1. Announcements and Public Comment Period 2. Review June 2006 Meeting Minutes a. Minutes were approved with minor modifications.
3. Staff Report and Updates (Weekly) a. Staff provided updates on the Town Center Shuttle and West End Traffic Calming items.
b. Chair Oberg reported that the pedestrian signals at MD355 and King Farm Blvd. are now in operation.
4. Sidewalk Prioritization Project a. Per request of the Chair, Ms. Kelly provided a brief overview of the history of this project and explained that the purpose is to help determine CIP funding schedules for sidewalks Citywide.
b. Under the “Other Important Considerations” section, Commissioner Resnick suggested that a category for whether the missing sidewalk is in the vicinity of approved development be considered. Ms. Sanders said she would examine how to incorporate this information into the “Other Important Considerations” section.
c. Chair Oberg suggested that the “Introduction” section include a discussion about traffic demand management and a definition of a missing sidewalk. Ms. Sanders agreed to incorporate this discussion into the “Introduction” section.
d. Chair Oberg suggested that the “Other Considerations” section should address whether an easement is required. Ms. Sanders stated that the answer to question IIIA. would indicate whether an easement may be needed, but that adding an additional question about easements would be feasible.
e. Chair Oberg suggested that the “Other Considerations” section should include a question as to whether petitioners would be willing to pay assessments for construction and easement costs. Because sidewalk construction is a City service and because many residents are opposed to funding the construction of sidewalks on their street, Ms. Sanders did not recommend adding a question about whether petitioners would be willing to pay for assessments for construction and easement costs.
f. Commissioner Levine and Commissioner Filemyr inquired about why streets were grouped together by “Minor Collector” and “Major Collector.” Ms Sanders explained that for scoring purposes, all streets designated as minor and major collectors were grouped according to the street classifications outlined in the City’s Guidelines for Neighborhood Traffic Management.
g. Commissioner Resnick suggested that traffic count information should be used to assist with prioritizing missing sidewalks to be constructed within the top priority group. Ms. Sanders said she would look into this method.
h. Commissioner Filemyr requested that criteria IIC. be removed from the prioritization policy and noted that pedestrian accidents should not be a determinant of sidewalk priority, given that accidents occur for a variety of reasons, and that accidents should not be a proxy for sidewalk priority. Ms. Sanders said that question IIC. would be removed.
i. Commissioner Rosselle suggested that question IB. include missing walkways with a bus stop perpendicular to the missing walkway. Commissioner Rosselle also suggested that missing walkways within a certain distance to a bus stop but don’t necessarily have a bus stop along the missing walkway should be considered in the criteria. Ms. Sanders said she would examine how to incorporate this information into question IB.
j. Commissioner Crane suggested including a measure that gave higher priority to streets that receive a large amount of cut-through traffic. Ms. Sanders said she would examine how to incorporate criteria in the “Other Important Considerations” section as to whether a street qualifies for traffic calming under Guidelines for Neighborhood Traffic Management.
k. Commissioner Klein suggested that question IC. include “religious institution.” Ms. Sanders said she would examine how to incorporate this information into question IC.
l. Chair Oberg suggested that major routes of connectivity, including those that may not be alongside roads, should be given points based on the level of connectivity. Ms. Sanders noted that the Department of Public Works oversees walkways in the street right-of-way, and that areas outside of this right-of-way are handled by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Ms. Sanders stated that the Department of Public Works could work with the Department of Parks and Recreation on a project to help improve major walking routes as part of a project that will follow and build upon the sidewalk prioritization project.
m. Chair Oberg advocated that transportation demand management be included as a factor in the Sidewalk Prioritization Policy, on the basis that sidewalks reduce auto trips generated. Commissioner Resnick inquired how this would be achieved objectively. Commissioner Klein stated that trip generations might be one method. Ms. Kelly stated that creating a buffer around a missing sidewalk, determining the land uses within that buffer and further determining a rough estimate of trip generations based on those land uses, is one objective way to measure the trip generations near a missing link. Ms. Sanders stated that clarification about the process of this method needed to be researched before including the method in the Sidewalk Prioritization Policy. Ms. Sanders also expressed concern about the amount of staff workload that could be created by applying this method to all missing sidewalks.
n. Commissioner Resnick suggested that, because there may be several sidewalks that receive the same score, there should be tiers of prioritization -- i.e., an inital "top priority" list and then a "second top priority" list. This would allow scores to be recalibrated within the initial "top priority" list. Chair Oberg added that scores could be recalibrated "along the way".
o. Chair Oberg inqiured whether the width of a sidewalk could be captured as a factor in the scoring methodology. Ms. Kelly stated that sidewalk widths are captured in design guidelines and will be updated with the new zoning code revisions. Ms. Kelly also stated that the purpose of the sidewalk prioritization methodology is to help determine CIP funding priorities, and less to determine design standards.
p. Commissioner Filemyr inquired if the Utility Score C (Q: Is the walkway within a 10-minute walking distance of a pedestrian activity center? Points are given for each category that applies: A: parks, recreational center, and shopping centers) could include office parks. Ms. Sanders stated that office parks would already likely be included in this category, as they are typically included in mixed-use zones, with shopping centers.
5. Permit Parking Policy and Neighborhood Streets a. At the June Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting Commissioners agreed to draft principles and objective guidelines for determining whether or not to approve new permit parking. Based on email discussions following that meeting, Chair Oberg compiled a draft document of principles and guidelines. Commissioners provided comments on that draft and it was agreed that staff would create an updated version for review at next month’s meeting.
6. King Farm Permit Parking a. Staff relayed that the 400 Block of King Farm Blvd. had submitted a request to implement permit parking. Notifications of the request were sent to adjacent property owners and a comment period will end prior to next month’s Commission meeting. Staff will compile comments for Commissioners to review at the next meeting.
b. There was discussion about the King Farm private and public streets and whether permits for private streets would be the same as those for the public streets. The Chief of Police confirmed after the meeting that permits would be the same and that residents of the private streets who had permits could park in public permit parking areas, and vice-versa.
c. With regard to the permit parking request for the 500 block of King Farm Blvd., Commissioners decided to delay making a final decision until next month’s meeting. Commissioner Resnick inquired if the request could be approved with conditions (i.e., the permit parking would not go into effect until permit parking on the private streets is implemented) or if the request be denied and the petition remains valid for a certain time period if the residents wish to request permit parking again at a later date (i.e., so that the signatures remain valid for six months and a new petition would not need to be submitted if permit parking is implemented on private streets within that time period). Chair Oberg agreed to draft motions for the vote at next month’s meeting.
Additional Items for Discussion a. Chair Oberg requested that regular meetings between staff and the Chair be instituted to review agenda items and follow-up on items from previous meetings. Staff agreed that these meetings could take place two weeks prior to full Commission meetings.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. | 
