Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006_07_10 Council Work Session July 10, 2006 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding. Councilmembers Present: Kelly Burk, Kathryn Sheldon Hammier, Susan Horne, Ken Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd Councilmembers Absent: Marty Martinez absent. Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Barbara Beach, Assistant to the Town Manager Nicole Ard, Assistant to the Town Manager Kathy Leidich, Chief of Police Joe Price, Airport Director Tim Deike, Director of Engineering and Public Works Tom Mason, Director of Planning, Zoning and Development Susan Swift, Deputy Utilities Director Aref Etemadi, Tourism Coordinator Marantha Edwards, Planner Scott Parker, Preservation Planner Annie McDonald, Management Specialist Tami Watkins and Deputy Clerk of Council Debi Parry. AGENDA ITEMS Council Meeting of July 11, 2006 a. Amending the Development Review and Inspection Fee Schedule - public hearing. Susan Swift outlined the proposed schedule of development review and inspection fees. She stated the Planning Commission held their public hearing on July 6 and recommended approval with some minor changes. She stated the Planning Commission recommended reducing the fees for master sign plan review with the Board of Architectural Review and raising the fee for the zoning certification letter. Vice Mayor Horne asked if we have received input from the development community. Ms. Swift stated there were no petitioners at the Planning Commission public hearing. Councilmember Hammier asked if we have received input from the Economic Development staff to align goals to create incentives for developers to bring the kind of development we want in the Town. Ms. Swift stated she has not sought input from the Economic Development staff. Councilmember Hammier asked if it would be legal to look at the fee structure regarding overarching incentives to attract commercial development versus residential. Barbara Beach stated in looking at the other jurisdiction's fees you'll see that some of them are able to attract quality development while charging higher fees. She stated development fees can be distinguished between residential and commercial development; however, the Virginia State Code requires that any such fees be directly correlated to the actual cost to the Town for reviewing them. Town Council Meeting of July 10. 2006 Page 2 Councilmember Hammier stated she has received feedback from the development community that the Town's processes are arduous and asked if we have looked at staffing levels and ways to hasten the process. Ms. Swift stated her department has implemented changes to the plan review process with the goal to reduce the number of times plans are resubmitted. Councilmember Hammier asked if additional staff members are needed. Ms. Swift stated she should not need additional plan reviewers if staff can meet the goal of reducing the number of plan submissions. Councilmember Wright thanked Ms. Swift for her report and the comparisons provided. Further, he asked if there is any way to charge an increased fee after the third or fourth submission for a plan. Ms. Swift stated staff has not looked into that possibility; however, it could be evaluated after the new quality control measures have been put in place. Ms. Beach cautioned that the fees charged must be directly tied to the cost to review the plans. She stated in order to increase the fee after the third submission you would have to prove that the Town's cost to review the plan increases at that time. Councilmember Wright complimented the reduction of the fees for sign review. He stated there is a house across the street from him that straddles a lot line and is therefore not conforming under the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if there is a way to grant an amnesty pardon so the owner of the house can vacate one of the lots and bring the home into conformance. Ms. Swift verified Councilmember Wright is referring to combining the lots. Ms. Beach stated that could be done by a deed of consolidation, which would combine the lots and vacate the center line. Councilmember Reid stated he was pleased to see the reduction in the fees for sign review. He expressed concern with the number of resubmissions for commercial site plans and suggested charging a high fee up front and refunding part of the money if the plan is approved with only two submissions. Ms. Beach stated fees have to have a correlation to staff time. Councilmember Reid stated the data shows staff is spending a lot of time on resubmissions and this would encourage developers to get it right the first time. Ms. Swift stated we could evaluate that possibility after we try the implementation of the process improvements. Town Council Meeting of July 10. 2006 Page 3 Mr. Wells stated staff is hoping the implementation of the intense review process would address the problem of multiple submissions by developers. He asked that staff be able to evaluate this process and report back to Council with additional recommendations or needs. Councilmember Reid verified this fee schedule does not include availability fees. He stated when comparing the fees it seems the residential fees are lower than the fees for commercial development. There was further discussion regarding the costs to small business owners as opposed to larger commercial developers. b. Authorizing a street resurfacing program for FY 2007 Tom Mason stated this is reflective of the Town's policy to bring the list of streets forward to Council each year to see if there are any special concerns of Council. He stated we will be repaving fewer streets this year as the cost of asphalt has increased more than anticipated. Further, he stated staff used the automated pavement management system to create the list of roads to be repaved. Councilmember Hammier asked if there were any roads that need to be done but cannot for financial reasons. Mr. Mason stated now that staff is aware of the cost increase, the budget allocation for next year will be high when we have to make up for this years shortfall in addition to the roads programmed for resurfacing next year. Councilmember Hammier asked if there are any insurance policies or similar programs available to assist localities in times where costs have increased more than anticipated. Mr. Wells stated the Council has a contingency fund of approximately $150,000 that could be accessed if there were any real safety issues with any of the roads not resurfaced this year. Further, he stated the resolution provides several other streets to be repaved if additional funds are found. Councilmember Reid stated he would like to see the scoring system used by staff. He asked the last time these roads were paved as they seem to be in pretty good shape. Mr. Mason stated we don't want to wait until it is obvious that the resurfacing is needed before providing maintenance. Further, he stated age and number of trips are also factors in determining when the roads should be repaved. There was further discussion of the roads listed in the resolution. c. Amending Resolution #2006-116 to appoint a Councilmanic Representative to the Planning Commission. Mayor Umstattd stated according to the Town Code no action can be taken on this tonight. She stated Council member Hammier will not be in attendance tomorrow night, so if the vote is tied again it can be deferred to the July 25 meeting. Town Council Meeting of July 10, 2006 Page 4 d. Making an appointment to the Tree Commission. Mayor Umstattd verified Councilmember Burk will be appointing Bruce Dewar to the Tree Commission. Debi Parry advised Council that the resolution has been changed to reflect Councilmember Reid's nomination of Tim Bigler to the Tree Commission. Councilmember Reid stated Mr. Bigler is the former President of the Kincaid Forest Homeowners Association and currently serves on their board. For consideration and discussion: 1. Requests to acquire Town property. Nicole Ard stated staff has received two unrelated requests to purchase Town property. She outlined the first property as .10 acres in the Cedar Walk area assessed at $100 and the second property as .59 acres in the Andover Meadows area assessed at approximately $128,000. Further, she stated if it is Council's desire staff can initiate the process, including advertisement of any potential sale and related public hearings. Snezhana Conway, speaking for Jorge H. Melo, addressed Council regarding the potential acquisition of the .10 acre parcel on Cedar Walk Circle. She stated Mr. Melo is the owner of a one-acre lot at the intersection of Cedar Walk Circle and Fort Evans Road. Further, she stated it is Mr. Melo's desire to subdivide the lot and construct two duplexes; however, they first need to acquire the .10 acre parcel owned by the Town to construct driveways. Council member Burk verified the couple's desire to construct two duplexes on this property and asked if the plans have been filed. Ms. Conway stated they have met with the Town's engineers and Mr. Wells; however, they would like this matter settled before they proceed. Councilmember Burk verified there is not space to construct a driveway if they cannot acquire this parcel. Mr. Mason stated this parcel of land was simply left over and given to the Town. He stated it is not needed for road right-of-way and would not allow Mr. Melo to construct more units. Further, he stated acquisition of this property would allow permanent driveways for these proposed units. Vice Mayor Horne asked if there were any concerns for the applicant to be made aware of. Ms. Ard stated Mr. Melo has been informed that the Town will need to acquire construction easements on this property as part of the Fort Evans Road capital improvement project. Councilmember Wright stated the assessed value is $100; however, the Town will expend more than that to process this request and asked how the Town will be compensated. Mr. Wells stated after the ad is placed the successful bidder for the property will be required to compensate the Town for the cost of the public hearing ad. Town Council Meeting of July 10, 2006 Paqe 5 Mayor Umstattd verified the Town cannot be compensated for staff time. Councilmember Wright stated in the case of both properties the construction that will occur once the property has been acquired will be by-right and will not require an additional public hearing. He asked if there is any way to notice the fact that the construction will be by-right so the adjacent property owners will be informed and not surprised later. Ms. Beach stated the Town can legally require the ad to contain language that there is the potential with this action going through for additional homes to be built on this site. Councilmember Wright verified the word "by-right" could also be added. Mayor Umstattd expressed concern that most people would not see the ad and therefore would not be informed of what is coming. Ms. Beach stated since this is the Town's property the Town can see fit to go beyond the noticing requirements to send letters or post a sign to inform the adjacent property owners of the pending action. Further, she stated staff has met with representatives of Montgomery County and learned that the way they get most of their workforce housing is through their ownership of property. Further, she stated some jurisdictions require a condition of the sale of property be that a percentage of the units are built as workforce housing. Mayor Umstattd asked what is the Town's authority to require that a percentage of the units be sold at a lower cost. Ms. Beach stated Council could enact a policy that when the Town sells property, the Town has priority that it be used for workforce housing. She stated you can ask the applicant who is purchasing the property what they will sell the land for to ensure the price falls within your guidelines. Mayor Umstattd stated that is also something the neighbors should be made aware of. Ms. Beach reminded Council that they are under no obligation to sell Town land and do not have to settle for fair market value; although an offer for less than fair market value cannot be accepted. Councilmember Wright asked if there needs to be language included in the ad to state that Council may pursue more than fair market value or workforce housing. Ms. Beach stated the ads should be as broad as possible to allow Council flexibility and at the same time they have to be worded in such a way to inform the normal person of the pending action. Councilmember Reid expressed concern in requiring work force housing given the small size of the properties. He stated he would support the Mayor's proposal to at least post a sign on these properties to inform the adjacent homeowners. Council member Burk stated she would like more information on the second property and asked what they are planning to do. Town Council Meetinq of July 10. 2006 Page 6 Ms. Ard stated in speaking with the Planning staff she was informed that acquisition of .59 acres in Andover Meadows will allow Waterford Home Builders to construct one to two additional single-family detached dwellings. There was further discussion of the second lot. Mr. Wells suggested this be placed on the next agenda for action and request that Waterford Homes be in attendance to answer any additional questions Council may have. Mayor Umstattd verified Mr. Melo was not informed by the seller that the .10 acre parcel was owned by the Town. 2. Consideration of combining the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) with the Tree Commission. Councilmember Reid stated this was brought forward, in conjunction with two other Council members because we have a new Commission and also because the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) has had difficulty in reaching a quorum. Further, he stated there has also been a suggestion that the EAC be a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to be convened when necessary. Mayor Umstattd stated she has received a number of calls from members of the Tree Commission who do not want to see the Commissions combined. She stated the Commissions are fundamentally different and she would not support combining them. Further, she stated the Tree Commission is very active and the EAC was active in the past; however, for various reasons several of their members have had to leave. Councilmember Burk stated she would not supporting combining these two commissions. She stated some vacancies were not filled because there were new Council members taking office. Vice Mayor Horne stated she would like to hear from the members of the Tree Commission in attendance. Councilmember Hammier stated she would like to hear from the members of the EAC and ensure we are getting full debriefs and strategic overviews of upcoming goals for each commission. She stated there has been discussion of combining the Cable and IT Commissions. Further, she complimented Councilmember Reid on his suggestion to establish a Public Safety Commission. Councilmember Wright echoed Councilmember Hammier's comments regarding the importance of hearing from the EAC. He stated there could be a possibility of changing the Commission to a Committee. Further, he stated he would not support merging the EAC with the Tree Commission. Mayor Umstattd stated she would not like the decision on the existence of Commissions to be based on whether or not we have Council liaisons willing to serve on them. Further, she suggested considering an amendment to the Town Code to remove the requirement for a Council liaison should there not be anyone interested in a particular Commission. Earl Hower, Tree Commission Chairman, addressed Council to ask that Town Council Meetinq of July 10, 2006 Page 7 Council not combine the Tree Commission with the EAC. He highlighted the work being done by the Tree Commission with the recently adopted Urban Forestry Master Plan. He stated the EAC was very active in the Town Plan process and the Tree Commission would be happy to recommend candidates for appointment to that Commission. Max Peterson, Tree Commission member, concurred with Mr. Hower's comments and stated he would like to see Council fill the vacancies on the EAC before recommending further changes. Councilmember Burk stated the EAC has worked on education efforts regarding recycling and storm sewer use; worked to help clean up litter in the Town; worked on the grant for water shed protection and evaluating the Town Plan. Vice Mayor Horne asked that the Chairman of the EAC attend tomorrow's meeting to provide a briefing on the Committee's efforts and their work plan. There was further discussion regarding the need to hear from members of the EAC, whether a change is needed and the broader issue of hearing from the Commissions on a regular basis. Councilmember Hammier stated it would be helpful to have minutes from each of the Commissions. Kathleen Burke-Pritchard, Tree Commission Vice Chairman, stated the Tree Commission has not had any minutes presented in a number of months because they were told there was no staff to do them. It was the consensus of Council to remove this from tomorrow night's agenda. 3. Setting a date for the Town Council retreat After much discussion it was the consensus of Council to schedule the Town Council retreat for September 30 at the Leesburg Executive Airport from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm. 4. Dangerous Dog Ordinance Barbara Beach stated this is in response to a concern from a citizen who was walking their dog and had another dog attack their dog. She stated currently the Town Code protects people from being attacked, but not other animals. Further, she stated the Virginia State Code has changed and we have two options to either amend our Ordinance to include attacks on other dogs or cats or we can eliminate our Ordinance and go under the State Code, which is what Loudoun County has done. Ms. Beach stated her concern is that the animal wardens represent both the Town and County; therefore it would be helpful for them to only work under the State Code. She stated the Town does have a history of having its own Ordinance and she would recommend amending our Ordinance to allow the animal warden to cite an individual under the Town or State Code. Mayor Umstattd suggested amending our Ordinance to mirror the State Code so it remains the same. Vice Mayor Horne asked for the main changes to the State Code. Town Council Meeting of July 10, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Beach stated the two main changes were that they protected dogs and cats and also they allowed local jurisdictions to go under the State Code rather than having their own. Further, she stated the problem with just amending our own Ordinance is that it would create two separate code sections for the animal wardens to have to remember. Mayor Umstattd verified it would be easiest for the animal warden to be able to cite either the Town Code or State Code. Councilmember Wright asked if allowing use of the State Code would allow the animal warden to enforce future amendments to the Code before our Town Code incorporates them. Ms. Beach stated the State Code does allow us to incorporate future amendments as long as we specify we are doing that. She stated that language is included in the ordinance. Councilmember Reid stated a citizen complained to him about a dangerous cat that was killing the birds in her backyard and asked if cats could be included in the ordinance. Mayor Umstattd stated we do not have enabling authority for a dangerous cat ordinance. Ms. Beach stated there has been a long running debate among attorneys regarding a leash law for cats and the general consensus is that you cannot control a cat. cats. Councilmember Wright asked if there is enabling legislation to deal with stray Ms. Beach stated animal control could be called regarding stray cats. 5. Crosstrails Update Mayor Umstattd stated it is her understanding that although the Loudoun County Planning Commission requested that a member of the Council be present at their meeting Monday night, the Chairman informed one of our Council members that it would be okay for Council to submit a letter addressing the questions they have asked. Scott Parker outlined the location of the Crosstrail property and the most recent development plan. He stated on July 6 the Loudoun County Planning Commission conducted a work session on the Crosstrail development and at that meeting requested that a representative of the Town Council attend the work session on July 17 to answer three specific questions. Mayor Umstattd stated the way the questions have been drafted it seems they believe the only question of importance is whether the Town intends to annex the property or not. She stated she does not see the Loudoun County Planning Commission expressing interest in the primary intent of the Joint Land Management Area (JLMA) which is joint planning. Mr. Parker stated it was his impression that annexation and the histories of past Town decisions seemed to be of more focus than joint planning. Town Council Meeting of July 10, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Wright stated this question was generated by the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority's (LCSA) statement that if they are to be the provider for utilities they would want to initiate a study to provide for the entire area, not just this one property, which the Planning Commission asked them to do. He stated one Planning Commissioner expressed concern regarding the possibility of two utility providers in this area and therefore asked the question of whether the Town intends to extend their boundaries in the future and thus supply utilities to this area. Council member Hammier stated the message that needs to go back is that providing water and sewer would necessitate planning and zoning authority of the Town; and therefore the timing of working collaboratively on a longer term annexation situation with the County and how we can work towards that. Mr. Parker stated Councilmember Wright's recollection is accurate and there also seemed to be a genuine concern regarding the intent of the commitment of the Town to the entire JLMA. Mr. Parker outlined the first question asked by the Loudoun County Planning Commission and staff's proposed response regarding Council's official position on the proposed expansion of the airport as illustrated within the draft of the updated Airport Master Plan. Further, he outlined the second question asked by the Loudoun County Planning Commission and staff's proposed response regarding Council's official position regarding the annexation of properties that comprise the JLMA and if the Town is committed to the intent of the JLMA and has a genuine desire to annex this area. Council member Hammier thanked staff for their bullet points. She stated the reality is that there were not staff resources along the way to get us to the point where these two legislative bodies could work together efficiently. She stated we need to communicate this to get better resolution on the issues. Mr. Wells stated the joint planning process requested by the Town could not proceed because of a shortage of planning staff resources at the County due to their work on the Purcellville Urban Growth Area Management Plan (PUGAMP). He stated we were unable to move forward and the Planning Commission was under direction by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to complete work on the PUGAMP first before beginning discussions on our JLMA. Councilmember Hammier stated we need to articulate our understanding that there were staffing issues on the County's end. Mr. Wells stated the salient point is that at the time when there was an opportunity to work through the issue, the Board of Supervisor's took action in May to move forward with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMAP) at the same time rather than honor our request regarding a boundary line adjustment to bring the Crosstrail property within the Town. Council member Hammier stated we invited Carter Glass to a Council meeting and he recommended that we pursue an isolated boundary line adjustment for Crosstrails instead of a broader request for annexation. She stated what ultimately came of that was the Board of Supervisors was advised by their own legal counsel Town Council Meeting of July 10, 2006 Page 10 that tactically a boundary line adjustment would not make sense for the County and they would prefer an annexation because they can put more things on the table for negotiation. Further, she stated the key point is looking at annexation as a win-win situation and understanding it may also be in the County's best interest. Mr. Wells stated one of the key points we are looking for is that there is still time for joint planning in the CPAM process. Vice Mayor Horne asked if there has ever been joint planning in this area. Ms. Beach stated under the annexation agreement there have been meetings at five year periods and there have been changes as a result of these meetings. Further, she stated it is unclear if the last meeting held was in 1995. Ms. Swift stated the joint planning effort took place when the meetings were held. She stated for what ever reason the Town did not participate until the very end of the most recent County Comprehensive Plan process when the Urban Growth Area (UGA) was changed to the (JLMA). Mr. Mason stated the Annexation Area Development Policy (AADP) has been adjusted, but not within the past ten years. Ms. Beach outlined the amendments made through 1995. Mayor Umstattd stated generally planning occurs in five year increments as the Code requires. There was further discussion regarding the past planning processes. Council member Wright stated the biggest difference in the Town's and County's plans is the size of the JLMA. He stated the uses in both plans call for key note employment and regional office. Further, he stated the delta has occurred in the County's consideration of the application and it's polar opposite to what has traditionally been planned for this area by both parties. Mr. Parker outlined the third question from the Loudoun County Planning Commission and staff's response regarding when utilities will be completed for the area comprising the JLMA and whether there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to accommodate the JLMA. Further, he outlined other items the Council may want to address including the provision of utilities outside the Town's boundaries and various transportation issues. Mayor Umstattd stated Council's desire to place the Lower Sycolin Creek Sewer Conveyance System on hold was based on the need to find out how much of the area would be supplied by LCSA. Mr. Wells stated the question of utility service in that entire area is an important point. He stated if LCSA can provide service to this property and the property previously known as Creekside, it may make sense for them to provide service to the entire watershed as it wouldn't make sense to have two utility companies serving the same area. Further, he stated this has implications for any land use decisions the Town may have and may preempt any joint planning for those other properties. Town Council Meetinq of July 10, 2006 Paqe 11 Councilmember Hammier asked when we would receive an answer from LCSA regarding their plans for the area. Aref Etemadi stated LCSA has taken no position on the matter and have stated they would not proceed with any design or survey unless directed by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. He stated the Loudoun County Planning Commission did ask them to prepare a cost estimate for extending utilities to this area. Mr. Wright stated the letter submitted by LCSA stated they would only take direction from the Board of Supervisors; however, at the end of the letter they stated that if the Loudoun County Planning Commission wanted them to research the costs involved they could do that now. Councilmember Hammier asked how long that process would take. Mr. Parker stated LCSA anticipated the planning process would take one to three months. There was further discussion regarding the timeline for LCSA to provide a report to the County Planning Commission. Councilmember Hammier asked that LCSA send a representative to brief Council on this issue. Vice Mayor Horne stated it is pretty clear two major companies such as Peterson and Lansdowne would not proceed without a clear understanding of what it will cost to extend utilities to their properties. She stated they already know what it will cost them. There was further discussion regarding the joint planning process. Mr. Parker stated staff also feels the transportation concerns have not been adequately discussed and we need to impress upon the County that this is a major issue in the impact of this development on the Town. He stated the proffers are inadequate and do not reflect the fair share of the impact that should be mitigated by the applicant. Mayor Umstattd stated we are estimating almost 52,000 vehicle trips per day being generated by this development on average. Mr. Mason stated that is the estimate at build out. There was further discussion regarding the summary conclusions to address past decisions made by Council. Dennis Boykin, Airport Commission Vice Chairman, stated regarding the discussion of who should provide utilities we seem to be missing the point that the taxpayers of the Town have already made a significant investment in the utility infrastructure. He suggested that the language regarding the residential component of the plan be made stronger. Further, he stated the Town may have made poor decisions in the past regarding the location of residential uses in relation to the Town Council Meeting of Julv 10. 2006 Page 12 airport; however, approval of this application would be worse than anything Council approved. Councilmember Reid concurred with Mr. Boykin's comments. He verified the Loudoun County Planning Commission discussed their formulation of these questions in public. Further, he questioned the County's authority to ask questions of the Town regarding the timing of the provision of utilities when their own utility program does not have answers to these questions. Councilmember Wright thanked Earl Hoovler for his work in this process. He stated he would be in favor of strengthening the language; however, at the end of the day we have this application staring us in the face that is an immediate threat relating to transportation, the airport and our ability to extend our boundaries in the future from a utility standpoint. Further, he stated there needs to be more discussion regarding how to approach this strategically and be concise in our response to the things we object to about this project, including the fact that the only way to exit of this proposed development, unless you pay a toll is to go through Leesburg. Councilmember Burk stated she still wouldn't approve of the application even if the residential component was removed because there are so many other things wrong with the application. She stated she is not opposed to strengthening the language; however, we need to focus on more than just the residential issues. Councilmember Hammier stated she agrees with the issue regarding the residential component; however, we need to emphasize the cycle and the point that the residential came on line because through the AADPs we were emphasizing the need for key note employment. She suggested adding Mr. Boykin's point that we have such a large investment in the utility infrastructure for this area and are prepared better and faster to supply utilities to this area and to support the County through Phillip Bolen Park and other municipal projects. Further, she stated we do need to delineate the specific issues again to find a way to say that we understand the County has a deadline and we request denial of this application if we can not get these issues resolved. Councilmember Reid stated Peterson Company does not want to be annexed due to past problems they have had with our past processes. Vice Mayor Horne stated we do not need to go into a lot of history but need to focus on our opportunity and our legitimate say and voice in what happens around our boundaries. She stated if the County ultimately approves LCSA putting in the lines they have taken away the investment we have made in increasing our capacity to serve these areas and have shut us out from ever having the opportunity to annex this land. Further, she stated they are also putting at risk the future of our airport and we should add points regarding how we would like to see the application change into something that we would even consider approving. Mr. Parker stated the July 17 Worksession is scheduled for 5:00 pm and will only last one hour. Mr. Wells stated staff will redraft this letter to bring back for Council's review tomorrow night with the intention of its use at the work session. After that time, the letter could be amended if necessary for the Board of Supervisors. Town Council Meeting of Julv 10. 2006 Paqe 13 Mayor Umstattd stated staff has done a wonderful job in drafting this letter; and in addition to strengthening the language regarding the residential component we also need to focus on the inadequacy of the transportation proffers because that will have the biggest impact on the residents of Leesburg. Mr. Boykin stated he would rank the priorities in order of land use and utilities, transportation and protection of the airport. Further, he expressed concern with the provision of age restricted housing near the airport. Councilmember Reid stated there seems to be an assumption that with the age restricted housing you will have "people with all the time in the world" to complain about airplane noise. He stated the type of housing they are discussing is for active retirees and these are people who mostly work and are not the type of people sitting around with nothing to do. Further, he stated the issue is not age restricted housing, rather the location of the residential component to the airport. Councilmember Wright suggested formulating the letter to answer the questions, succinctly highlight the key points and ask the Board of Supervisors to work with us to schedule a meeting to discuss this project and address our concerns. Councilmember Hammier concurred with Council member Wright's comments. She stated the other issue we haven't discussed is the fact that we don't know how to deal with mixed-use including the integration of the project and the use of short- term trips. Councilmember Reid asked if we should raise a legal argument in this letter because we have the first rights to serve utilities in this area under the annexation area agreement. Mayor Umstattd stated it is her recollection that the Town has first right of refusal on providing utilities rather than a requirement to provide the utilities. Ms. Beach stated she has sent memos to Council on this issue before and would prefer not to give legal opinions publicly. After further discussion regarding the content of the letter it was the decision of Council to direct staff to draft a letter for consideration tomorrow night. For information only: The Town Council work session of July 24, 2006: a. Trails Task Force Interim Report There was no Council discussion of this item. b. Lowenbach Update Mr. Wells stated there will be a public hearing at the July 25 meeting. He stated the Lowenbach subcommittee will meet this Thursday to formulate their recommendation for the public hearing. Councilmember Burk verified the committee meeting is at 6:30 pm in the Lower Level Conference Room. Vice Mayor Horne asked Ms. Liz Whiting to discuss her concerns regarding Town Council Meeting of July 10, 2006 Page 14 the County proffer for the traffic signal at Catoctin Circle and Edwards Ferry Road. Liz Whitinq, Standing Residential Traffic Committee Chairman, stated the all-way stop signs at Catoctin Circle and Edwards Ferry Road are working very well. She stated as part of the Lowenbach Committee's work it was brought to her attention that there has been money allocated in the Capital Improvements Program to engineer the traffic signal at Catoctin Circle and Edwards Ferry Road. Further, she stated when discussing this item the Lowenbach Subcommittee did not endorse the placement of a traffic signal at this intersection. Ms. Whiting stated in talking with some staff members at the County, they have no particular attachment to this signal which is funded by a proffer from the expansion of the County Court House. She stated they felt the County would support reprogramming the funds for a project that would be affected by this expansion. Further, she expressed concern that a traffic signal would degrade the safety situation for pedestrians at this intersection. Mayor Umstattd asked that the Lowenbach Committee members discuss this at their next meeting. Further, she verified a proffer amendment would require public hearings at the Planning Commission and Council level. Councilmember Burk stated she was at that intersection the other day and witnessed a motorist speed through the stop sign and almost hit a pedestrian. She asked how the traffic signal would make the intersection less safe for pedestrians. Ms. Whiting stated motorists are more likely to see pedestrians because they are at eye level with the stop signs. Vice Mayor Horne stated the stop signs also allow for better movement of traffic than a traffic signal would at this location. Councilmember Wright stated he is in favor of eliminating the traffic signal from the Capital Improvements Program; however, staff has stated in the past that the intersection was in danger of failing if a traffic signal was not installed. He asked that a staff report be provided to the Lowenbach Committee members as part of their discussion of the issue. Councilmember Reid stated he also opposes a traffic signal at this location. He stated he would like to consider reprogramming funds for a sidewalk on Market Street near the Barrister Building. Wendy Overton, Lowenbach Ad Hoc Committee, stated the Committee has discussed this issue in the past and does not support a traffic signal at this location. She asked that the Committee be provided with a list of possible projects the funds could be used for. Councilmember Reid verified the funds could not be used for the Lowenbach project. Mayor Umstattd stated since the residents of Lowenbach would be most Town Council Meetinq of July 10. 2006 Page 15 affected by the proposed traffic signal it is appropriate to get there recommendation regarding a alternative project the funds could be used for. Council member Reid stated since Ms. Whiting has taken it upon herself to discuss this issue with the County, he would like her to consider the Market Street Sidewalk issue. Ms. Whiting stated the Council sets those priorities. c. Downtown Economic Development Update There was no further Council discussion of this item. New Business: a. Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority public hearing on Battlefield Parkway Councilmember Reid stated the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority will have a hearing on July 20 concerning Battlefield Parkway, air rights and whether we should be providing land to them. He asked if there should be an item on tomorrow night's agenda to pass a resolution to be presented at the meeting. Tom Mason stated the Virginia Department of Transportation is the applicant. He stated we have had conversations on and off for years with the park authority and they have never been clear on the impact of Battlefield Parkway on the bike trail. Further, he stated we need to know more about what their recommendation will be on this issue. Ms. Beach related her concern with legal issues she is currently addressing with the park authority and Dominion Virginia Power. She asked that these legal issues be considered in formulating any response. Mayor Umstattd stated we need to communicate that Battlefield Parkway is our highest transportation priority and request that they do everything they can to facilitate this. Mr. Mason stated staff will look into the issue and report back to Council tomorrow night. Adjournment On a motion by Councilmember Wright, seconded by Councilmember Burk, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 pm. 2006_tcwsmin0710 /