1. Announcements and Public Comment Period a. Chair Crane welcomed the commissioners and residents and asked for announcements from the commissioners.
b. Commissioner Oberg thanked Commissioners Martin and Klein for their letter to the Mayor & Council re: Integrating Data into Google.
c. Commissioner Martin’s report included no major changes with WMATA’s policy. 2. Permit Parking Submission: 400 and 500 Blocks of Saddle Ridge Lane—Staff Recommendation a. Ms. Torma provided the Commission with background of the petition beginning with a site visit on November 25, 2008 and concluding with data collected from eight site visits. Based on the existing condition, Ms. Torma did not recommend approval of permit parking for this location. 3. Permit Parking Submission: 400 and 500 Blocks of Saddle Ridge Lane—Public Hearing a. Rick Richardi, 504 Saddle Ridge Lane
· Requested approval of the permit parking petition because many of the streets around his neighborhood already have permit parking. b. Sandi Mitchell, 504 Salle Ridge Lane
· Requested approval of the permit parking petition and introduced photographs of construction workers parking in front of her house taken in October 2008. She believes that a local employer forces this problem on the neighborhood by requiring employees to pay for parking.
· Introduced a letter in support of permit parking from the King Farm Home Owners’ Association (HOA).
· Stated that it was difficult for cars to get by because of vehicles parking on the street.
c. Doug Jacobson 513 Saddle Ridge Lane
· This resident requested approval of the permit parking petition because he believes that when the building is occupied thousands of office workers will attempt to find parking onsite and on Saddle Ridge Lane. He also stated that the existing condition prevented delivery trucks from accessing his home.
d. Les Waffen, 506 Saddle Ridge Lane
· Resident stated that the Redland Tech development won’t provide adequate parking for the employees that work there.
e. 509 Saddle Ridge Lane
· This resident requested approval of the permit parking petition because he believes that most people who park on his street are workers from out-of-town.
Chair Crane invited the residents to make further comments. Having no comments, she declared the public hearing closed. 4. Permit Parking Submission: 400 and 500 Blocks of Saddle Ridge Lane—Commission Recommendation a. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to defer the commission’s vote and recommendation to a period of not more than 30 days. Commissioner Levine seconded this motion.
b. The Commission requested materials from Staff to assist their decision.
a. A map of King Farm that illustrates public and private streets and a map of the streets that currently have permit parking in King Farm. This will be provided at the March meeting.
b. A copy of the Use Permits and the regulations for Redland Tech. This will be provided at the March meeting.
c. A review the current amendment for Redland Tech. This will be provided.
d. Information on the Redland Tech development: whether the applicant received a parking reduction. Additionally, what are the parking requirements for this development and how many spaces are provided?
i. Staff response: No parking reduction was given to this development. The Current Zoning Ordinance requires Redland Tech “to provide 1 space for every 300 gross floor area, which area shall include cellars or basements designed and available for tenant use or occupancy, but shall not include floor area used for off-street parking” The applicant is required to provide and will provide 1,667 spaces for 500,000 gross square feet.
e. Information from the use permit conditions in regard to what the City can require such as free parking. Also, what tools or leverage does the City have to require a shuttle service?
i. Staff response: According to the City Attorney, the Use Permit conditions cannot require free parking. The City does not have leverage in requiring a shuttle service.
f. Did the County make many decisions on the King Farm development before it was annexed?
i. Staff response: This question was due to the thought that Redland Tech was another part of the King Farm development. This is not the case and the Redland Tech buildings have their own separate conditions of approval.
g. Can the petition for the permit parking be held open for the future so they would not have to go back and get signatures?
i. Staff response: The petition cannot be held open for an indefinite time. If it were to be held open, the application should be continued, have an end date of when the application will close and have a specific reason as to why it is being held open. 5. Princeton Place Permit Parking Hearing for upcoming T&T Commission Meeting—Staff Summary a. Chair Crane introduced the issue and asked the residents to give the commission an update of their situation.
b. Christine Berger (788 Princeton Place)
· Ms. Berger stated that the permit parking petition is no longer under consideration since Montgomery College chose to close the fence. She indicated, however, that parking issues will remain and asked the commission to consider her petition for a future date.
Commissioner Martin made a motion to table the discussion of the petition and open discussion on the gate.
c. Tia Morfessis (793 Princeton Place)
· Ms. Morfessis is in favor of the gate because she feels that the students are now accustomed to parking in her neighborhood. She informed the Commission that the students litter, consume alcohol, and play loud music. She introduced copies of the Planning Commission minutes from the February 11, 2009 meeting. These minutes state that Montgomery College has a Use Permit condition that requires them to work with the residents to address the problem created by its smoking ban.
d. Roberta Farber (790 Princeton Place)
· Ms. Farber stated that she has lived on Princeton Place for 30 years and had not seen a parking issue until Montgomery College imposed its smoking ban, but that students have parked on Princeton Place for years.
· She also stated that it’s not only smokers, but also their friends who park on Princeton Place and socialize there.
e. Chair Crane closed the public comment period and opened a Commission discussion on the subject.
f. The commissioners’ discussion lead to the consensus that the City should engage Montgomery College on this issue.
· Ms. Torma informed the commissioners that the City is currently engaged with the college and working toward a resolution of the issue.
g. There was concensus that a memorandum from the Commission stating that the fence and off-campus student behavior, in regard to the smoking policy, is unacceptable. Chair Crane delegated this task to commissioner Oberg and established a deadline of March 3, 2009. 6. Revising the Permit Parking Policy – Discussion of the issues with the Policy Faced by City Staff a. Ms. Torma introduced, to the Commission, that staff will be completing a revision of the permit parking policy in order to address issues staff and the commission have encountered with the existing policy.
b. Commissioner Oberg stated that the Commission drafted, and submitted to the City Attorney, a revised policy in 2006.
a. Commissioner Oberg requested that if staff undertake a revision of the policy, they provide the commission with a strike-through document for review. 7. Revising the Permit Parking Policy – Discussion of the issues with the Policy Faced by The Traffic & Transportation Commission Due to time constraints, this section was skipped. 8. Review and Approve December 2008 Meeting Minutes a. Commissioner Oberg requested several edits to the December 2008 minutes:
a. Commissioner Klein not Commissioner Oberg stated the impact of the Hawthorne effect on the Drive Less Rockville Challenge.
b. Commissioner Oberg stated that the Drive Less Rockville Challenge could not be accepted in peer-reviewed transportation literature.
c. Commissioner Oberg questioned whether the permit parking guidelines are being distributed not the permit parking application materials.
d. Commissioner Oberg asked for a review of why the pedestrian signals are not automatic at intersections such as Redland and Pleasant, not that they were not functioning.
e. Commissioner Thomas, not Commissioner Oberg mentioned that Rollins and E. Jefferson pedestrian signals were not automatic.
b. Commissioner Levine made a motion to approve the minutes with edits. Commissioner Thomas seconded the motion. 9. Staff Report and Updates (Weekly) a. Commissioner Rosselle informed the Commission that Montgomery County denied the traffic signal requested at Jersey Lane and Darnestown Road. 10. Additional Discussion of Agenda Items/ Other Items a. Commissioner Oberg made a motion to investigate installation of a signal or a four way stop at the intersection of Mannakee Street and the Montgomery County Board of Education parking lot. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine. It was unanimously adopted.
b. Commissioner Oberg stated that he was not impressed with the TDM presentation by the UrbanTrans consultant. He felt that the presentation suggested to the Mayor and Council that the Traffic and Transportation Commission was in some manner in-favor of the methods used by UrbanTrans. He further stated that he believed the Commission should explore alternatives to spend the TDM money. Commissioner Martin agreed with this statement.
c. Having no further items to discuss, Commissioner Levine made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Oberg seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm. | 
