City Council Meeting - Monday, March 1, 2010

CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND
PRESENTATION AND WORKSESSION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL

Monday, March 01, 2010

(Minutes adopted July 12, 2010)

Administrative Function Session of March 1, 2010
The City Council met with the City Attorney in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 1, 2010, to discuss her evaluation. (OFFICIALS PRESENT: Williams, Wright, Clay, Robinson, Seamens, Snipper, Schultz; STAFF/OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney Silber)

PRESENT:
Mayor Williams Councilmember Clay Councilmember Robinson Councilmember Schultz Councilmember Seamens Councilmember Snipper Councilmember Wright		City Manager Matthews City Clerk Carpenter Deputy City Manager Ludlow Public Works Director Braithwaite City Arborist Bolton Community Development Coordinator Blanchard

The City Council convened at 7:30 p.m. in the Azalea Room of the Takoma Park Community Center -- Sam Abbott Citizens' Center, 7500 Maple Avenue, Takoma Park, Maryland.

Mr. Wright thanked the Police Department for its diligent work in apprehending a suspect for the assault in Sligo Creek Park.

Mr. Wright noted the loss of pedestrian signal paddles on Philadelphia Avenue, due to the snow plowing. He requested the City Manager’s assistance in having them reinstalled.

Ms. Clay requested enforcement at the traffic circle at Elm and Lincoln Avenues. She said that drivers were again driving the wrong way around the circle.

Ms. Clay said she had started getting more comments of concern regarding the proposed Sligo Park Hills traffic access restrictions. Some residents were concerned about increased traffic in their neighborhood; others are concerned because they will lose a way to cut through the area. She said it was a legitimate concern for people who feel that they cannot circulate freely around their own neighborhoods. She said she would like to have a City response to the County and include those issues. She said that several community members commented that the arterial roads that traffic would be pushed to are already failing. She said she hoped that we say generally that we want to keep roads open but calm traffic to slow it.

Mr. Seamens commented that the traffic access restrictions were an important issue for his community.

Mr. Snipper said he had heard quite a bit about the traffic access proposal. He said that many people in his ward are exorcised about the proposal. He supported the City preparing a response. Mr. Snipper said there will be a tremendous amount of interest in finding an alternative solution to closing streets during rush hour or limiting access, which will not solve the problem; speeding cars are more the problem. He suggested that with the knowledge that Takoma Park has about traffic calming, the City could provide the County with ideas that would slow traffic and allow people to continue to use the streets.

Mr. Robinson commented on the Sligo Park Hills traffic access proposal. He said that many of his residents take issue with the idea of what is being considered local traffic passing through Sligo Park Hills, suggesting that the concept of "local" should be more broad. Mr. Robinson suggested that the County consider installing sidewalks in the Sligo Park Hills neighborhood.

Mr. Wright said that the idea of closing a street at times was foreign to him. He supported other kinds of traffic calming on the street. Mr. Wright said he would like to come to some consensus on a Council response to the proposal, noting the problem that would occur if the County implements the restrictions and Takoma Park does nothing.

Mr. Seamens noted that if the City’s recommendation is not followed by the County, it will change what is needed to be done within the City.

After a motion being duly moved and seconded, minutes of November 23 and November 30, 2009 were adopted.

Mr. Wright thanked Mr. Bolton for his efforts during the snow storm.

Mr. Bolton began his report. County Councilwoman Nancy Floreen arrived and the Mayor reordered the agenda.

Nancy Floreen, County Council President, briefed the Council on County budget constraints. Other topics that came up during the discussion included the capital budget for Montgomery College, traffic access restrictions in Sligo Park Hills, the new C-R Zone, the Takoma/Langley Sector Plan, municipal tax duplication payments, school maintenance of effort, ambulance fees, the Purple Line, Ride On buses, and Highway User Revenues.

Mr. Bolton continued his report (attached). He noted that he now has GIS units to work on updating the tree inventory done in 2001. Mr. Bolton discussed the loss of the tree canopy and provided information on tree removals and plantings. He said the goal is to have a multigenerational urban forest.

Mr. Bolton indicated that he would like to have a discussion with the City Council about enforcement priority.

Ms. Clay suggested that consideration be given to amend the ordinance to allow people to pre-plant replacement trees. She also wanted to discuss authority of the Arborist in code enforcement actions. She indicated that it would be worth discussing dividing activities of the Arborist and code enforcement, so that the person doing the permit review would not be the same person who is writing tickets.

Mr. Seamens encouraged more promotion of the bulk buy tree program, and more education about the value of trees so that residents do not fear planting trees near their homes. Mr. Seamens also commented that he believed the only way to address problems with invasives is to convince the public of the problems the plants cause for their neighbors and the environment.

Ilona Blanchard presented information on the impact of the ranking system on prioritizing sidewalk installation and ADA compliance projects. She indicated that the idea is to spend the funds in the right place in a timely fashion. Important criteria include availability of right-of-way, whether or not there are existing sidewalks, and ADA improvements focused on commercial areas, schools, libraries, and bus stops.

Mr. Williams asked how difficult it would be to add to the map information about sidewalks along State highways.

Ms. Clay commented that Lincoln Avenue is not a top tier street, yet Lincoln Avenue between Jackson and Larch Avenues is more of a cut through than Boyd Avenue. She noted that Auburn and Devonshire Avenues are closer to the commercial districts and relatively flat. Residents are interested in a sidewalk there. She also noted the many impediments on the sidewalk at East West Highway and New Hampshire Avenue. She asked if curb cuts could be put there, by the townhouses, for ADA accessibility.

Mr. Seamens expressed concern that the priority ranking does not include the area around the nursery school on Geneva Avenue that generates much pedestrian traffic on Geneva and Ritchie Avenues. He said he would not support the prioritization when it does not support institutions like the nursery school. He said he would like further exploration of adding a sidewalk on Geneva Avenue from 111 Geneva to the corner of Ritchie Avenue.

Mr. Wright asked about the time frame and the process for engaging or informing the community.

Ms. Blanchard said the first step would be to evaluate impediments to placing a sidewalk on a street, then staff would flyer the neighborhood, have a meeting, and make sure everyone understands the plan.

Mr. Wright suggested an addition to the draft resolution to add community input as part of the process for review and reordering sidewalk priorities. Mr. Wright suggested adding to the map areas just outside of Takoma Park, such as Ray Road, to have a better picture of where there are sidewalks.

Mr. Robinson commented that he had received a petition from residents on the Ethan Allen side of Manor Circle, to install a sidewalk between Takoma Junction and Jackson Avenue. He asked if a sidewalk could be installed if people were willing to provide the right-of-way.

Ms. Ludlow said that knowing people were willing to provide right-of-way would go a long way toward consideration.

Mr. Schultz asked for clarification on the time differential for installation of tier 1 sidewalks and the next tier.

Ms. Matthews said that sidewalks shown on the map would take the remainder of FY 2010 and the bulk of FY 2011, depending on the speed camera revenues. She indicated that more would be known once the engineering work is completed.

Ms. Blanchard noted that the least expensive projects are planned to be done earlier.

Mr. Schultz asked how the sidewalks would be engineered to accommodate the two new traffic circles on Wildwood Drive.

Ms. Braithwaite said that decision would be made after the engineering firm is on board. They may recommend doing the projects in tandem.

Mr. Schultz asked if the City could work around trees when there was right-of-way available. Ms. Blanchard said they would work around trees.

Mr. Snipper commented that he was concerned about Maple Avenue between Erie and Kennebeck. Since a lot of kids walk there, the community would prefer to have a sidewalk there rather than adding the additional piece on Kennebeck. He noted that there was another piece of Maple by Maplewood, that is of less importance because there is already a sidewalk on one side.

Ms. Clay commented that, with few exceptions, Phase 1 of the sidewalk plan provides for a single sidewalk. She said it is her perspective that we should put a single sidewalk along other streets, rather than put a second sidewalk along Ethan Allen Avenue.

Mr. Wright asked about repair of damaged sidewalks in the city.

Ms. Blanchard said that the ADA study looked at ramps and cracks, deterioration, and even vegetation. Those were also ranked.

Mr. Seamens said he would not support endorsing the ranking system because there is a flaw in the formula in that it does not take institutions like the nursery school on Geneva Avenue into consideration.

Ms. Blanchard indicated that staff could address those issues if brought to staff’s attention.

Mr. Seamens commented that it defeats the reason for having a formula.

Mr. Wright commented that was one reason for having a community input clause in the resolution.

Ms. Ludlow provided a legislative update.

The Council adjourned for the evening at 11:35 p.m.