentation prepared. We're just here to answer any questions.

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?

I would say there are a number of driveways. I think we are sensitive to the fact that changing the elevation of the bikeway could create stormwater management challenges and absolutely defer to engineering judgment from MCDOT on what is feasible. We don't want to make the project cost increase significantly to do this. It would just help, obviously, improve visibility and safety.

Okay. Any comment on that?

Yeah, I think that we would probably not be able to comply with this recommendation given the drainage impacts. We're certainly open to doing raised bikeways. We have done them elsewhere in the county. This project is one that's being funded through our bikeways minor program. So it's, by its nature, a relatively small project, and we don't have a lot of funding for it. And so we're doing everything we can to minimize costs. And I think this would... impact drainage, not necessarily only within the roadway, but sometimes water is draining out of those driveways into the roadway. So by putting a raised barrier there, we could be impacting private property as well, which would require us to potentially acquire either temporary or permanent easements from property owners. So it sort of increases the scope of the project. We think it's a great recommendation in terms of a general recommendation for how to improve safety. It's just not, we're not sure it's feasible as part of this project. Okay.

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?

So I'm in the Division of Transportation Engineering. Speed limits are something that's in our traffic division. So we would have to consult a different division on that one. So I can't actually answer whether we would be willing to do it or not. Also, state law requires us to do a traffic study prior to lowering speed limits to 20. That is something that we could consider, but I can't guarantee it will get approved. It'll have to have a traffic study, and it'll also have to get consent from our traffic division. But it's certainly something we will consider.

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.

It's very difficult to create reliable models to understand what expected usage is, but what we can say is that demand for bicycling is very similar to demand for other transportation modes in the sense that if there's a demand to go from point A to point B, bicycling is an option that people will consider if there are low-stress facilities in place. And I thank you, Eli, for bringing up this map here. There is a growing low-stress bike network in the North Bethesda, White Flint area. And right now, we have sort of three different areas of low-stress bike lanes that are not connected to each other. So in the north, we have existing separated bike lanes along Town Road, along the western frontage of Pike and Rose. We also have the Josiah Henson Bikeway along Josiah Henson Parkway. And we have separated bike lanes along the state portion of Old Georgetown Road. Those are all connected to each other. We also have separated bike lanes on Nebel Street and Marinelli Road East that are connected to each other. But they're not connected to the area that I described first. And then in the south, we have separated bike lanes Executive Boulevard and on Woodland Drive, which connect to the Bethesda Trolley Trail, which are, again, not connected to the other two areas. So we have these three different areas that are disconnected from each other. This project will connect the northern and southern areas to each other. And there are existing striped bike lanes on Marinelli Road. They're, I think, moderate stress. that if those were ever upgraded, we'd connect the eastern portion to the other two portions via this project. So this is about connecting existing networks. At this point, we still have a very disconnected network. And the example I like to give to people is back in 1976, 50 years ago, the Metro opened between Rhode Island Avenue and Farragut North. It did not go to Montgomery County. If we had stopped there and just built that piece, probably we would live in a region where almost no one would ever ride Metro. It just would be totally useless for most trips. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the metro extends out to Montgomery County, and you can very easily get on the metro right here at Wheaton. I actually took the metro here from where I live, DuPont Circle, when I came here today. You can ride it to the airport, National. You can ride it to Dulles if you want. You can ride it to Largo, or to downtown, or to Alexandria. It's useful for a lot of trips, and a lot of people use it. But if we had just built a few pieces here and there, like a line that went, right now we have a line that goes from Shady Grove to North Bethesda. very useful when it's connected to the rest of the network, but right now it's kind of a pain because you have to take a shuttle bus to the point.

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 close by. I was just wondering that if you have any idea of of what is the existing. And I definitely agree with you that when you make it connected, it's probably going to be used more.

Well, what we can say is that from other locations in the county where we have built separated bike lanes, we do see increases year over year in riding. The increases are still small, and the initial numbers are still small at this point. But again, the network is not particularly connected completely. But we saw that in Silver Spring, where every time we build a piece of the network, we see increases not only on the new bike lane, but also on the bike lanes that connect to it. So we are seeing increases there. And so we would expect a similar increase here. And North Bethesda probably is the area of the county where we're building the most network the fastest, because we have so many developers who are contributing to bike lanes, as well as county capital projects. So North Bethesda is very soon going to have probably one of the more connected bike networks in the county, along with Silver Spring, where we've been investing a lot of capital by the county itself.

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.

Second.

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 MCDOT. And we have Eli Glazer again presenting this item. Sorry. Welcome.

Thank you. Eli Glazer, for the record, Montgomery County Planning. I'm here to present the Burlington Avenue 13th Street Separated Bike Lanes project. Skip over the law, since we spoke about that in the last item. This project, MCDOT proposes to construct one-way separated bike lanes on both sides of Burlington Avenue and 13th Street from Eastern Avenue at the west side to Fenton Street in downtown Silver Spring. This project will be constructed after the Fenton Street separated bike lanes project is built, and staff recommends approval of the miniature referral and transmittal of comments to MCDOT. On the west side, the bikeway connects to DC residential streets, 13th Street, Lee 8 Road. And then on the east side, a major benefit of this project is it connects people in a low-stress way across the train tracks. So it connects South Silver Spring. across the CSX tracks, which also are the red line tracks, to the Metropolitan Branch Trail south to DC, the Metropolitan Branch Trail north, which is under construction, and the board saw a mandatory referral for in 2016 to Silver Spring, and then ultimately through the Purple Line construction all the way to Bethesda. The Fenton Street separated bike lanes, which are under construction next year, which this board saw an alternatives analysis for in 2021, and then mandatory referrals for in 2022. That project will provide separated bike lanes from this intersection, Burlington, at Fenton Street, all the way north to where the former planning department building is. So the entire Fenton Street corridor. So this project, the 13th Street project that's in front of us today, is like a life-changing, I would say, route-changing connection for folks living in this part, this corner, this western southern corner of Silver Spring to connect to the rest of Silver Spring and to connect folks living east of the CSX tracks to the large Montgomery College campus that's here.

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?

It does not. That's still master planned and exists, that segment. But the current plan is as part of there's ongoing work on Selim Road, which is this road here, and the bridge that you can see when you drive on Georgia. And that will connect to the north side of Burlington, which as part of this project will construct a side path on the north side, which will allow you to get from Fenton Street to the side path.

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?

That's the route that, yeah, that will be, that is going to be advanced.

So it'll link up directly with this project?

Yeah, correct. So facing east, 13th Street, or sorry, this is facing west, 13th Street. There's an auto body shop in the foreground on the right. On the left, a car wash, and then there's multifamily apartments and condominium buildings and the Days Inn Hotel further to the west. You can see that there's a shared lane marking on the wide travel lanes, and then there's existing parking lanes as well. Facing east, this is at Georgia and Burlington. We can see the CSX tracks. and sort of a wide road with existing sidewalks on both sides. In general, the bikeway design is for six foot wide bike lanes with a concrete buffer of varying width between one foot and 10 feet, the narrower buffers and the more constrained sections like the bridge itself. There's obviously limited space on the bridge to provide buffering. There's still separation on the bridge. And then where the previous project provided bike lane space by removing a travel lane, this project is very creative in using a variety of options to provide the space, whether that's removing one or both parking lanes, narrowing travel lanes, narrowing the sidewalk, or removing landscape buffers between the sidewalk and the roadway. There's a number of cross-sections that we're going to walk through just because the configuration of the roadway changes. These are the same as in the staff report, but it's just moving from west to east, A, B, C, and D. So A is at 13th Street from eastern to Kennett Street facing east, and we can see two travel lanes, two 11-foot travel lanes, a parking lane on the north side, so the left side of the image, and then six-foot bike lanes with two-foot buffers. and then the sidewalk a varying width. Moving east, section B, we have two 11-foot travel lanes, two-foot buffer on the south side, so on the right with six-foot bike lane, and then there's just a painted buffer on the north side, so on the left because That auto body shop has existing very active garages and driveways. So it would have been difficult to impossible to provide a concrete buffer there while still maintaining that use. So the MCDOT design is sort of thoughtful in how it handles the existing business.

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?

There are, again, Matt Johnson from for the record, There are gaps in the buffer to permit water drainage at periodic intervals and designed with the specific drainage paths in mind so the water can get to the existing inlet structures.

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

Correct. If there was a barrier, like just for example in this image, the water would run down across the roadway to the curb at the edge of the eastbound through lane. It would run down that gutter downhill, which would be toward 13th Street, sorry, toward Eastern Avenue, until it gets to a gap. It would then run through that gap across the bike lane to the existing gutter pan, and it would run down that gutter pan until it gets to an inlet structure.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Section C is just east of Georgia Avenue. You can see this is a wider section. We're approaching the bridge now. There's turn lanes that are maintained through lanes. There's a floating bus stop designed as part of this project to maintain ride-on service, five-foot bike lanes. And then on the north side, a two-foot buffer, so the left side. And then on the south side, the floating bus stop acts as a buffer for the bike lane. And then the existing sidewalks are maintained. And then D, which is just after Selim Road, you can see the proposed shared use path on the north side. This is the connection for the Metropolitan Branch Trail that will connect to Selim Road. Then you have the separated bike lane and a two-foot buffer, three through lanes, so two in the westbound direction and one in the eastbound direction that are 11 feet, a two-foot buffer, and then the six-foot bike lane in the eastbound direction.

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?

Commissioner, that's an excellent question. This design does not really contemplate a cyclist going eastbound, transitioning from the bike lane into the shared use path, the Metropolitan Branch Trail at Seelam Road, because there's no safe crossing at that location. There's no signalized crossing there. And given the crest curve of the roadway, it creates visibility issues. my recommendation for a cyclist making that maneuver would be to ride, to cross over at Georgia Avenue and ride on the sidewalk, or to continue past the intersection to Fenton Street, cross at Fenton, and then ride back on the path, so backtrack a little bit.

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. And so that feels maybe a little uncomfortable. Although you will be buffered by the bike lane at that point. Were there any other any other design considerations to help folks make that that that move?

Yeah, so we discussed extensively how to accommodate this section of the Metropolitan Branch Trail. So I think you're probably aware that originally the Metropolitan Branch Trail was planned to go underneath the bridge here through a new tunnel and connect to King Street. So there would not have actually been a connection to Burlington Avenue at grade. Once the tunnel was canceled, this project was already in planning. And it became a question of, how do we get people from the Metropolitan Branch Trail segment that goes past Solar Spring Metro Station to the section that goes past Montgomery College? And we looked at a variety of options. But what was determined was the best thing to do was to incorporate a small section of shared use path along this project between Seelam and Burlington and Fenton Street along Burlington to provide that connection, which is what we're doing. So we're actually building a small piece of the Metropolitan Branch Trail as part of this. we looked at which side of the street it should be on, and we determined that it was just not feasible to have a crossing at Seatham Road, given the crest curve and the roadway geometry, the inability to put in a median refuge.

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?

So, yeah, but just while Mr. Glazier is working on finding that, I'll just say that we just did not find a way to find, to provide a safe crossing here. I understand that there are going to be maneuvers that are going to be challenging as a result of that. There is, for eastbound cyclists, there is a median between the bikeway and the roadway at Seelam. There is not an opening in the median there. So there's a driveway just beyond it that people might use to leave the bike lane, but it would not be right at the location of the intersection. And there will be signage at Fenton Street for the Metropolitan Road.

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?

Due to the intersection operations, especially at Georgia Avenue and the state highway administration, which controls Burlington Avenue, it's not an official written policy, but it's one that they enact on us, which is that two-way bike crossings of state intersections are very difficult. They require us to generally use bicycle signal, full phase separation, and this intersection, given it's a five-legged intersection with a very heavy diagonal right movement for Maryland 410, it just was not feasible to... consider a two-way facility for the entire length of the project.

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?

I think it just has to do with the fact that drivers have to look at more, they have to look at bicycles coming from both directions, and they just are less comfortable with that.

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.

Commissioner, I understand and I would suggest some inconsistency. A two-way bike lane is very similar to a shared use path, but they're not considered the same thing.

Having a little trouble pulling up the plan set for that. But I think suffice it to say, the design for this and the master plan recommendation for this road sort of assumed the underpass. So the sort of movement that Commissioner Linden was talking about was not contemplated. And I think if it had been, we may have had a different bikeway recommendation for this road on the north side like you're talking about. So it's not an ideal situation. But I think with this, and then we also had some questions from a member of the public about the ability to turn from eastbound Burlington Avenue on to Fenton Street northbound, and if there could be some more queuing space there. And that's another situation where the design for that intersection has been, like, at this point, thoroughly vetted and approved and, like, it is what it is with SHA, and there isn't an opportunity at this point to provide more of that space, so I think there could be future opportunities there. This is a similar, this is a very good project. It's obviously not a perfect project, but we operate within the constraints that we have.

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.

Yeah, I think understood. I think there's an opportunity, if we add an additional comment about the wayfinding, to explore how to convey how to do that in a safe way. I think staff would support that. In terms of intersections, just moving along, Eastern Avenue is an all-way stop. Kennett Street is a side street stop. Georgia Avenue is signalized, and Selma Road is uncontrolled. Eastern Avenue, the project is proposing to construct an advanced stop bar for the bicyclists, which would encourage drivers to stop further back from the crosswalk while making bicyclists more visible to turning drivers, which will improve visibility for everybody and make it easier and safer for people biking and people walking to cross this intersection. At Kennett Street, bicyclists travel through the uncontrolled intersection in the eastbound direction, protected by this concrete buffer. And in the westbound direction, cross-bike markings are provided to make clear that this is a bicyclist crossing space. And then drivers that are turning from Kennett Street on to 13th Street have to stop at a stop sign before proceeding across the bikeway. At Georgia Avenue, there are protected corner islands at two of the southern corners. as well as green cross bike markings. I think, unfortunately, the geometry of this intersection and the complexity does not allow for protected corner islands at the northwest or northeast corners. I think that's something that we would have loved to see. But just given the constraints that exist here, it wasn't possible. At Selim Road, bicyclists travel through the uncontrolled intersection in the eastbound direction with the concrete buffer. And in the westbound direction, there are the cross bike markings. And as Mr. Johnson said, you can see the Metropolitan Branch Trail here. This is a wider shared use path section that will allow people to go onto Salem Road to get onto the Met Branch Trail or continue on the Met Branch Trail. And then Fenton Street, the design for this intersection, as I said, was customized. was designed as part of the other project that was before the board, the Fenton Street separated bike lanes. But there are protected corner islands here that allow people to queue and to transition onto the shared use path going south on the MBT and then north onto Fenton Street and into the Fenton Village area of Silver Spring. In terms of traffic analysis, the traffic analysis for this project was constructed or conducted at Georgia Avenue at the intersection East West Highway, Georgia, 13th Street, and Burlington. This design does not reduce the number of travel lanes. It does change the lane configuration at 13th Street and Georgia from a right turn and a through with two left turn options to a through right and the left turn options. So you can see what the proposed change with the red highlight. And in terms of traffic analysis here, I broke this up into AM and PM. In the AM, the base situation is 58.8 seconds of delay per vehicle. And in the build condition, that actually goes down two seconds. Still operating at a level of service E, which is not great, but this is an urban area with a lot of congestion already. In the PM, The overall delay also goes down significantly. So we see in general there is reduced delay, but at the same time there are some approaches where delay is expected to worsen. So in the westbound direction, we see that delay worsens significantly. from 72 seconds to 106 seconds. And then in the southeastbound direction, it goes from 301 seconds to 321 seconds. So while in general the intersection is getting better, at some approaches, just based on the changes that needed to be made for this project, it gets worse.

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

So, yeah, so what this is saying, essentially, in the eastbound direction, given the existing configuration, if this project weren't to be built, that's what the delay would be in that direction.

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

And it can improve it dramatically because it's changing. So today, the through lane is combined with the left turn lanes. So if you're waiting for somebody to turn left here, you could be stuck. And you're going through, you can be stuck, which can be a significant delay given the oncoming traffic in the other way. But what this project proposes to do as part of the design is make the through and the right together. And it's obviously much easier to make a right turn. So if there's a right turning vehicle in front of you, it's easier to clear that vehicle out of the intersection so you can continue.

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?

State intersection. The situation is that there actually is only officially one lane at this location. It's a 17 foot wide lane. So as far as the state is concerned, there's only a single lane approach here. It's just that when you have 17 feet, there's enough room for two cars to fit side by side, not necessarily a truck or a bus, but if there's just two cars, they can fit, and so they do. And so this is kind of an unofficial situation, and that right lane could either be a through and a right or a right only, kind of depending on what the traffic is doing. So it's an unofficial situation. And making it two lanes would require moving the center line over, which is something that would require... a lot of permitting from the state.

So it kind of requires a capital project to actually happen. So I think, if I could paraphrase what Mr. Johnson said, it's that the difference here, the big number that we see for what the base situation is, is not actually that big in reality because drivers essentially split one lane into two and are able to make the movement. They just go ahead and do that. OK. I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not going to say it's going to be like the build condition, but it's not 679 seconds per vehicle.

Okay, so in reality, it's working.

Yeah, I would say that having been a party to some of the conversations that MCDOT has had with SHA on this project, DOT has tried very strongly to try and show what is actually happening in reality out there and to not give a false impression about what's happening. And it's been very difficult to be able to convey that in public documents because of the unofficial use of this lane.

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

Ten minutes.

Yeah, so that's what the analysis. We did work out a compromise with the state administration so that it will show the official, which is what this is, it will show that in the report where there's an appendix that shows the the de facto as opposed to the de jure condition in an appendix. But the state refused to approve a traffic impact statement that showed anything that wasn't official.

So, yeah, that's a big number, and it shouldn't be that big. Thank you.

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?

There is a county garage on that block face. We're removing parking on the south side of the street, and there is a county garage on that block face.

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

Thank you. In terms of community feedback, MCDOT held a public meeting at Montgomery College in 2024, which is on is on the project corridor, this massive destination for the area. Feedback was generally positive and focused on the benefits of the connection for South Silver Spring residents. Negative comments focused on potential congestion caused by the bike lanes given perceptions of existing congestion issues. Staff has received project correspondence, and it's in your packet as well. about concern about pedestrian space and missing pedestrian space as part of this project and the dangerous crossing of Georgia Avenue. And then also folks unsure of the value of this connection when the Spring Street Bridge opens. And then we also received correspondence in support of this project to provide connections from folks west of Georgia Avenue across the train tracks. I think the only thing I'll say about this is that the traffic analysis shows that there's improvements to the traffic situation, given the signalization changes. The Spring Street Bridge is at the very north end of the Silver Spring Central Business District, and this project is at the very south end. So they're not really substitutes for each other. You really need both connections. So essentially asking folks to just go all the way north to Spring Street to come back down into south Fenton Village is not not really helpful, and there aren't low-stress connections on the west side to get you to Spring Street from here at this point anyway, because we have existing bike plan recommendations to put separated bike lanes on East-West Highway, which would get that connection, and then up to 16th Street as well. So it's a point well taken that there are other routes potentially in the future, but we obviously support a network where there are many different ways to get in a low-stress way between different destinations. In terms of our review, I can go through this pretty quickly. This project is consistent with Thrive because it builds out complete networks for walking and biking in line with complete communities. I'm partially consistent with the master plan of highways and transitways because while there are two travel lanes, the 30 mile per hour speed limit is higher than the 20 mile per hour speed limit. That the target is for this roadway type. It's consistent with the bicycle master plan It's consistent with the silver spring downtown and adjacent communities plan in terms of transportation best practices and The target speed is higher than the roadway classification. The maximum protected crossing spacing is also higher, but there's not really a lot you can do about that without adding additional street connections. The street buffer is partially met in certain areas, and then the bikeway is consistent. In terms of pedestrian level of comfort, on portions of this the comfort is already very comfortable. And then in the locations where it's either uncomfortable or undesirable, the provision of the separated bike lane improves the comfort. And then bike stress existing in the roadway is high to moderate stress. And this project improves the stress to low stress or very low stress, which would be the best score, very low stress. Transportation comments, again, similar to the previous item. The corridor speed limit is currently 30 miles per hour. The proposed project narrows the feel of the roadway, which changes its character and the expectation of folks driving along it. The master plan target speed is 20. Matching that target speed would improve visibility and reduce crash severity. Second comment is that the northeast curb ramp of 13th Street and Kennett Street should be reconstructed to become more directional. I think you can see here on the left, the curb ramp today leads people to go out into the intersection and also encourages, potentially encourages a higher speed turn. from westbound 13th Street onto Kennett Street. If we were to bulb out, as shown in the red highlight on the right, folks would have a direct connection across, would still be able to maintain the ability for cars to turn into that lane, just in a more controlled way. So this is consistent with the Complete Streets Design Guide and the Accessible Design Guide guidelines. And then lastly, raising the unprotected bikeway section along the sport automotive service center to sidewalk level. As I mentioned earlier, the proposed design for this bikeway westbound includes There's a small nose of concrete to discourage folks from driving in the buffer space. But then because these are very active garages and driveways, we weren't able to get a concrete buffer here. The recommendation is that the area where we see the green cross bike markings here, which is the bikeway in this direction, that that be raised to sidewalk level to make clear to people sort of entering and exiting in the garages here, that this is a bikeway and that they need to drive slowly across it, even if it's, like, on its face, this looks like an unprotected bike lane, right? So providing some sort of visual indication would be helpful to, similarly for the last item, encourage yielding, reinforce priority, and visually distinguish the bikeway from the roadway. So I think that would be... I think MCDOT has already done a great job here in ensuring that the existing businesses along the corridor continue to operate in the manner that they're accustomed to, and that this could be an additional way to strengthen the bicyclist safety and priority while still maintaining that access.

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?

I think I'll let Matt weigh in, but that's a thought that I had, too, at first. But if you look at this, it's shown sort of on the right in this image. There's, like, three driveway. There's three garage entrances. Then there's a driveway between this and... parking garage for the apartment building as well so there's just there's a lot of conflicts and i think um if i could say put words in matt's mouth i think it would speak to the constructability of the small buffers that would be created and then likely the turning movements of the large vehicles that could be using these would probably destroy any of the buffers that you would construct

Yeah, it's not really feasible to have buffers. A raised bike lane might be something that we can consider. We will have to consider the drainage impacts to that, so I can't guarantee anything. I would just say that an auto body shop is probably not the highest and best use in this area. So there is a likelihood at some point in the future that this will redevelop into something that's more commensurate with the zoning that's in place, and that that space would likely have fewer driveway needs. and could potentially also be used through the master planning process or through the development approval process to have some sort of more robust barrier between the bikeway and the sidewalk. I completely agree.

Thanks. So yeah, it's not the be all, end all. This is not the last bite at the apple for that segment. And then beyond transportation, I'll talk briefly in terms of environment and climate. It's in an urban streetscape. There are no impacts on significant or specimen trees. From a forest conservation perspective, there is a forest conservation exemption approval. Prior to the pre-construction meeting for this, there are additional approvals that will need to be achieved, which are common for all of these types of capital projects. in terms of historic preservation. No direct impact on any historic resources, but it's adjacent to a historic resource. So if work crosses into that space, plans will need to be submitted to the HPC. And then I turn it over to my colleague from the Parks Department to discuss the next couple slides.

Thanks. Good afternoon. Jackie Hoban from Montgomery Parks for the Record. So I'll speak briefly to where this project interacts with parkland, which is pretty limited, so I'll be pretty quick here and wrap us up. So this is on the eastern edge of the project limit. In brown on that graphic, you'll see where it's showing the new side path along the frontage of the green outlined piece of Fenton Street Urban Park, which is sort of two pieces of separated parkland. at the Fenton Street intersection. This is showing the existing condition of the intersection. But as Eli has mentioned several times, there will be improvements made to this intersection ahead of this new side path and bike lane connection. And so in red, there are highlighted areas showing parkland conveyance that will be made as part of the Fenton Street intersection project, so the separate project that we've discussed. In yellow, we highlight to other pieces of proposed parkland as part of the 2022 Silver Spring and Adjacent Communities Master Plan. And so our major comment associated with this project is that DOT convey any unused right-of-way to parkland. The larger rectangle of yellow to the west side of the park is currently another auto body shop. And should a full take of right-of-way be required for that, parks is asking that that land be conveyed which DIT is agreeing is consistent with the master plan. It would be something they would evaluate. Other than that, the project itself does not cross onto parkland, so no park construction permit is required at this time. Should their limit of disturbance change and impact parkland, they would then need a park construction permit. We'll continue to coordinate with them as the project design advances just to limit impacts to the community garden that is directly adjacent to the frontage of that new side path. our two comments are that they you know continue to coordinate on the design and timing to limit the impacts to the community garden operations and infrastructure and then they convey any unused right-of-way to montgomery parks at fenton street urban park consistent with the recommendations in the 2022 silver spring downtown and adjacent communities plan the previous so it when you look at this it looks as if

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

So they don't know if the larger rectangle, they don't know what right-of-way will be acquired or be needed for the project. Is that right, Matt, at this time?

Correct. We're not sure what the extent of the acquisition will be at this time. Okay.

And then the other small triangle is... We're still looking into it. Our real estate teams are in coordination. Some piece of that is SHA right-of-way, and so we're trying to figure out what the limits of that are and what is possible to be conveyed. Because with the intersection improvement project, that roadway is being pulled away. It's going to be open green space. At one point, it was going to be a stormwater management facility in that location. I think that had since been removed. kind of toward the end stage of that other project to accommodate this new side path connection. So now there's more space for potential conveyance that we want to reevaluate.

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

Thank you. There's no testimony for this item. And then these are the shared transportation and parks comments on this mandatory referral. So 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 fun. So thank you for MCDOT for moving this forward. And are there any other questions? And then also, similar to Commissioner Peron's question, it'd be great, how do we monitor usage? Are there little clickers, you know, under the, as you drive?

You were brave asking that question.

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?

Yeah, I'll keep it short since I know we're short on time. We do an annual count in the fall every year. Those are hand counts where people actually go out and count. Those are done at discrete locations. I believe we have a location at Fenton and Burlington as one of our count locations. And then we do have about a dozen automated counters. Parks also has, I believe, five in the system thereabouts on their trail system that count all the time.

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

Sorry, just circling back, we have these comments and then Is the board interested in adding the comment to add the wayfinding to Selim Road from this?

Is that to you?

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.

Staff can, yeah, with the board's blessing, we can create language that speaks to strategies to inform how to access. We're not opposed to that.

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.

Second.

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.