MINUTES CITY OF ROCKVILLE
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION City Manager’s Conference Room, City Hall
Meeting No. 12-03
December 16, 2003
7:30 p.m. Commissioners Present:
Richard Resnick, Chairman
Alice Filemyr
Alan Levine
Jon Oberg Guests Present: Carol Nicholas City Staff: Katherine Kelly Due to the lack of a quorum an official meeting was not held. However, the following items were discussed: 1. Review of Minutes No comments on minutes of last month’s meeting.
2. Staff Report Comments/concerns on the Staff Report: a. Item 6, Red Light Cameras: Commissioner Levine requests clarification from staff (Emad) as to why the cameras at Wootton/Seven Locks and Redland/Pleasant may be moved if violation rates appear to have dropped, thus meeting the goal of the red light camera program. Is it the case that the cameras have reduced violations or is there another factor? The Commission also requests statistics on change in violation rates at the other red light camera locations.
b. Item 5, State Review of Rockville Intersections: Commissioner Oberg requests that King Farm Blvd. @ MD 355 be added to the list of sites for cross-hatching. Ms. Kelly stated that she will talk with staff and with State contacts. If State coordination takes too long to implement the cross-hatching, he requests that there be temporary signs or striping.
c. Item 8, Traffic Controls: Commissioner Levine requested clarification about speed changes from 25 to 30 MPH along Maryland Ave. Ms. Kelly explained that, due to the topography of the street, it has been ruled that 25 MPH is not an adequate speed posting and that speeding tickets have been dismissed in court because of this.
3. Update on the Comprehensive Transportation Review a. Report on Mayor & Council Worksession
Commissioner Resnick gave an overview of the Dec. 2 worksession. He stressed that the Mayor had concerns about gridlocked intersections being credited a higher LOS due to a potentially lower volume of autos crossing the intersection, and that the CTR needs to capture this. Another concern expressed by the Mayor and Council was limited information on criteria for study areas. Commissioner Resnick expressed concern that during the worksession the Mayor and Council said they are not aware of the Pedestrian Policy. b. Report on Planning Commission Review
Ms. Kelly gave an overview of the Dec. 10 Planning Commission review. Primary concerns of Planning Commissioners include timing of APFO standards implementation for previously approved developments, and the legal implications for exemptions. With regard to transportation, they expressed concern about testing credits and mitigations as currently outlined in the CTR. Because these standards are not tested and are regulatory, and because of schools capacity triggers, the Planning Commission recommended to the Mayor and Council that the APFO not be adopted at this time. Ms. Kelly said that a Mayor and Council/Planning Commission worksession may take place and that adoption of the APFO has been postponed. See Attached Memorandum for further detail. c. Review and Comments from Commissioners
Commissioners Levine and Chair Resnick expressed concern about the timing factor of APFO standards implementation. They said that commercial developments are especially vulnerable to fluctuations in the economic market and that 15 years may be limiting. They also expressed that using the same standards used by the County to test school capacity is limiting, and this should not be a trigger to stop development. Chair Resnick requested that the Commission be kept up-to-date on these issues and schedules for the Mayor and Council/Planning Commission.
4. Update on Town Square Traffic Issues Chair Resnick has been appointed as a member of the Town Center Advisory Committee. There were no updates since last month’s T&T Commission meeting. Commissioners expressed concern that some of their comments on the design of Town Square were not addressed at recent Planning Commission meetings. Chair Resnick will re-email comments to the Planning Commission and to the Mayor and Council Development Review Committee.
5. List Serve Applications Ms. Kelly outlined 4 options for communications: 1) posting messages and documents to a yahoo listserve, as explained at the November meeting; 2) posting documents on the Traffic & Transportation Division page of the Rockville website and sending email announcements; 3) posting messages on the yahoo listserve and posting documents on the Traffic & Transportation Division page of the Rockville website; or 4) email announcements with documents attached. Commissioner Levine expressed that he was uncertain about the yahoo listserve, but was willing to try it. Overall, Commissioners preferred option 3.
6. Additional Items a. Communications: Due to concern about some commissioners not receiving notice of meetings or documents for review in a timely manner, it has been requested that 1) Kim reconfirm email addresses, and 2) Transportation staff develop a policy to send items for review no later than one week prior to a T&T Commission meeting.
b. Accident Reports: Commissioners request copies of police reports for pedestrian accidents at St. Mary’s Church on Veirs Mill Rd. and King Farm Blvd. @ MD 355. They also request clarification as to whether or not the Commission is allowed access to these police reports.
c. Effectiveness of T&T Commission: Commissioner Oberg expressed concern about limited feedback on the Commission’s input to other City Commissions and departments. If input from the Commission is rejected, Commissioners want to know the reasons. A strategy for staff to inform Commissioners about the status of the Commission’s input is requested.
d. Concern was expressed about what happened to the Commission’s comments and input to the Bike Master Plan. Ms. Kelly stated that the comments were shared with the Parks and Rec. Department. Commissioner Filemyr will review the current Bike Master Plan draft posted online.
e. Commissioner Oberg expressed concern about buses 56 and 47 along Wootton. The time between headways for each route is long and both routes arrive close in time. This deters bus ridership. Additionally, posting arrival times and routes would be helpful. Commissioner Oberg will draft a letter from the Commission to be submitted to the Mayor and Council and County DPW&T that addresses these concerns.
f. Ms. Carol Nicholas submitted an application to join the Commission. Ms. Kelly will follow up with the City Clerk’s office to determine the status.
7. Next Meeting: January 20, 2004. 8. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
City of Rockville
M E M O R A N D U M December 11, 2003
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Recommedation on Text Amendment Application TXT2003-00202, Adequate Public Facilities, Mayor and Council, applicants; Recommendation on proposed Adequate Public Facilities standards.
At its meeting of December 10, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the above referenced text amendment and proposed Adequate Public Facilities standards to implement the text amendment. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a negative recommendation to the Mayor and Council on both items.
The Commission is troubled by the Adequate Public Facilities standards as proposed in the staff recommendation. While a majority of the Commission supports the APFO concept, the details of how the ordinance would be administered raise serious concerns about the City tying its own hands when considering new development or redevelopment. The Commission heard from several spokespeople who continued to raise concerns regarding the proposed regulations. Some raised the issue of regulating previously-approved projects. In general, they contend that the approvals are essentially contracts, and the any modifications could be construed as a breach of those contracts. Others noted that the rigid nature of the regulations as proposed would adversely affect sites in the City that might deserve to move forward in order to advance other City priorities. Commissioner Hilton is concerned about how to address the previously-approved developments in view of the potential legal issues involved. He also would like to see further information on how the Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) will be tied into the APFO process. He is also concerned about having a test for public schools when the City has no control over them. He is concerned that the difference between the County’s schools test and the City’s test will hurt the City. Although he believed that the time limits on previously approved special development procedures are reasonable he is concerned that the City previously agreed to no further restrictions. Commissioner Ostell strongly supports the APFO concept, but shares Commissioner Hilton’s concerns regarding the schools test. She notes the legal concerns regarding the regulation of the approved projects, but feels that the time frame proposed is reasonable in the context of the future of the City. She does have a concern that there are not exception provisions to address unique circumstances such as the proposed annexation of the WINX property. She stated that there should be some give-and-take for exceptionally beneficial projects but that there needs to be strict criteria. There should also be some added flexibility in the transportation test since the proposed CTR is still a work in progress. Commissioner Johnson also supports the concept of an APFO, but believes that as drafted there will be too many competing interests pressuring for waivers or exceptions. While generally against waivers, he found the requests compelling. He doesn’t support a test for schools, as he believes it could hurt the City with no real mitigation possible. There definitely needs to be a queue list established to properly administer the process. He is generally supportive of the program if the schools test is deleted. Commissioner Mullican recommends eliminating the schools test for the same reasons noted previously. She also expresses concern about the message this proposal sends about doing business with the City. The process should be slowed down and re-examined in more detail. Commissioner Britton concurs on the need for greater public dialog before this goes forward. The CTR seems to be an excellent mechanism. The tests for water, sewer and fire protection are really “no-brainers” that we already do. He cannot support the proposal in its current format. The schools test should be excluded, and there needs to be flexibility to allow exceptions for historic preservation, neighborhood enhancement, and previously-approved projects. However, the time frames proposed for the PDP’s and CPD’s do seem reasonable. Commissioner Holtz concurs with Commissioner Britton. He is concerned about using hard criteria for the APFO test, even though many of the input numbers themselves are “soft”. With schools, the student numbers change from day to day. For the approved development projects, the time frames proposed may be reasonable, but it sends the wrong message. The City shouldn’t be changing its mind. Finally, there needs to be added flexibility with regard to sites such as WINX and Chestnut Lodge. We don’t need the APFO to be an on-off switch; we need it to be a “dimmer switch”. Commissioner Metzger supported the comments of Commissioners Britton, Holtz, and Johnson. As proposed, we may not have the flexibility we want and need to allow good projects to go forward. She can’t understand why we need an APFO; the Mayor and Council already have the power and ability to get what the City needs when approving development. The APFO really ties the hands of the Mayor and Council and the Planning Commission and will limit our ability to achieve the City’s goals. Therefore, on a motion by Commissioner Britton, seconded by Commissioner Hilton, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends against the Adequate Public Facilities program as currently proposed. The Commission also suggests that the Mayor and Council review the video of the December 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to directly hear the concerns of the Commissioners. | 
