1. Announcements, Public Comments: a. Residents of the King Farm community shared a request to implement permit parking along King Farm Blvd. This item will be reviewed and voted upon by the Traffic & Transportation Commission at the June 2006 meeting.
b. Residents of the King Farm community also expressed frustration with non-residents parking on Elmcroft Blvd. and Watkins Pond Blvd. Staff relayed that residents can submit a petition to implement permit parking on City-owned streets.
2. Review March 2006 Meeting Minutes a. Minutes were approved with no modifications.
3. Sidewalk Implementation Prioritization a. Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works, presented a draft plan to rank missing sidewalk links. The purpose of this plan is to provide objective measures for determining which sidewalks should receive priority funding.
b. Commissioners expressed unanimous support for this project.
c. Commissioner Asebe shared the National Capital Region Bike and Pedestrian Plan and stressed that the Commission should support links to County facilities.
d. Harry Thomas inquired if the Traffic & Transportation Commission would review specific sidewalk requests. Staff relayed that this would not be the case unless the Commission wished to support certain sidewalk links over others.
e. Commissioners Rosselle and Crane suggested that staff compile benchmark data to score how existing sidewalk links might rate. Harry Thomas suggested that Calvin Lane, Argyle St., Beall Ave., Forest Ave., and Lynch St. be rated prior to sidewalks being implemented.
f. Jonathan Walker suggested that scores be re-evaluated annually, prior to budget discussions beginning in fall. Certain conditions may cause scores to change over time.
4. Neighborhood Traffic Control Guidelines Review a. Ms. Kelly introduced concerns about the existing Guidelines and provided questions for review by Commissioners.
b. Mr. Simoneau explained concerns about the existing warrant which addresses traffic volumes traveling in one direction in any hour (150 cars) and advocated that that warrant be eliminated. He explained that the warrant does not adequately address one-way streets, and that traffic volumes for one-way streets are effectively accounted for in the warrant for traffic volumes traveling in both directions in any hour (200 cars).
c. Commissioner Asebe stated the need for specific cases where this issue has been a problem or hindrance. Commissioners agreed that this is necessary prior to considering a change to the existing warrant.
d. Commissioner Filemyr made a motion to not eliminate the warrant which addresses traffic volumes traveling in one direction in any hour (150 cars). There was no “second” to this motion.
e. Commissioner Levine stated he would like more notice of these kinds of issues, and that the Commission could not make a determination at this time.
f. It was agreed that this issue would be discussed again at the June 2006 meeting.
5. Permit Parking Policy and Neighborhood Streets a. Ms. Kelly presented questions for review by Commissioners. She stated that staff’s standard operating procedure has been to implement permit parking only on streets classified as Residential.
b. Commissioners reviewed the language of the permit parking ordinance and concluded that it applies to more than commercial parking on residential streets. Staff confirmed that this was also the view of the City Attorney. Commissioners agreed that implementing permit parking on commercial streets adjacent to residential buildings should be reviewed case-by-case and may be acceptable.
c. It was agreed that discussion about additional issues would be continued at the June, 2006 meeting.
d. Chair Oberg requested that staff provide a map and request that Police or other officials responsible for permit parking enforcement attend next month's meeting, when the King Farm permit parking request will be reviewed. He further requested that the City coordinate in advance any concerns, observations, or positions on this request so that the City can speak with one voice at the meeting.
e. Chair Oberg inquired about the voting process for permit parking (i.e., yes, no, conditional). Staff relayed that they would provide information prior to the next meeting.
6. Review of SHA MD28/586/911 Intersection Project a. Ms. Kelly provided an update on the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study and announced that the SHA would be conducting two public hearings on this project.
b. Councilmember Marcuccio expressed concern about impacts on the community with the grade-separated option.
c. Councilmembers Filemyr and Levine stated preference for the grade-separated alternative, as it accomplishes the goal of improving LOS and because it is the preferred alternative in the City’s Master Plan of 2002.
d. Councilmembers voted unanimously to support Alternative 2: Grade-Separated.
7. Staff Report and Updates a. Commissioners and staff reviewed the weekly staff report.
8. Development Review Status a. Harry Thomas inquired about the status of the Gables development. Staff relayed that it is currently “on hold”.
9. Additional Items for Discussion a. Commissioner Asebe shared an asset management strategy, the International Roughness Index, where contractors are paid according to performance criteria.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. | 
