PLACE Design Task Force Minutes
                           November 14, 2019 - 12:45 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
                             Neighborhood Development Services
                             Conference Room, 2nd Floor City Hall

 Members Present: Andrew Mondeschein, Rachel Lloyd, Lena Seville, Navarre Bartz, Mike Stoneking,
 Rory Stolzenberg, Susan Perkins

 Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Carrie Rainey, Kyle Kling

 Visitors Present: Brian Copeland, Project Manager with Timmons Group


 CALL TO ORDER

 Chairman Stoneking called the PLACE Design Task Force Meeting to order at 12:50 p.m.


1. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC (5 minutes)
   None



2. BARRACKS ROAD/EMMET STREET UPDATE (60 minutes)

Mr. Mondeschein – Myself and others have been attending the steering committee. There has been one
public meeting and another in a couple of weeks. As Place Task Force, I would really like for us to have a
collective opinion that we can vote on. These are the things that we would like to submit to the Planning
Commission. This is our last opportunity to have a collective opinion. I shared the Power Point with
PLACE and got some feedback. Through that feedback and conversations that I have had with people, we
wrote a draft memo. I did this out of expediency. It’s very hard to get PLACE to have an opinion on
something. It’s a page and a half of things that I think we might support or things that we have questions
about. We can go through line by line and I can edit it as we go. We can vote on a final version. This is
something that we can talk about. We do a brief review of the different options.

Brian Copeland, Project Manager – There are two primary components of the project. The first is what
to do with the intersection. The second is how to best accommodate bicycles and pedestrians along
Barracks Road. We did have a public workshop about 3 or 4 weeks ago. At the meeting, we showed the
three different options for the intersection. There are things that are pretty similar with the three options.
Every option includes a new northbound right turn lane on Emmet Street going to a controlled slip lane,
improved crosswalks that are perpendicular, widening the refuge islands, all of the approach legs to
provide acceptable refuge for pedestrians crossing each leg of the intersection, and extension of a raised
median through Meadowbrook Road. The biggest difference with option one is that we are maintaining
the existing ten foot lanes. We are hugging the south side as much as we can to stay off this property. This
is the least impact design. The third option is the opposite of the first option. All of the same improvements
in the intersection exist, but we are carrying that all of the way to Hessian Road, just to provide some
additional queuing capacity in the intersection. Option two is the hybrid of the two. This is the compromise

                                                      1
between options one and three. We carried out the project survey. We got 90 people to respond to the
project survey online. The overwhelming majority preferred option one because the lack of retaining walls,
least impact of the tree canopy in the intersection, and the cost. Once you start down the road of opening
that slope and adding retaining walls that quickly become ten to fifteen feet high, the price per square foot
of asphalt is really high. The other contributing factors is you are still receiving, by adding the fourth lane,
a dual left turn lane. If we have dedicated lefts, these dual lefts can run concurrent to these two lefts helps
the overall operations of the intersection. With the improvements that we have here, we are already
obtaining a pretty substantial benefit to the level of service in the intersection. The third option does
provide some benefit but difficult to cost justify relative to what you lose in aesthetics and cost.

Ms. Lloyd – Can you quantify the change in improvement for us to understand?

Brian Copeland – The B over C ratio is .88 for option three. For option one, it is .86. The biggest benefit
that you see is when you look at existing traffic volumes under existing conditions, and queue length
resulting from that, as compared to option one. One change to this would be that we show a through right.
What we heard from the survey, was people preferred a dedicated right. We did study that. There is a 42%
reduction with option one compared to existing conditions. There is a 40% reduction in the queue length.
If you look at the ‘do nothing’ option compared to option one, there is a 42% reduction with queue length
and with option three, it’s 55%. There is some benefit, but not the huge benefit.

Mr. Mondeschein – I hope to reserve 45 minutes for pure discussion.

Ms. Seville – Can you tell me the differences between the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in those
options in the intersection?

Brian Copeland – They are largely the same, aside from the sidewalk on the north side. Because that
slope is so sloped, so close to the road, this option would not include the extension of a sidewalk from
Meadowbrook, where the CAVA is, to Hessian Road. There are still options to get to the shared use path
that’s over here, which will then extend down Barracks Road. The ability to move along Barracks Road,
depending on where you’re located, there are crossings. That’s the biggest difference between the
intersection options, the lack of a sidewalk.

Ms. Seville – Isn’t there a transit stop in that area, so there will be access to the transit stop to cross the
street back over?

Brian Copeland – The existing crosswalk at Hessian Road across to where the bus stop is on the south
side of Barracks Road, that bus stop will be improved. The crosswalk at Hessian will remain to an
improved shared use path on the south side.

Ms. Lloyd – If cyclists are coming down Emmet Street, this is a shared use path above the curb. They will
just come around that corner still above the curb?

Brian Copeland – This entrance would remain as it is today. This goes up to a shared use path that was
constructed with CVS. All of this is already there. This is maintaining what is there.

Ms. Lloyd – Is the intent to get all cyclists out of Emmet Street?



                                                       2
Kyle Kling, City Project Manager – Currently Amanda Poncy is working the feasibility study for the
corridor that will connect the gaps between the Emmet Street streetscape and this project. She is working
on the feasibility study with a consultant that can be done in that area. Everything that is out there now
from the CVS site, pedestrian wise, is likely going to stay in place. We will continue those improvements.

Mr. Bartz – Our only concern is that people are worried about getting clipped on Barracks Road heading
to the southeast.

Brian Copeland – You come off of the street or you stay in the lane with cars and travel through here.

Mr. Stoneking – The bike is in a car lane and merges onto the shared path. When the intersection is
confusing, they get off their bike and use the crosswalk. They switch back and forth between being a
pedestrian and cyclist. Intersections are convoluted.

Mr. Stolzenberg – Will the lights be leading for pedestrians to give them a couple extra seconds? Will
there be a sign that ‘bikes use pedestrian signals?’

Brian Copeland – Yes, all new signals and all new signalized intersection.

Mr. Stolzenberg – There is a crosswalk over by Hessian to the east, but there is none where the sidewalk
ends on Meadowbrook?

Brian Copeland – There is space here on the shared use path. I don’t know what opportunities there may
be in the corner of the CAVA site to have people here. There are some walls that run along here. Generally,
I think that it is fairly flat behind the shared use path. It may be something where they can move it to the
other side of the intersection.

Mr. Mondeschein – I don’t have a problem with it. Would there be push back with saying that we can’t
block the right turn lane so close to the intersection? I think that it’s great.

Brian Copeland – We presented four options at the public workshop for improving bike/pedestrian
accommodations. Obviously, there is a curb, a little 4 foot attached sidewalk, and there is a slope that is
pretty steep off the sidewalk that has overgrown vegetation. It’s just not a safe environment for bikes and
pedestrians. We proposed four options where we felt like we captured some of the interests of all of the
groups that we could think of, including the property owners. This option is to have a traditional climbing
lane with a buffer strip and a five foot sidewalk. Option two, is to try not to move the retaining wall away,
but switch out the planted buffer in option one with a protection zone. Option three was to provide a
traditional buffer strip, ten foot shared use path for the retaining wall. Option four is basically is the same
thing, but pushing everything to the curb, having a lot of obstructions in this area. It does create the
opportunity for much shorter retaining walls. One thing to note on this, is that the eastbound lane on
Barracks varies from 12 feet to 15 feet wide. A part of every option would be to narrow those lanes to 11
feet. Every option would accommodate that. We are at 10 feet at the intersection. We are doing that because
it is already 10 feet. That’s a good basis for the ability to use 10 feet because it’s already a 10 foot lane.
It’s much wider up Barracks Road. In the project survey, the shared use path options clearly outweigh the
dedicated in-road bike. Options 3 and 4 were preferred.




                                                       3
There was an open discussion by the members of the PLACE meeting discussing the different options
presented by Brian Copeland, Project Manager with The Timmons Group. After the open discussion, Mr.
Copeland continued with his presentation.

Brian Copeland – Once we learned that the shared use path was the preferred approach, we discussed
with the Steering Committee. What does that actually mean in terms of wall heights? We ran a center line
down the center of the road in a cross section design. Option 3, the average height was 5 feet, the minimum
was 2 feet, and the maximum was 9 feet. Option 4, the average height was 3 feet, the minimum was 1.5
feet, and the maximum was 6 feet. Those are the quantifiable differences between the wall differences.
What are some things that we can do to get closer to a design that mirrors what option 4 shows for the
wall, but doesn’t eliminate the buffer? It really is at the bookends of the project. The steering committee
had a clear preference for option 4. The steering committee is made up of property owners directly
impacted by the project.

Mr. Mondeschein – A lot of people on the steering committee live on the right of way. If they are going
to see anything, they are going to want the narrowest thing possible.

Brian Copeland – One of the things that they asked us to do was to look at the opportunities to move the
road either a little bit or a lot in some varying degree to the north, to not move the shared use path to the
north. The degree of impact would be substantial on the north side versus the south side. When we looked
at where the center line is today, the westbound lane does vary in width, and there are some areas where
there is some extra paved shoulder off the white edge line. Where are some places where we might able to
tighten the curve a little bit? We re-struck a new center line to move it anywhere from 6 inches to 3.5 feet
from where the existing center line is. That is all based on what’s available on the north side of the road.
We also looked at how narrow can we get this buffer. We looked at a 3 foot buffer. Can we achieve all of
the goals of what a buffer is there to provide? Those two primary changes plus option 4 gave us these
results. The 7 feet occurs in a 100 foot section that is on the northern end of the project near Buckingham
Road. There is a really tall slope at Buckingham Road. This particular wall between Buckingham and the
first driveway has an average of 5, minimum of 3, and maximum of 7. About 1000 feet is being analyzed
from Buckingham to where the bus stop is. We didn’t look at anything from the bus stop and south. It’s
part of the analysis. That 100 foot section represents about 10 percent of the project. If you remove that
section of it, the maximum goes down to 5 feet. With this option, we are directly tying to the existing
ground here. The other big issue was the number of trees that were going to be removed. The tree canopy
is a major contributor and that it needs to be protected.

Mr. Stoneking – Why are all of these guardrails?

Brian Copeland – In some of these location, the walls get so low that we will not need some of these
things. From a city liability perspective, we want to have these walls there.

Mr. Stoneking – I am advocating for less concrete, no guardrails if not needed. They just add up to that
undesirable environment, where it’s all about VDOT standards. We next have razor wire. It doesn’t make
for what we are trying to achieve.

Ms. Lloyd – Can we talk briefly about the construction of that wall? I have heard from neighbors. I
understand the rationale for using that because it has a minimal construction impact on the land and slopes
behind it. It’s what we usually use on highways. I am not that keen on that as a design choice. I do
understand that there cost implications.

                                                      4
Brian Copeland – There are probably some panel options that mask the pile itself. I can look into what
options there are to mask the piling effect. There is a way to cap it, make the top look nice. The panels
come in all styles of aesthetic treatments and architectural treatments. What can we do with the piles?

Ms. Lloyd – I have a little bit of an issue with the kind of stamped pattern info panels.

Brian Copeland – The other thing to mention is that some of these locations on the wall are really short.
Some of these would be two feet. If we did some kind of brick pattern, that use it as much as we can.

When we did our research on the adjacent properties, some of the deeds from the 1950s showed a reserved
area for future roadway widening. We are contesting that this is dedicated right of way for the city to make
improvements. That’s what our contention has been. Property owners have hired attorneys to contest that
position. If their position wins the day, we would have to acquire right of way. The need to acquire right
of way doesn’t change for everything. The need to acquire right of way doesn’t change between option 3
and option 4. If the city’s position wins, we would need hardly any easement. The budget for the project
captured the need to acquire whatever right of way is needed. The answer doesn’t really effect the project.

Mr. Mondeschein – Is the only way to have a shared PLACE opinion is to vote on it today?

Ms. Lloyd – I don’t think that we need to have a vote on one thing. We are moving towards a consensus.
We have some questions or some things that we feel the consultant team help to resolve.

Mr. Stoneking – We want to have shorter retaining walls.

Ms. Seville – We do need to think about kids. If we don’t add the buffer, the kids are going to completely
surrounded by concrete.

Mr. Stolzenberg – Concrete might be bad to walk next to, but it’s not going to kill me like what is on the
other side. That’s why the buffer is important.

Ms. Lloyd – Another consideration is lighting.

Brian Copeland – There was an idea of where we could put the lighting on the wall. The challenge is that
the wall height is so varying from 2 feet up to 7 feet to get any kind of consistent look or design for lighting
to accomplish the goal becomes a challenge. The design and constructability became a challenge.

The biggest thing that we heard from the steering committee was the dense tree canopy. Not doing anything
or doing as little to impact the tree canopy that is there.


After Mr. Copeland’s there was another open discussion regarding a vote on the consensus of the PLACE
Task Force to present to the relative committees. The PLACE Task Force voted to present the relevant
committees:

        In support of option 1 at the intersection – improvement of the bus stop and access to the bus stop
        Bike and pedestrian – Three foot buffer and taking advantage of the right of way as it exists
        Emphasis on materiality and the shortest retaining walls possible
        Explore whether guardrails are required by code – Minimize the guardrails
                                                       5
3. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC (5 minutes)
None

Meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM




                                       6