Third Public Meeting Minutes – York Road Streetscape Project

Below are meeting minutes for the third public meeting of the York Road Corridor Improvement Project on October 20, 2010.

1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTION

• The meeting began with Mark Brown, Baltimore City Project Planner for the York Road Streetscape Project, welcoming all attendees to the third public meeting for the Project and introducing the Baltimore City and Consultant personnel that are involved in the design of the Project.
• Mr. Brown noted that this project is open for all comments, ideas and feedback regarding the 30% design stage submission.

1. PROJECT REVIEW

• Mr. Brown then turned the meeting over to Mark Ledebur, Consultant Project Manager (WBCM). Mr. Ledebur began by reviewing the project status, budget, and design constraints of the York Road Streetscape Project.
• Mr. Ledebur reaffirmed that the project references the York Road Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP), York Road Partnership Corridor Study, York Road Corridor Traffic Study and previous public meeting recommendations in the design process as feasible within the budget. The main focus is on improving the safety, function, and appearance of York Road.
• Mr. Ledebur reviewed the project progress from inception through the current 30% design submission.
• The initial project schedule was reviewed. Mr. Ledebur stated that the design completion was originally scheduled for advertisement in April 2011. It was also stated that the Design team is working with Baltimore City on accelerating the project schedule.

1. OBJECTIVES & PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

• Mr. Ledebur began to present the project design tasks and proposed improvements, summarizing the tasks completed by the Design Team since receiving Notice to Proceed from Baltimore City. The intention of the presentation was to illustrate to attendees how the issues raised and comments received from previous public involvement have been incorporated into the actual design work.
• Mr. Ledebur continued the presentation explaining the results of the design team’s field investigations; including pavement repairs, curb repairs, sidewalk repairs, improvements to pedestrian ramps and entrances, inlet repairs, proposed bump-outs along identified side streets, median improvements, crosswalk improvements, landscaping plans, street lighting plans, parking adjustments and improvements, transit facility improvements, signal modifications, roadway signing, bicycle traffic and safety, and other miscellaneous improvements.
• Mr. Ledebur explained that the presentation is general in its description of the proposed improvements, but specific improvements can be seen and commented upon in the graphic displays provided and the 30% design plan submission.
• Proposed pavement repairs were reviewed. Mr. Ledebur reminded attendees that the pavement surface from E. Cold Spring Lane to Glenwood Avenue will be milled and overlaid, while the pavement surface south of E. Cold Spring Lane was more recently overlaid and would not be milled. Field investigations were performed to identify areas in need of patch repair or full depth base repair.
• Curb conditions were reviewed throughout the project limits, and areas in need of repair were identified. Existing roof drain outlet locations were also identified so that they may be maintained through construction.
• Sidewalk features were then discussed. Areas of sidewalk deterioration have been identified and proposed for replacement. ADA compatibility issues have also been identified as Mr. Ledebur identified a specific issue out front of Govans-Boundary Parish which will be addressed with sidewalk “bump-outs”. Included within the sidewalk investigation, pedestrian ramps and driveway entrances were evaluated for ADA compatibility and deterioration.
• Inlet repair was another improvement discussed. The design team has performed a visual inspection of inlets determining structural repairs as needed and to provide bicycle-compatible inlet grates through the corridor.
• A slide containing a detail for the potential bump-outs on the side streets was shown. Mr. Ledebur informed the audience of the ongoing investigation of side street bump-outs, noting there will be potential bump-outs on side streets where there are full-time parking areas. Existing parking restrictions will also be evaluated.
• Median improvements were presented to the audience. Mr. Ledebur presented a slide containing a detail for the potential mid-block pedestrian refuge island proposed at the post office location. The implementation of the refuge island was explained as a benefit for pedestrians attempting to cross York road to have a safe haven instead of trying to cross the entire roadway width at one time.
• A raised planted median, as shown in the 30% design submission, is under evaluation for the southern section of the project.
• Multiple comments and questions were asked regarding the possibility of introducing a raised median at the northern portion of the project north of Cold Spring Lane, as well as the possibility of reducing the left turn movements in this area. A reference was made to the Harford Road project and introducing a similar median to York Rd. Mr. Ledebur informed the audience that the design team would evaluate all comments on the possibility of introducing a median in other areas of the project. Kirk Gabriel of Baltimore City informed the audience that the roadway section of the Harford Road project made it more agreeable to the inclusion of a raised median than this project.
• Crosswalk improvements were discussed as a design task. The design team has proposed patterned crosswalks at E. 43^rd St., E. Cold Spring ln., and E. Old Cold Spring ln. Striped crosswalks are also proposed throughout the corridor and have been evaluated for effective operation.
• The discussion then proceeded onto landscaping. Comments were received about tree pit size and the type of species proposed. Mr. Ledebur explained tree pit inspection has been completed. The inspection has resulted in additional tree pits creating additional green space along York Rd. The tree pit sizes will be designed to a 4’x8’ wherever feasible as per input from Baltimore City. Mr. Ledebur explained the species type of the proposed plantings can be found within the plan set. Potential areas for providing additional greenspace within the project limits will be evaluated moving forward in design.
• Mr. Ledebur proceeded on to discuss street lighting plans. The design team has designed the proposed lighting to provide motorist and pedestrians with enhanced safety and security. Existing street lighting fixtures will be replaced and new pedestrian style fixtures will be added. The proposed light has been modeled using software to ensure design will meet and exceed recommended levels.
• Multiple questions and comments were received concerning the street lighting plans. An attendee asked if we will be taking down the cobra lights and be adding the pedestrian lights. The question of implementing a cut off to direct the light down instead of light being directed up causing light pollution was asked. Also noted from an attendee, there have been pedestrian lights to the north that have not worked in a year which the people would like to have fixed.
• Mr. Ledebur responded explaining the street lighting will work in conjunction with the pedestrian lighting. The street lighting fixtures will be replaced with new cobrahead luminaires and poles in additional to new proposed pedestrian lighting. Mr. Gabriel responded explaining the city does have a detail of a specific light fixture directing the light towards the ground, and the design team will investigate the use of this detail.
• Parking improvements were discussed. Existing parking meters are proposed to be removed and EZ-Park meters to be installed. Coordination between the Design team, Baltimore City, and the Baltimore City Parking Authority is required. Overall corridor parking and time restrictions are being evaluated.
• Discussion began concerning the implementation of adding paid parking to areas which are not metered now. Mr. Gabriel informed the audience the paid parking areas are evaluated and designated according to the parking authority. In addition to the metered parking an attendee made known that the enforcement of afternoon parking restrictions are not as strictly enforced as they are in the morning, causing delays and hazards during rush hour.
• Transit Facility improvements were discussed next. The design team has completed a review of the current bus stop locations and operations throughout both Phase 1 and 2 of the York Road Streetscape Project. The design team has preliminary MTA approval of several bus stop reductions and adjustments. A display was developed that identifies the proposed bus stop reductions/adjustments for meeting attendees to provide review and comment about after the presentation.
• Signal modifications to the corridor were discussed. The design team has identified signal improvements design and analysis is to be completed. Traffic signal/pedestrian signal modifications are proposed at six locations for ADA compliance. These locations were shown on the displays for the audience to make comments on after the presentation.
• Signing improvements were discussed. The need for warning drivers of school children crossing due to nearby Guilford Elementary/Middle School was used as an example issue. The design team will perform a corridor review of the existing singing to determine where repair, realignment, replacement, and/or updating signing to MUTCD standards is needed.
• Bicycle traffic and safety was discussed. Mr. Ledebur recounted that floating bike lanes and sharrows along York Road are impractical as long as there is restricted parking/travel lanes along the corridor. It was also explained York Road is not considered a major bike corridor in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, and that Old York Road is also a viable parallel alternative for bicycle traffic. The City has directed the Design Team to include “Share the Road” signage within the project corridor to increase awareness and safety of bicycle traffic.
• To end Mr. Ledebur’s presentation, miscellaneous items within the scope of the proposed improvements were addressed. In addition to the above objectives and proposed improvements, the design team will address the removal of overhanging vegetation, removal of phone booths at E. Cold Spring Lane/York Road, potential entrance consolidation, and potential median striping revisions.

1. QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION – QUESTION/COMMENT & RESPONSE

A period of questions and answers was conducted by the Design Team. At the conclusion of the question and answer session, Mr. Ledebur encouraged attendees to take some time to look over several display maps of the project area that were laid out around the rooms. The Design Team asked that attendees use the provided markers to mark-up and make comment on particular issues that they would like to see addressed with the proposed project improvements. The following is a summary of questions and comments received and Design Team responses:

• Question/Comment: Can you be more specific about the exact locations of the proposed bump-outs?

Response: Side street bump-outs are currently proposed at nine locations, and the exactlocations can be seen on the graphic displays and the 30% Design Plans.

• Question/Comment: Will the bump-outs be planted or can we place tree pits in a location to blend well with the bump-outs?

Response: The Design Team will investigate the possibility of including tree pits and/or greenspace into the side street bump-outs.

• Question/Comment: Is there a planted corner prototype which can be used?

Response: A representative of Baltimore City DOT mentioned the existence of an existing project that provided some kind of “planted corner”. The Design team will look into the use of a similar detail for this project.

• Question/Comment: Do we take into account the stormwater runoff when adding tree pits? Is it possible to have an opportunity for retro-fitting BMP/ Stormwater management facilities?

Response: The Design team will evaluate the possibilities involved with providing stormwater management, and incorporating this into the design of the tree pits.

• Question/Comment: For “challenged people” will the pedestrian crosswalk equipment be improved with countdowns at all four corners of intersections? Can the stop bar be placed further back (away) from the crosswalks and can the crosswalk striping be improved?

Response: The Design Team will evaluate each intersection that is being proposed to include pedestrian signal improvements. At four-way intersections, countdown pedestrian signals are being proposed at all four corners. The Design Team will evaluate the stop bar placement and crosswalk striping when providing the pavement marking plans for the project.

• Question/Comment: Will count down equipment be placed at all intersection locations?

Response: The Design Team intends to provide countdown pedestrian signals in each of the locations where pedestrian signal improvements are being proposed.

• Question/Comment: Are the trash receptacles placement more specific on the plans?

Response: Yes, the proposed locations for both benches and trash receptacles are included in the 30% Design Plans, within the Landscaping Plans.

• Question/Comment: Are proposed crosswalks at Old Cold Spring Ln. only on one side of the street? We think it would make more sense to have it on both sides. There is a crossing guard during school hours, but no guard for after school activities.

Response: The Design Team will re-evaluate this intersection in order to determine the correct placement of the crosswalks. We understand the current use of crossing guards at this location.

• Question/Comment: Will bus shelters be included in more locations?

Response: The Design Team is not currently proposing additional bus shelters, as it was believed that bus shelters were solely the domain of the MTA. Representatives from Baltimore City and the MTA discussed the details regarding alternative means of proposing new bus shelters at the public meeting. The Design Team will evaluate any comments received regarding additional bus shelters and discuss them with Baltimore City personnel.

Bus shelters are equally our responsibility.   We need to work out an overall agreement w/ MTA once we build them; We should use the standard Enseicom shelter; will need to send a proprietary item waiver request to SHA.

• Question/Comment: What type of trash receptacle will be designed? Can you show the public what the trash cans will look like?

Response: A detail of the proposed trash receptacles will be provided for review when it is available.

• Question/Comment: Will bus shelters be included in more locations?

Response: The Design Team is not currently proposing additional bus shelters, as it was believed that bus shelters were solely the domain of the MTA. Representatives from Baltimore City and the MTA discussed the details regarding alternative means of proposing new bus shelters at the public meeting. The Design Team will evaluate any comments received regarding additional bus shelters and discuss them with Baltimore City personnel.

• Question/Comment: A suggestion was made that perhaps the owner of Chicken Run on the corner of Cold Spring and York Rd. would be willing to sacrifice property for a bus shelter. She doesn’t like the “hanging out” which takes place out front. Can we put a shelter there and improve the area if the owner allows?

Response: All options will be considered, however Mr. Ledebur reminded attendees that there is no budget available for right-of-way acquisition.

• Question/Comment: The corner intersection at Cold Spring Ln. has bus stops at all corners and they conflict with traffic can we move the stops? The stop’s deter businesses and frightens seniors coming to the businesses. Can we revisit moving the southbound bus stop to the southern corner of E. Cold Spring Ln.?

Response: The design team will again evaluate the locations and operations of the bus stops at the location of York Road and E. Cold Spring Ln. Mr. Ledebur stated that some revisions suggested by attendees would not be acceptable to the MTA due to their operational needs, considering that this location is a major transfer point for MTA bus routes.

• Question/Comment: Is it possible to re-grade sidewalks so they drain into the tree pits?

Response: Grading of sidewalk will be evaluated to ensure that ADA requirements are met for cross-slopes. While this will ensure that drainage flow will move in the direction of the tree pits at the curb, it is not within the scope of the project to “funnel” drainage flow into the tree pits.

• Question/Comment: Where tree pits are proposed by heavy pedestrian traffic will you supply grates?

Response: In general, tree pits shall be proposed as 4’x8’ open tree pits. Tree pit grates will only be considered in areas where there inclusion is necessary to maintain ADA accessibility within the pedestrian walkway where a tree pits is proposed.

• Question/Comment: Will bump-outs help drivers getting out on to York Rd.? Will the person pulling out have to encroach the lanes on York Rd. more?

Response: The Design Team does not intend to make any traffic movements more difficult than they are in the existing condition.

• Question/Comment: Will the bump-out on Willow Ave. give more standing space?
• Response: As shown on the 30% design plans, the bump-out on Willow Avenue would provide some additional sidewalk area. The Design Team understands the concerns associated with this fact, and this will be considered in the evaluation of including a side street bump-out in this location.
• Question/Comment: Will you consider stop for pedestrian signs? Can you take a look into pedestrian panel signing?

Response: The Design Team will evaluate the inclusion of pedestrian panel signs at crosswalks. The E. Old Cold Spring Lane intersection was specifically identified as a desired location for these signs.

• Question/Comment: We don’t want a bump-out on McCabe.

Response: The Design Team understands that the concern with inclusion of this bump-out is related to the impact caused if only a single vehicle may navigate the turning movement at York Road due to its presence. The Design team will evaluate this bump-out location with this concern in mind.

• Question/Comment: Will we improve existing tree pits? Will there be heavy debris (concrete chunks) in the new tree pits?

Response: Many of the existing tree pits that will remain will be improved/enlarged to the same specifications as the additional tree pits that are being proposed. It is not intended to use any debris within the fill material for the tree pits.

• Question/Comment: Bill Henry: When will we get a cost estimate item list to adjust features for what the community wants? Can this come from the posted PDF? At what stage will we be able to get an itemized list of features?

Response: The Design Team is capable of providing a list of design features and their associated estimated cost, and will provide a PDF of this information in the near future.

• Question/Comment: Can you take a look at good placement of bus stop features, proximity of bus stop amenities is key? These amenities need to be micro-detailed.

Response: The specific placement of trash receptacles and pedestrian benches will be considered in the development of the Landscaping Plans.

• Question/Comment: Will there be any coordination with (MHT) the historic district?

Response: The Design Team is already in the process of initiating contact with the MHT as a part of the federal funding process.

• Question/Comment: What type of trash receptacle will be designed? Can you show the public what the trash cans will look like?

Response: A detail of the proposed trash receptacles will be provided for review when it is available.

• Question/Comment: When will all of this (construction) be done?

Response: Construction is intended to begin in the spring of 2011. The estimated construction schedule is expected to be 120-150 days based upon previous projects.

• Question/Comment: I would like to suggest, south of Old Cold Spring Ln. and at the intersection of E. Cold Spring Ln. at York Rd. there is placement of a type of gateway sign informing there is going to be a change down York rd. Something to signify that more than just sidewalks are going to be done.

Response: Representatives of Baltimore City were present at the meeting to hear the suggestions of the attendees regarding some type of gateway sign. The potential for providing some type of structure will be followed up on.

• Question/Comment: Will anything aesthetically pleasing, possible landscaping, be placed at York Rd. and E. Cold Spring Ln.?

Response: The location in question will be evaluated for potential landscaping improvements as feasible within the constraints of the project scope.

• Question/Comment: Can a space for Guilford Elementary school sign along York Rd. be incorporated in the signing plans?

Response: The Design Team will discuss this possibility with Baltimore City DOT.

• Question/Comment: Councilmen Henry noted the public would like for the possibility of placement of a welcome sign to be place at the median in the southern section of the project.

Response: The Design Team will discuss this possibility with Baltimore City DOT.

• Question/Comment: We really want to beautify E. Cold Spring Ln. at York Rd. as it is a major intersection.

Response: The comments made at the meeting regarding attendees desires to improve this particular area have been noted.

• Question/Comment: Councilmen Henry began a discussion about beautifying York Rd. at Cold Spring Ln. In addition to gateway signs also introducing a major feature to the intersection. Councilmen Henry mentioned organizing a possible neighborhood workshop to get ideas.
• Question/Comment: Will neighborhood residents be able to discuss changes at the construction phase? Can the contractor have communication with the public informing us of the progress and schedule of construction? (It was noted this has been done on a previous project.)

Response: The Design Team and Baltimore City DOT will review how this communication was established in the previous projects noted at the meeting, and attempt to provide similar services for this project.

• Question/Comment: Is the money for the project coming from the city, state, or federal. When the improvements are completed who is responsible to maintain it?

Response: There is federal funding included for the construction of the York Road Streetscape project, with a percentage of matching funds from Baltimore City. Ultimately, the City will be responsible for maintain the proposed improvements. Mr. Gabriel mentioned that the Contractor is responsible for maintenance for one year after construction.

1. PROJECT DISPLAY MAP REVIEW – COMMENT & RESPONSE

• Question/Comment: Tamarra Makell of MTA informed the Design Team that the MTA has recently eliminated the northbound bus stop located at Greenmount Avenue & E. 34^th Street due to a request from the business community.

Response: The Design Team’s proposed bus stop reductions/adjustments will be revised to reflect this change.

• Question/Comment: Request was made for an extra left turn phase from E. Cold Spring Lane at the E. Cold Spring Lane/York Road intersection.

Response: The turning movements at E. Cold spring Lane will be evaluated as a part of the design process, and possibility of the identified left turn phase will be considered.

• Question/Comment: A comment was made requesting a bus shelter in the northeast quadrant of the E. Cold Spring Lane/York Road intersection along WB E. Cold Spring Lane.

Response: The Design Team will forward this request to City of Baltimore DOT.

• Question/Comment: A comment was made requesting that the southbound bus stop on York Road at E. Cold Spring Lane be moved from north of the intersection to the south, therefore moving the bus stop from being in front of residences to being on front of businesses.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate this comment.

• Question/Comment: Comment made to provide smoother curb radii at Radnor Road and Rossiter Avenue locations. Suggestion also made to keep curb returns parallel rather than including a bump-out.

Response: The Design Team will review this comment to determine its feasibility.

• Question/Comment: Proposed bump-out at Chateau Avenue identified as possibly being in conflict with an entrance to the businesses in the NE quadrant.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate the proposed bump-out to determine if it should be included as shown, as well as evaluate the multiple entrance points to the businesses at this location.

• Question/Comment: Comments made on display maps regarding the proposed bump-out on McCabe Avenue, suggesting that the Design Team should make sure to allow 2 vehicles to pass by so that 2 vehicles can be waiting to make a left and right turn at the same time.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate the proposed bump-out to determine if it should be included as shown, and we acknowledge the comments made at this meeting.

• Question/Comment: General comments made regarding side street bump-outs:
  • Only include if greenspace is added
  • Only include to cross major intersection, not small side streets
  • Save money for toher design elements by not including them

Response: These comments will be considered in the evaluation of the side street bump-outs.

• Question/Comment: Comments made on display maps identifying potential “curb cuts” (driveway entrances) that may be potentially eliminated. Locations identified as Sta. 14+00+/- to Sta. 16+00+/-, Lt & Rt.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate the driveway entrances in this area to determine if entrance consolidation is feasible.

• Question/Comment: A Chinese Elm was identified in the southwest quadrant of the York Road/Northway intersection that has impacted the existing stone wall that acts as a gateway to the neighborhood at this location. Removal of this tree is suggested.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate the issue and determine if this issue may be addressed within the scope of the streetscape project.

• Question/Comment: Comment made questioning why patterned crosswalks aren’t proposed across York Road on both sides of the intersection of York Road/E. Old Cold Spring Lane.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate whether or not two crosswalks across York Road should be considered at this location.

• Question/Comment: Comment made requesting a sign for Guilford Elementary/Middle School along York Road.

Response: The Design Team will evaluate the request for a sign along York Road for the school, as well as coordinate with the City regarding the Guilford Association’s previous efforts in developing a sign for the school in the vicinity of the intersection of York Road/E. Old Cold Spring Lane.

• Question/Comment: Comment made requesting median panel signing for pedestrian crossing at the York Road/ E.Old DCold Spring Lane intersection.

Response: The Design Team will investigate the potential inclusion of the panel signing for pedestrians at this location.

• Question/Comment: Request made for clear pedestrian crosswalk striping at Notre Dame Lane

Response: The Design Team intends to provide clear pedestrian crosswalks throughout the project limits.

• Question/Comment: Request adjust signal timing at Notre Dame Lane.

Response: Turning movements at the signal at Notre Dame Lane will be evaluated as a part of the design process moving forward.

• Question/Comment: A request was made to potentially paint a mural on the side of the York Road Animal Hospital building

Response: The Design team will forward this recommendation on to City of Baltimore DOT.

• Question/Comment: Is it possible to bring limit of work to sta. 8+50 to replace sidewalk, repave street, and add trees? There is a community center on the southeast corner of E. 43^rd St. which is used by local politicians, police and the neighborhood for meetings.

Response: The Design team will consult with the City of Baltimore DOT regarding this request.

• Question/Comment: A comment was received stating that a signal is required at the intersection of Old York Road/E. Cold Spring Lane.

Response: This intersection is outside of the limits of work for this project, but the comment will be forwarded on to the City of Baltimore DOT for their consideration.

The preceding represent the writer’s understanding of all that transpired. Should you have any corrections or additions, please notify the writer within ten (10) days of receipt of these Minutes.