1a. Development Status Updates: COPT Development a. Representatives of the proposed COPT development project provided a brief description of the layout of the buildings on the site. b. Chair Oberg reminded those present that a trigger to begin Phase II of Shady Grove Sector Plan is grade separation of MD355/Gude Dr. intersection. He also reminded those present that there were questions about interpretation of the CTR and the trip generation methodology. c. Staff and Mr. Moore stated that the trip generations are being reviewed and that current ITE trip generation rates would likely show a decrease in trips generated than the volume projected with the original traffic study. ITE generation rates have decreased over time for commercial establishments such as the COPT project. d. Mr. Fuller stated showed a revised plan, with buildings shifted in order to preserve trees abutting King Farm residences. He also outlined that previous mitigations included the implementation of a traffic signal and lane improvements on MD355. e. Mr. Moore, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Sean ? answered Commissioners’ questions related to tree preservation, trip generation rates, possible light nuisance to nearby residences and concerns about safety, and changes to parking spaces on-site. f. Staff relayed that the developer would be required to review on-site circulation, access, and likely multimodal facilities adjacent to the site. g. Commissioner Crane inquired about pedestrian access to portions of King Farm. COPT representatives stated that they had reviewed possible connections but heard opposition from residents adjacent to the site. They requested guidance from the Commission on this issue. h. Commissioner Klein inquired about sidewalk on the north side of Gude, adjacent to the site. COPT representatives stated that this area is part of a tree preserve and the issue will need to be addressed with Forestry and Transportation staff during development review. i. The original 1983 approval letter and traffic impact statement were distributed.
1b. Development Status Updates: Active Projects a. A list of “active” development projects was reviewed. Mr. Wasilak, Chief of Planning, answered questions about those projects. b. Chair Oberg requested that for future meetings the development status list include notation of projects that may require input from the Commission. c. Commissioner Resnick inquired about what staff would relay to COPT. Mr. Wasilak stated that, at a minimum, there may be a USE permit Amendment for the revised plan shown at the meeting tonight. The approval for this would be at the staff level. Alternatively, the developer has the right to develop the site per the 1983 plan.
1c. Development Status Updates: Timing and Role of Commission Input a. Ms. Kelly reviewed the CTR process and requested that comments from the Commission for development projects be submitted prior to final approval stage. b. Commissioners requested that staff highlight projects in the development review “active” projects list that may require Commission input, what are the transportation issues, as well as the status of the project with regard to the approval process.
2. Review January 2006 Minutes a. January minutes were approved with minor modifications.
3. Staff Report and Updates (Weekly) a. Ms. Kelly relayed that Councilmember Phyllis Marcuccio is the new Council liaison to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. Staff intends to meet with Chair Oberg and Ms. Marcuccio to review the Resolution of the Traffic and Transportation Commission, the CTR, and to discuss the role of the Commission. b. Mr. Elshafei provided an update on new speed camera legislation. In response to Commissioner inquiries, he relayed that: - Revenue can be used for “public safety improvements” and would try to find out exact definitions of what measures this may entail.
- Cameras may be on either fixed mast arms or in vans (not stationary)
- Staff will investigate the possibility of speed cameras as a condition of development approvals.
- Staff will prepare a list of potential speed camera locations of next month’s meeting.
c. Mr. Elshafei noted that two red light cameras are in operation, at MD28/S. Washington St. and at MD28/Maryland Ave. d. Chair Oberg relayed that the infrastructure for countdown signals is in place at MD355/King Farm Blvd. Two of the signals are operating, two are not yet operating.
4. Transportation Demand Management Strategic Plan (Draft) a. Chair Klein relayed that the Plan needs to identify and mitigate barriers to using alternative modes, and that this should be systematic – not a “one-time” study. b. Ms. Kelly suggested surveys and monitoring as a means to identifying barriers as well as determining markets. c. There was discussion that TDM measures may support safety and security mechanisms but that these are secondary in that they will likely not be as effective as other mechanisms for peak hour trip reductions. d. Red light and speed cameras were mentioned as measures to investigate for possible revenue sources. e. Ms Kelly agreed to provide more detail on existing and projected TDM funds/revenue at next month’s meeting. f. Commissioner Klein reiterated that the Plan should stress 1) determine market, 2) determine what trip reductions should be targeted, 3) how do we reach these populations? g. Commissioner Crane stated that safety and security are important aspects when promoting alternative modes. h. Chair Oberg stated that peak hour reductions are critical, and that employers need to be a high priority market. i. Commissioner Resnick stated that the process should be to look at existing conditions and needs Citywide, and then target employers.
5. Pedestrian Policy a. Chair Oberg shared proposed changes to the Ped. Policy. Commissioners agreed to review the proposed changes and provide comment at next month’s meeting. b. Commissioner Rosselle also shared a comment that she had emailed the Commission which proposes creating standards for minimum distances between crosswalks. c. It was agreed that this item would be further discussed at next month’s meeting.
6. Additional Discussion/Other Items a. There was discussion about proposed “Dark Streets” legislation. Commissioners relayed that they support the City’s position, which is to support the proposed legislation.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. | 
