Traffic and Transportation Commission
Minutes

Black Eyed Susan Conference Room
Meeting No. 02-10
February 23, 2010, 7:30 p.m.
  

1.    General Announcements, Public Comment Period, and Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee Announcements

a.    Chair Telesco opened the meeting by welcoming Commissioners and residents.
 
b.    Ms. Dana Mulvany of King Farm stated that the hearing impaired couldn’t hear the high frequency sirens from emergency vehicles on MD 355. She recommended that emergency vehicles have the ability to override the traffic signals.  Mr. Elshafei explained that he was not aware of any jurisdiction in the state of Maryland where emergency vehicles have this ability, and also the emergency vehicles might be moving on a faster pace than the one needed to change the traffic signal light from green to yellow and red.  However, he will explore this issue with SHA and other jurisdictions during their annual meeting in June. In addition, Ms. Mulvany stated that many of the grates along MD 355 from King Farm to Town Center are not bike-friendly.  Staff assessed the grates along MD 355 and found them to be bike-friendly.  In addition, staff looked at the pavement around the grates and found many to have broken pavement.  Staff will discuss this item with the State since they maintain MD 355.

2.    Permit Parking Submission: Monroe Street, east side of the 700 block between Cabin John Parkway and the entrance to Dogwood Park – Commission Discussion and Recommendation

a.   Chair Telesco stated that in January the Commission held a public hearing for the Monroe Street permit parking petition and voted to deny it without prejudice.  Chair Telesco stated that this was done so that the petition could be brought back 30 days after the public hearing closed in order for the petitioner not to resubmit a new one.  Commissioner Klein stated that the Commission should seek an opinion from the City Attorney based on last month’s discussion to understand the source and meaning for the number that should be used for the vehicle’s carrying capacity.  Ms. Torma stated that she reviewed the vehicles’ license plates that are parked along Monroe Street and found some owners living in the Fireside Apartments, while others do not.  Commissioner Crane asked if the Code applies to commercial and personal vehicles.  Ms. Torma stated that as it is written, it applies to both commercial and personal vehicles.  Commissioner Levine stated that he thought that the Commission denied the petition because the regulation required a decision within thirty days.  Commissioner Levine made a motion to reconsider the permit parking application.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and was approved by 5-3-1.  After further discussion, Commissioner Resnick made a motion to deny permit parking along Monroe Street because the application did not meet criteria for granting permit parking.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Oberg and approved 6-2-1.

3.    Review and Approve January 2010 Meeting Minutes

a.    The January 2010 minutes were approved with minor changes. 

4.    Additional Items/ Discussion, including Pedestrian Bridges, Montgomery College/Princeton Place Fence and Cars Blocking Sidewalks

a.    Ms. Torma provided an update on the two pedestrian bridges that were closed and stated that the City is completing a thorough inspection of the bridges.
 
b.    Ms. Torma provided an update on the Montgomery College/Princeton Place fence issue via email prior to the meeting.  Commissioner Levine stated the letter written by Councilmember Mark Pierzchala was comprehensive.  Commissioner Oberg requested the status of the building permits for Montgomery College.  Ms. Torma stated that the building permits for the Montgomery College Science Center were issued; however, the occupancy permits were not. 
c.    Ms. Torma explained that it is illegal for vehicles to block the sidewalk and the Police Department will ticket motorists who do so.

5.    Staff Report and Updates (Weekly)

a.    Commissioner Martin requested clarification on the Victory Housing development application.  Ms. Torma stated that community residents have appealed the Board of Appeals decision to the Circuit Court.

6.    Montgomery County Judicial Center Annex, New County Office Building and Garage

a.    Ms. Torma gave an update on the project, including the possibility of deferral to    the March 10th Planning Commission meeting, and the project going through the mandatory referral process.  The Commission discussed the differences between mandatory referral and site plan application.  Ms. Torma explained that when an application goes through the mandatory referral process, the Planning Commission, whom has the approval authority, reviews it for location, character and extent.  Mr. Elshafei stated that the Traffic and Transportation Division staff had met with the Planning Division staff to discuss the County’s options. He further stated that municipalities have certain kinds of authority and the County does not have to comply with City standards.
 
b.    Commissioner Klein stated that he prefers an option in which the County would have to comply with the conditions in the transportation staff report.
 
c.    Commissioner Resnick made a motion to recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the transportation staff report recommendation to deny the project.  However, if the Planning Commission rejects that choice, and has to choose between mandatory referral or site plan approval, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the project be approved with the conditions set forth in the transportation staff report.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Oberg and approved 7-1.
 
d.    Discussion on the motion led to consensus that the Planning Commission should apply the City's standards in evaluating the site plan application.  Consensus was also reached that if the application does not meet the City's APFO, as has been determined by the transportation staff, then the application should not be approved.  It was also discussed that limiting the Planning Commission's evaluation of the application to the mandatory referral criteria ignores the City's APFO, which was adopted to protect its citizens.  The Traffic and Transportation Commission recognized that the County has the legal right to ignore the City's ordinances but felt that the Planning Commission should apply the City's laws in reviewing the application.  A Planning Commission ruling solely on the mandatory referral issues would not express to the County the importance the City places on its APFO.  A denial of the application would, hopefully, give the County pause in moving forward in violation of the City's ordinance.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.