HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011_tcwsmin0926Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Vice Mayor Kevin Wright
presiding.
Council Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas Dunn, Katie Sheldon Hammler,
Marty Martinez, Ken Reid, Kevin D. Wright, and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: Council Member Butler arrived at 7:38 p.m., Council
Member Thomas Dunn arrived at 9:06 p.m.
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Dentler,
Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Research and Communications Manager Betsy Fields,
Environmental Planner Irish Grandfield, Deputy Director of Capital Projects
Management Renee LaFollette, Capital Projects Manager for Design and Engineering
Tom Brandon, Senior Engineer Anne Geiger, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan
Berry Hill, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Work Session Items for Discussion
a. Presentation from the Watershed Committee — Low Impact Design
Neely Law: Thank you very much for putting us on the agenda
tonight. I realize in reading through the final report that a figure was missing.
Council Member Reid, if you just want to pass that around. It's just a
graphical chart that outlines the various benefits of some of the practices that I
will speak to tonight.
So the presentation tonight is based on the hard work of the volunteer
members of the Leesburg Watershed Committee and had a review and
recommendations for low impact development. I would really like to
emphasize that we are presenting this as part of a solution to enhance the
town's stormwater management program, not THE solution. So, to refresh
everyone's memory that we all live in a watershed, each one of those stars
indicate where the council members and mayor lives within watersheds in
Leesburg. So, you can pick out that a few of our members live in Cattail
watershed branch, Council Member Dunn, Martinez, and Hammler. Vice
Mayor... you.... and the Mayor lives on Tuscarora Creek watershed and
Council Member Reid and Butler also live in Tuscarora Creek watershed. As I
have already mentioned, Council member Dunn, Martinez and Hammler also
live in the Cattail branch of the north part of the watershed.
Reid: Is there a Lowenbach watershed for all of the flooding that has
been happening there throughout the years?
Law: Are all part of the same system, Council Member Reid.
Reid: Very, very good. So, no one is laughing at that one.
1 �Pagc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Law: So, Leesburg Watershed Committee is a committee of the
Environmental Advisory Commission. I have listed the members who have
been most actively involved this past year in putting together the report. As
you can see, it's a representation of the environmental group, educators, and
working professionals in the Town of Leesburg as well as representatives from
other commissions, namely the Planning Commission... Brett Burk and Tom
Seeman from the Tree Commission. We had the benefit also of working along
with town staff who provided us with info along the way when we had
questions about various regulations and policies in the town. So, it has been a
very effective way to form a committee and develop recommendations. So,
our process for the past three years has been guided by three main questions
based on the development of the initiation of the watershed committee in
2007. First, what do we know? That was based on the Tuscarora Creek
baseline report prepared by the Piedmont Environmental Council and the
center for watershed protection, where the watershed committee put forward
seven major recommendations that we have entitled the watershed action plan.
Based on that, we asked ourselves what do we need to know. Through a series
of presentations on the development procedures, research, specific geological
features such as our Karst Limestone geology and clay soils help us form and
make the recommendations that are represented in the report. So, to refresh
everyone's memory, the problem and why we were formed in the first place,
that the 2007 Tuscarora Creek watershed study indicated that an assessment of
the Tuscarora Creek watershed, one of the three in the Town of Leesburg, 48%
of the stream surveyed were in very poor to poor condition. What we mean by
that is that we have erosion in the streams, by water entering our streams
through a pipe network too fast and too much at the same time. This has
resulted in a commonly held practice of rip rap along our streams, that is very
unnatural, but helps to stabilize and prevent further erosion. And, we also
have features of having unforested stream banks. If you go into a natural
stream, you will see a lot of trees along the bank, but we have a stormwater
infrastructure and policies that prevent the town from planting in the stream
and along the stream banks. Here is just another example of an unvegetated
stream bed.
So, our the focus of our report... of the seven recommendations
presented in that watershed action plan focused on recommendations five, six
and seven that were about stormwater regulations and practices. But what we
came to understand through the benefit of Bill Fissell on our committee, a
working engineer in town, is that Low impact development is not just about
stormwater. It's about the entire land development process and the policies
and regulations related to when you begin to develop the site at the site plan
stage, not just dealing with the effects of development and the run off produced
from it, so we expanded our scope in looking at low impact development in
that more holistic perspective.
2 a c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
So, here is a glimpse of how low impact development could fit into our
community. Low impact development practices can be implemented at home
on residential properties and here you see an example of a rain garden that
really looks like a landscaped feature, but is really doing double duty. It has
landscaped features and aesthetic value but is also treating run off from the
rooftop and driveway as well as native plants to promote a natural habitat.
Low Impact development can also be observed along streets and sidewalks
where you would have... rather than having your yard strip or your turf grass
strip in between your sidewalk and the road, you have what we would call
bioretention cells, once again landscaped with trees, but also performing
double duty here as well. Here you have a bioretention feature located
adjacent to a building to collect run off from the roof top. Once again, very
integrated into the site and design of the development itself. Here are two
other practices that look to treat roof top run off. This silo looking feature here
is a cistern to collect run off that is reused, saving on water irrigation used for
landscaping as well as gray water reuse in buildings themselves. This is the
Fairfax government center green roof that has been implemented about three
years ago and functioning very well. The last area that we might be able to
implement low impact development practices are in parking lots. We have
examples of this in Leesburg... permeable pavement. This area here, the gray
area, and then we have a bioretention cell... rather than having it landscaped
median, you have landscaping as well as stormwater being treated at the
median. So, many applications and many benefits.
So, just to summarize, low impact development reduces the amount of
run off. It provides cleaner water and allows the water to enter streams at a
slower rate thus preventing that erosion from happening in the streams thus
reducing the amount of rip rap we need to have in our streams as well.
Practices are smaller and they are dispersed, controlling pollution at its source
rather than as an end solution and they are engineered to take advantage of
natural processes, so you are treating stormwater as a resource, rather than a
waste. Let's get it out of our watersheds as quickly as possible. The drivers for
low impact development as the watershed committee sees it is that streams are
the town's responsibility and that is driven by recent developments in state and
federal regulations, through our municipal separate stormwater system and
MS4 permit as well as the total maximum daily load, but also low impact
development through our research has really demonstrated that they are a cost
effective part of the solution. Cost savings at the development site of up to 30
percent. So, it's a cost savings for the developer that I think is really beneficial
that we need to look more closely at as well. So, the community input, as I had
said, in terms of what do we need to know to make us informed to make
informed recommendations to you... we had a series of presentations to our
committee. One was by the lands development review process. How does
development come to be in the town of Leesburg. From Site plan to
stormwater management. Bill Fissell from Dewberry provided us with a very
comprehensive presentation. We then invited Bob Detman _ from Geo
3�Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Concepts who have a new low impact development and know a lot about
storm geology and stormwater management in the town. Steve Hubble, he is a
stormwater management staffer, they did an LID for five to eight years out
there. We held a better site design work shop as well to look at the site design
aspect and that was very successful as well as discussing with staff on an
ongoing basis about development codes.
So, the four key recommendations... the first one focuses on low
impact development...
Mayor: Neely, we are at the end of the ten minutes, so we need to wrap
up in the next minute.
Law: Absolutely. And here, we are recommending that town council
adopt an ordinance that low impact development to be a preferred practice for
site design and stormwater management. Review the land development and
manage those development codes to reduce impervious cover before it is
created and most importantly resolve conflicts with existing policy and
regulation and by using LID to increase tree canopy by retrofitting existing
stormwater facilities. The final sets of recommendations are more general to
the stormwater management program that we feel that the town needs to focus
on to have a more sustainable... fiscally sustainable stormwater management
program and that is to have the continuous improvement program with
regards to training, expertise of staff... explore alternative funding
mechanisms. Right now, stormwater management is funded through the
general fund. And then, finally authorize continuation of the watershed
committee largely before pressing on discussions of recommendation number
one.
Mayor: Excellent! An excellent presentation. Thank you.
Martinez: I had a couple of questions. You were talking about the
streams and how we need to clean them. Any recommendations on what
exactly is needed. For example, does the town branch need to be dredged and
maintained at a certain level?
Law: Well, what we want to do is certainly stream restoration in areas
where they have been degraded, such as town branch. It is not necessarily
dredging, but dealing with ways in which we can reduce the amount of
stormwater before it enters the stream... has been the focus of this report... so
that we are not increasing erosion any more than it is currently taking place by
implementing practices at the development site itself.
Martinez: It would be nice to know what kind of actions we can take
to improve them from their current state is now to a state where we want them
to be. If that is something we can do in the future. The other question I had is
4111at;c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
we talked about the parking lots and stormwater management in the medians.
I always thought how the medians are higher than the parking lot, where it
really should be the medians are lower than the parking lot and that would be
a drainage and not coming off the parking lot, but actually just staying in the
parking lot and being drained out through a managed system.
Law: Right, exactly. So there would be a re- grading.
Martinez: So, that is something that... I don't know if we could
implement that today with current parking lots, but anything new comes in...
Wright: Thank you very much for the report. I thought... I definitely
agree with the recommendation about trying to encourage more about low
impact design because I thought that we were already trying to do that... so, I
would be interested at the appropriate time to hear from staff of kind of what
we are doing and how we get to that and then appreciate... all of this is very
relevant as you were here when we got the updates on the stormwater
management requirements that are coming down from the EPA on us and that
very large price tag careening towards us... this helps us make that a lot more
manageable. So, I very much appreciate the ongoing efforts of this team to
tackle a big problem.
Hammler: Thank you, Neely, and thank you to the entire committee.
My thoughts kind of align with Kevin's as it relates to staff weighing in on the
role of the committee as it relates to what we know are our mandates and
certainly whether they could get involved in seeking grants as it relates to #3,
alternate funding mechanisms, because it has a big price tag and our ongoing
efforts as we know we have a pretty big hurdle because we all know it does
have a big price tag. It is an important kind of a reset, but we did have a pretty
significant briefing not too long ago based on those Federal requirements. So,
John, if we could just get that, I would appreciate it.
Law: I did poll the watershed committee members and they are willing
to continue meeting as a watershed committee to work with staff on
recommendation number one.
Hammler: Do we need to formally authorize that on your
recommendation, I think that's a proper next step.
Law: Yes.
Butler: I was just going to say I think you did a fantastic job.
Reid: Thanks for your report. The governor... we had a memo that the
governor has... excuse me... that the regulations dealing with Virginia
stormwater management went into effect on September 13. So, are these
511)age
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
within the purview of those regulations, these recommendations or not? Staff,
anybody?
Law: So, the ....
Reid: They went into effect September 13, so are these
recommendations within the purview of the legislation? Can we do this under
the legislation? Does anybody know?
Law: Yes. The better site design work shop that we, who were a part
of the Environmental Advisory Commission in November of 2010 showcased
a number of Virginia communities that were doing these types of practices
already and the current regulations that were passed provide specific criteria in
which to design specific low impact development. Town staff were waiting to
get it passed at state level. As I had mentioned in my presentation, it goes
beyond stormwater management, so although you may like to have a
bioretention in that yard strip or bump out, your current street regulations for
design may prevent that from happening, so it requires a review of those types
of land development regulations in terms of street design and widths that
would allow those types of practices to occur.
Reid: In your proposal, you are talking about reducing impervious
cover to the greatest extent possible, but I don't see any reference here to...
again, one track mind... sorry guys. I am a real big fan of impervious concrete
and concrete. So, is that part of your proposal to either require this or have it
in the DCSM and can we do that?
Law: It's already in the DCSM. I'm not sure what particular products
are. There is a daycare facility on South King Street that has permeable
pavement currently installed there. So, it currently is in the DCSM right now
as a best practice.
Reid: What is the earliest that we can expect that the town is going to
have to do something with the TMDLs? The earliest. Just a ball park estimate
as to when we are going to have to start putting in... doing some kind of
financial....
Irby: We need to have our plan in place by 2014.
Reid: What day in 2014?
Irby: Let's assume January 1, but that's 2014... it's... so for the first
five years, I believe it's a five percent reduction and then it goes on from there,
but we need to have our plan in place and I believe the informational item in
your packet mentions that.
61 Pa c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Reid: It doesn't mention 2014, unless I missed it. Oh, I see. That's in
the Governor's letter. And then we have to talk to the County to try to
coordinate with them?
Irby: So that we are not duplicating our efforts, yes.
Reid: So, basically we really have until 2017?
Irby: Any plan that we implement needs to be well on its way by 2014.
This isn't something that we can slap together.
Reid: So, we don't have to get the plan approved first?
Irby: Well, you approve the plan.
Reid: Okay, so we don't have to get it approved by DCR? Or any thing
like that.
Irby: Well, there are certain elements and restrictions and reductions in
TMDL that we have to say that we are going to meet.
Reid: I see. So that's what we have to do. Very good. I wanted to
give you... I have several of these from the Virginia RediMix Concrete
Advisory Council. If you would like to have your own sample of ... would
anybody on the committee like their own free sample of impervious concrete.
Any folks in the audience to throw at us later?
Mayor: Anybody who does, come up and grab Ken's rock and head
out.
Reid: I have a few here because I am really big on concrete, guys. I am
sold.
Butler: I just support this completely and hopefully we can move
forward. Especially dry pond replanting. I think that is something that should
be an easy thing to go out and do.
Law: I think as part of any redevelopment, in terms cost effective
practices, retrofitting existing practices so converting dry ponds with these
enhanced features could perhaps go a long way. Thank you.
Mayor: John, the Vice Mayor had a good piece of advice, which is
certainly if we could get a resolution back to Council to continue the work of
the watershed committee and then anything else the Council probably needs to
discuss what implements we wish to take on. But certainly the committee, I
would hope, would continue its work.
7 Pa c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
b. Lowenbach Update
Anne Geiger: I am senior engineer with Capital Projects and I am the
project manager on Lowenbach. Tonight's talk is to answer some of the
questions that you all had for us so that you can make a decision in the future.
The items we are going to talk about tonight are how the project was created in
1995, what barricades are already installed and which ones have been
removed. The project design and construction history, the safety and traffic
calming features that we have put into our design of Lowenbach and the
current status of the construction schedule and lastly what traffic studies and
counts have been done to this point.
How the project was created. The project was originally created with a
resolution in 1995 in response to a development known as Exeter. That is
Exeter and Exeter Hills. The alternative one of a northeast Leesburg
thoroughfare plan was adopted with that resolution. The dotted lines that are
on there are the Exeter Hills and Exeter proposed roads at the time and then
there are some connections where Catoctin, Queen, Washington and Mayfair
are connected to North Street, which was not built at the time. This shows
North Street between Plaza Street and Prince, Marshall Drive between Plaza
and Wildman, and improvements on Catoctin, Queen, Washington, and
Mayfair and Blue Ridge all had to be complete before the barricades that
barricaded off these roads could be removed. So, by 1989, we know the
barricades were at various streets including the Washington, Queen, Catoctin
and Mayfair, but in 1999 barricades were removed from Mayfair at North and
- North between Prince and Catoctin. It's these two right here. The reasons
given for these is there was no turn around at Mayfair and it was to improve
access for emergency vehicles, police, trash collection, road maintenance and
access for the residents. So, when those go away, you can see what we have
left. There are seven still left. In 2002, there was another resolution to remove
barricades. The Marshall at Wildman, Catoctin at Marshall, and Catoctin at
North and Woodberry at Lounsberry, which is what it was called in the
resolution. Once those were done, we were left with the three on Catoctin,
Queen and Washington. I have one other issue and that is there was one more
resolution that was put before Town Council in October of 2004 to remove the
barricades at Queen and Washington and that resolution did not pass.
Evolution of the design and construction of the project. In 1996, the
funds were appropriated to widen Catoctin to 30 feet with curb, gutter and
sidewalk on one side, curb and gutter on both sides, but the sidewalk on one
and the rest of the roads would be widened to 20 feet, improve the shoulders
and take care of drainage issues. So, they would be edge of pavement streets.
So, in 1999 survey and concept design was begun. In July 2002, the first
survey was sent out to the area residents in an attempt to get a consensus of
what the design that the residents wanted. There was no consensus with that
first survey that went out. In 2003, a second survey was sent out. From that
one, in spring 2003 the CIP was approved with the same design as it was in
81 Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
1996, but Washington Street was to be improved to 30 feet with curb and
gutter and sidewalk on one side. Then in 2004, September 2004, the
preliminary engineering based on that design was submitted. In November of
2004, we had an informational meeting...
Mayor: Anne, I have got a question from Katie.
Hammler: Sorry to interrupt. I don't know if you were taking
questions now, but as it relates to this specific history, at what point was it
designated that all improvements would be done at the same time? That was
designated at some point that the construction phase... it was not phased
rather everything would be done at the same time.
Geiger: I would have to go back into the CIP because the original CIP,
I think for the first four or five years, Catoctin was a separate project. Queen,
Washington and Prince were a second project and Blue Ridge was a third
project, all of them scheduled to be done at different times.
Hammler: But it is a key point as relates to kind of understanding the
impact on resolutions in terms of key elements of the Catoctin group being
done at the same time versus that phasing changing over time.
Reid: 2005 is what the report said.
Geiger: I would have to go through the CIPs to see which one it was.
Hammler: Anne, I don't want to take you off track. Everybody is
waiting to hear the completion....
Geiger: I will find that out, though, when we are finished here.
Mayor: Anne, Marty had asked if Council can get an electronic version
of this slide show.
Geiger: Absolutely. In November of 2004, there was an informational
meeting to let everyone know what was going on with the design of the streets.
At that meeting, residents from other streets than Catoctin asked if they could
get improvements and sidewalks on their streets also. I think that was the
seeds of the start of the ad hoc committee because just three weeks later, the ad
hoc committee was established to evaluate the options for the design
parameters and to ensure that the roads were safe for cars and pedestrians
when the barricades came down. Now the ad hoc committee met seven times
between November and February of 2005. It made a report to the Town
Council on February 7 of 2005. On March 12, it made a presentation to the
citizens. In May of 2005, Town Council approved the recommendations that
you see on the screen. That basically is 30 foot wide pavement on all streets
9 Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
except Blue Ridge, 28 feet on Blue Ridge. Curb and Gutter on all streets, brick
sidewalk on one side of all streets, parking on one side of all streets, storm
drainage improvements, a three way stop at Prince and Blue Ridge, traffic
calming features, and the barricades were to remain in place until all the streets
were completed. At this point, to answer your question, I know that all the
streets were not going to be done as one project. What had happened between
about 2001 and 2005, we don't know, but I can get you that data. At this
point, they were all going to be done as a single project.
Mayor: Anne, both the August 8, 1995 resolution of the Council and
the May 10, 2005 resolution of the Council said that opening of through streets
shall occur on the same day. That's from 1995. Then 2005 says that the
barricades at the end of Catoctin Circle, Washington Street, and Queen Street
shall be removed after construction completion. So, I think that's where you
get your references, in 1995 and then again in 2005.
Hammler: Madam Mayor... that's a key point but the other dimension
to that is when staff made it's own determination based on neighborhood
input, I believe, to phase the project.
Geiger: I am getting to that. That I can tell you... it started out as
separate streets, they came together and then they were phased again. I will
get to that point. Safety and traffic calming features. We have two traffic
circles on Catoctin, one on North and one on Marshall. That helps to slow
down traffic. We have narrow streets. There is a 40 foot right of way in here
and the through street is 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb. Where that
helps slow down traffic. Where we have bump outs the street width is 24 feet,
that's two ten foot lanes with two foot curb and gutter on either side with
speed cushions that also help slow down traffic. There is one on each one of
the north /south streets and then the smaller 12 foot radii of the curb returns
also helps slow down traffic because people do have to slow down to make the
90 degree turn without going into the adjacent lane.
In 2006, during the final design there were several design issues that
arose. Because of those design issues and the fact that they did not affect the
traffic circles, we separated out the traffic circles, got the plan approved in 2006
and the construction was completed in 2007. In September 2006 through
November of 2007, there were three submissions of the construction drawings
made. In late 2007, a flyer was sent out to residents telling them that
construction would start in late summer of 2008. This answers your question.
In January of 2008, the project was separated into four phases. The reason it
was done was to minimize the disruption to the residents, separate the phases
by drainage shed, Catoctin and Prince is one drainage shed, Queen and
Washington is the other drainage shed, construct down stream portions of the
drainage shed first, which would be Catoctin first, Prince second, Washington
first, Queen second. Correct the worst drainage issues first, which is on
101 Pa - e
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Catoctin and allow the project to move forward because it is more manageable
in pieces. In February of 2008, we met with the ad hoc committee to inform
them of the phasing. In March 2008, the first phase of Catoctin, phase II
Catoctin circle was submitted. Now, with that submission, we found two
rather major issues that we had to deal with. One of them was the fact that we
had a 40 foot right of way and yet the actual... and we had to construct within
that 40 feet and it's very tight. Yet, we were finding that some of the widths of
Catoctin were anywhere from 38 to 41 feet wide based on where surveyors had
put people's pins. We also had to add outfall _ issues. But going back to the
right of way one, we then had a reestablishment survey done by our consultant
to reestablish the 40 foot wide right of way so that we knew we were doing our
construction within our property and we would get easements outside of that.
Then October of 2008, the reestablishment survey results were sent to all of the
property owners so they knew how it affected their property. In April 2009,
we sent letters to all of the residents and in June 2009, had a neighborhood
meeting where we talked about the phasing and why we were doing it. The
fact that utility relocation would take place prior to construction on each
phase. We told them that phase II Catoctin Circle would start in spring of
2010. We talked about the easement acquisition that we were going to need
before starting the construction and we handed out the new schedule by phase.
I will get to the phasing later. In May of 2010 the construction contract was
awarded for Catoctin Circle and in June construction started. In fall 2010,
there was a drainage design issue between the first submission we had already
received on the Woodberry improvements and the current design that we had
on Prince Street. There was a conflict between the drainage flows that the two
consultants had come up with and we held up the Prince Street first
submission of the plans until that was resolved. We also felt that both streets
could not be closed at the same time with the barricades remaining in place, so
the decision was to move Woodberry ahead of Prince because it could be
approved sooner than Prince. So in March 2011, Woodberry was moved
ahead of Prince and the April 2011 CIP reflects that with Prince then starting
in summer 2012.
Reid: I have to interrupt. The 2008 decision was not... that was an
internal administrative decision. That was not a Council decision?
Geiger: The Council agreed with the decision through the CIP.
Reid: Through the CIP. Was that flagged? I don't remember.
Wells: Yes.
LaFollette: Yes, it was discussed during the budget process when we
were talking about phasing the project and why we were doing it.
11Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Reid: Okay, and Woodberry, even though that came in much later,
sort of leapfrogged the other streets because of the drainage?
on it.
Geiger: No, Woodberry was added to the CIP and the design started
Reid: Do you know what year?
Brandon: The funding for it began three years ago.
Reid: Yes, but it was added when?
Brandon: I don't know... it was added.... I don't know... several years
before that.
Geiger: Alright, in June 2011 an update letter was sent to the residents
to tell them about the schedule changes between Woodberry and Prince. In
September 2011, we had two things... Woodberry is under construction at this
point with surveying for the E &S controls and Phase II Catoctin Circle is
substantially complete. Now, the status of the construction and the schedules
on all of the phases, Phase I was the traffic circles. They are complete. Phase
II Catoctin Circle is substantially complete. Phase III Prince Street will start in
March 2012 and should be complete about a year later. Phase IV Washington
and Phase V Queen Street are both scheduled to start summer of 2013 and be
- complete by summer 2014.
Reid: Will Woodberry and Prince... Woodberry started when again?
Geiger: It started this last week. I'm sorry.
Reid: And it will be done when?
Geiger: In March 2012. Which is when Prince Street will start.
Reid: And will Woodberry be closed to traffic?
Geiger: Not at that point. Woodberry will be open to traffic and then
Prince will be closed.
Reid: But will Woodberry be closed to traffic at all?
LaFollette: During construction, Woodberry will be open to local
traffic only. Closed to through traffic during construction hours.
Reid: For how long?
12 Pagc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
LaFollette: For the length of the contract. They have a nine month
contract, so about six months of that, they will not have that as a through
traffic during the day time hours that the construction crews are on site.
Reid: So day time. Then Prince will be closed for a year?
LaFollette: It will be similar to what we did with Catoctin Circle where
we will do local traffic only with daytime closures while construction crews are
out there. The reason we have to do that, is a lot of the storm piping... the
waterline and sanitary is in the center of the street. I can't maintain traffic and
be safe with both them and the construction crews.
Reid: Thanks.
Geiger: and lastly you all asked about traffic studies and counts. In
1995, the northeast Leesburg thoroughfare study was done and they estimated
that about 1500 to 1700 vehicles per day would on Catoctin once the
barricades are down. In the 100 block of Washington, there will be about 1000
vehicles per day, people going onto the condos. In 1999, the update was done
to that study but it was very specific. It was to evaluate barricade removal only
and they recommended removal of the four barricades that we talked about
previously. Public Works is doing updated counts and from those counts they
are going to make a prediction... basically going to tell us what they feel the
counts will be on the streets once the barricades are down, barricade by
°- barricade. We don't have that for you tonight.
Reid: When will we get them?
LaFollette: My last conversation with Calvin was they are hoping to
get the counters out this week and it is weather dependent. They were going to
try to do it last week, but the rain kept them from getting the traffic counters
out. They are hoping to get them out this week, if the weather cooperates with
us. We should have them in two to three weeks, by the time they crunch all
the numbers and put their report together.
Reid: Are you also studying what happens if we keep Catoctin closed?
Where the traffic is going to go?
LaFollette: We have asked Calvin to look at that as well.
Reid: Are you using our model?
LaFollette: I'm not sure how they will do that.
Reid: When will we have that information?
13 1F'age
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
LaFollette: I will have to confirm with Calvin.
Hammler: John, that information is not available for this discussion
this evening? When will that be available?
Wells: Two to three weeks.
Reid: Well, that's the impact on Catoctin, but the broader issue is what
if we leave all the barricades up.
Wells: That will be done as part of that.
Reid: okay, so we will have that in three weeks?
Wells: Yes.
Martinez: During any of this phasing in the budget and all that, was
there a discussion with staff about removing the barricades early or not being
able to do it at the time?
Geiger: There was no discussion on our end. As far as we were
concerned, the 2005... May 2005 ad hoc committee said no barricades come
down and we have been moving forward based on that. That was one of the
reasons why between Woodberry and Prince Street, the barricades weren't
coming down and we could not keep all the streets closed.
Martinez: When was staff starting to be concerned about the traffic and
having the barricades removed?
Geiger: once it was brought up at the meeting.
Wells: Staff reacted to input from the residents.
Martinez: So, this is really a result of a lot of residents wanting to use
Catoctin but finding it difficult because of the construction and all that is going
on now? Or is it just a concern?
Wells: I think you are hearing a couple of different views as to whether
the barricades should or shouldn't be up. The direction from Council to staff
was that the barricades stayed up, so we haven't deviated from that and how
we have handled the implementation of the project.
Martinez: So this is mostly coming from our residents?
Wells: That would be correct.
14 Pa,c
LI
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wright: Anne, can you go back to a slide? I have got questions on the
traffic calming measures that are in place on Catoctin, so whatever slide /map
would best show that.
Geiger: That is Prince Street, but it will pretty much show you the
same thing.
Wright: So, Catoctin at Blue Ridge... is that a four way stop ... two way
stop?
Geiger: It is not. It is a two way stop at this point with Blue Ridge
being the through street and Catoctin having the stop sign. Once we do the
final signage and striping, that will change. Catoctin will be the through street
and Blue Ridge will have the stop signs, but not a four way stop.
Wright: And that is consistent with the recommendations from the ad
hoc committee?
Geiger: Yes.
Wright: Then, can you go... there was a map nearby with Prince...
kind of all the streets shown side by side. All of the history seems to be real
silent... why is Prince open? It seems that Prince was never barricaded, so it
seems that when North opened, by default Prince became open because they
were able to get from North to Prince.
Geiger: What we have not been able to figure out is how even Prince
got added to the mix because the 1995 resolution talks about Catoctin, Queen,
Washington and Mayfair and then all of a sudden, the CIP is updated to add
improvements to Prince, Catoctin, Queen, Washington and Blue Ridge. I
can't find anything in our records that shows how that was made.
Wright: Did it happen right about the time the North Street barricades
came down?
Geiger: No, it was 1999. This was 1995. I looked through everything
and could not find anything that said, oh we are going to add Prince. Now,
Prince was an existing street, already connected to North with barricades on
both North and...
Wright: Yeah, go to the barricade map. That's more telling. So, when
the ones that you had circled there, when those came down that allowed all of
that traffic basically... Prince was their first turn off. So, the side effect of
opening North opened Prince.
Geiger: Yes.
15 Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wright: I was trying to figure out through all these discussions why
Prince was open, but Prince existed as an open street before North opened.
Martinez: It's just that when they took out the North Street barricades,
people like me who live in Exeter found that a great way to come into town
and that's where Prince was getting blocked up.
Wright: And do we have ... well we don't have other than the
comments from the residents, we don't have traffic counts for Prince today?
Geiger: Actually, I do. Public works was able to get some counts
before it started raining and right now their 2011 count is 839 vehicles per day.
Wright: That's part of the traffic, that your concern that as Woodberry
goes down, Prince may get some of Woodberry's trips, but that's...
Geiger: Woodberry has 419, counted.
Wright: So, the concern is you needed to finish Woodberry before
taking out Prince because the traffic has got to go somewhere. Then, John, I
guess this question is more to you from a process standpoint. Obviously, as we
look around the room we have a lot of interest. From what I read, Catoctin
will be... so it's substantially complete now. From what I read, it will be
entirely completely at the end of October?
LaFollette: End of October.
Wright: And we are three weeks from getting traffic counts. From just
kind of a process standpoint of garnering public feedback, that we would have
the complete story to tell, what would be your best... because it does not seem
the next meeting would be useful to have that because we wouldn't have all
the information.
Wells: You actually don't have a work session at your next meeting, so
it would make the most sense to bring that to a work session at your next work
session, which we would have by then. You do have some counts tonight and
I think the issue is having some counts versus having more of an analysis with
it. I think what you are hearing with the numbers you have, give you some
indication of volume.
Wright: In all due respect, me getting the counts I don't think is as
significant as the public getting the counts because we have had kind of the
informal public input of those who kind of hear what we are up to and have
taken the interest to come out, but if we are going to make a decision as to
changing the current direction on the barricades, then there needs to be a
161 Pane
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
formal public hearing or a public input session. So, you are thinking that
would be the last meeting in October?
Wells: That's correct. That would actually... two to three weeks.
Let's assume we have counts in two weeks. That won't work with our
schedule coming up, so that would give us enough time if you want to have a
public input as part of your next Council meeting, as part of those sessions in
late October, that would give us ample time to have the reports, publicize the
information and people would be notified appropriately.
Wright: Would it be possible... and again this is something that maybe
deal with off line, but would it be possible to have instead of in this forum, a
community input meeting where they can see the map, see the numbers,
something like that?
Wells: Sure.
Martinez: Could we hold it somewhere over in that part of town, for
example either Ida Lee or the Exeter clubhouse?
Wells: We have had meetings at the Baptist Temple. That's right in
the neighborhood. Certainly availability... we will check on that, but that
would be possible.
Martinez: I like that better than a public hearing here. Something like
that.
Wright: One last question... it has multiple parts, but taking the ad hoc
committee's recommendations as they looked at the streets and said until these
improvements are done, the barricades don't come down and then based on
the input that Catoctin is substantially complete and will be complete at the
end of October, we take the barricades down, there may be safety impacts on
Blue Ridge, kind of the adjacent streets. A, do you have any input or insight
as to what may generate those concerns and B, are there concerns from a
Capital Projects standpoint from functionally being able to complete the
construction on those additional streets if Catoctin is opened now prior to the
additional streets, Blue Ridge and the other streets being completed?
LaFollette: From a construction standpoint, having Catoctin open is
going to make the construction on Prince Street easier because I don't have the
volume... or the contractor won't have the volume of traffic going up and
down Prince Street. When we do construction on Prince Street, it's going to
be very similar to what we did on Prince... we are going to have to go down a
block by block basis. We are going to have to close it to through traffic and let
it be local traffic only, but we are dealing with a street that is open versus one
that has a barricade on it. The concern with Blue Ridge is the fact that where
171Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
we have done the construction on Catoctin, we have only done some of the
improvements right at the intersection at Blue Ridge, so the concern that I
have heard... and you can see... the street is not improved. Cars are parked
on both sides. You have got that on Prince Street now. It's unimproved. Cars
are parked on both sides. People walking in the street. People walking their
dogs in the street. So, you have the same issues on Prince Street with a higher
volume of traffic than what you have Blue Ridge. Plus, if the street is open,
construction will take longer.
Wright: Anne, did you have any insight on other safety concerns as far
as for the general community of opening Catoctin in it's condition now for
safety concerns on Catoctin for opening the road now and /or safety concerns
that opening Catoctin would generate on the unimproved side streets?
Geiger: I can tell you about Catoctin. From strictly an engineering
point of view, to finish the road, it is designed to take traffic. It improves the
traffic flow in the northeast Leesburg and it improves the emergency vehicle
access. There is no engineering reason why it could not be taken down and
once striping is done and signage and the speed table is put in.
Hammler: I think the central point whether we are going to go back in
time and look at what could or should have been done relative to the key
element which is the phasing of the project changing and the fact that clearly
there were key groups notified such as the ad hoc committee. I don't
-- personally recall exactly Council being notified specifically. Obviously we
discussed it during a CIP construction budget discussion but as it relates to
something very central which is this key point... the safety for the greater
community based on determining and setting the expectations about barriers
and when they would be removed in order to maximize the ease of
construction and most importantly again the safety issue. So, at no point did I
think it ever triggered the proper setting of expectations so it is good we are
finally doing that although we are going to do it in a very short time frame so I
think it's really critical, John, that we also given that certainly logic dictates
that we have unless Council directs an action, Catoctin which we had spent
$2.2 million improving for safety reasons, will not be open until 2014 and
traffic would therefore be diverted onto an unimproved street which arguably
is less safe, but given that traffic may increase which logically it would when
the streets are open, what else should we be anticipating given that we are
dealing with speeding issues all over town, so we absolutely can appreciate
where all the residents of Catoctin are coming from. Whether it's do we
anticipate increasing fines if people are speeding on there such as we did on
North King Street. What additional signage in terms of flagging children at
play, things of that nature so that when we are coming back with exact traffic
counts, this Council has already anticipated, you know, this is going to be a
situation where we need to get ahead of that. So, I would appreciate that. The
other element I think comes back to a lot of the key points, which fortunately
181Panc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
have come out given the just incredible number of people who have been
willing to provide great feedback on Catoctin and surrounding neighborhoods
so I think we have been able to address some other key points such as from the
town's perspective we have a one year guarantee period on Catoctin in order
to evaluate that construction project using real traffic. I think all of those key
points need to be brought out during the next public input session as well.
There were changes that have happened over time, certain other assumptions
which I think need to rationally be addressed. I know one major driver was a
proposed development behind Giant. That never happened. So, clearly we
have invested some... invested for the capital project improvements, but I
think given the update tonight, given the additional input we will be getting in
terms of the traffic counts, it appears... again the central issue is the phasing
change. We never went back to address the original resolution about the fact
that all the barricades would come down only when all the improvements were
made based on the assumption that all the streets would be done at the same
time. That is no longer true. That is the decision this council needs to make.
I think we owe it to the community to say that vote will happen, presumably
that first business meeting in November, John, if the timing would be such that
the last set of meetings in October would allow us to have the public input,
final work session and then that vote.
Martinez: From what I understand, there is going to be a three way
stop at Blue Ridge and Catoctin, not Blue Ridge being a through...
Geiger: The three way stop is at Prince and Blue Ridge, which was
mandated by Town Council through the ad hoc committee.
Martinez: And where is the speed bump?
Geiger: The speed tables, speed bumps, speed cushions, whatever you
want to call them are in the 200 block of all of the north /south streets.
Wright: And when will that be on Catoctin, I'm sorry.
LaFollette: It was scheduled to go in this past Friday when it was
raining. So, the contractor is in the process of trying to get the paving
contractor lined up because the rain has completely messed up their schedule.
Wright: Can you email Council and let us know when it is in?
LaFollette: When it is in?
Butler: First, I have to say through this process, I have learned a couple
of things. I wasn't around in Leesburg in 1995 and driving around the
northeast quadrant would have been very different than it is now. So, but in
191Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
any case... besides the speed table, what are the other two things you
mentioned that still have to be done?
Geiger: There are actually 11 things that need to be done.
Butler: Oh.
Geiger: They are on page 7 of your report. There is a speed table in
front of 213, the imprinted asphalt crosswalks, stop cars, double yellow
striping, signage, and relocation of the stop signs on Catoctin and Blue Ridge.
That is one of the things we have already completed. The sidewalk on
Edwards Ferry, that's complete. The retaining walls on four properties.
Driveway paving when the retaining walls are done because those four
properties can't have their driveway paved until the retaining walls are in. The
stone wall reconstruction along Edwards Ferry right across from Leesburg
Baptist Temple. The lead walk and curb on another property and then the
trees are going to be planted some time later this fall.
Butler: So other than the trees, when are all these things going to be
done? Do we have a final date?
LaFollette: They are all scheduled to be done by the middle of October
and that was given last week being all rain. So I have been pushed a week
further than that. I am looking to the end of October to have everything done
- except for the trees.
Butler: So, by the time we actually meet in November, the first week in
November, should all be done, except for potentially the trees?
LaFollette: Yes.
Butler: Now, several residents have mentioned in emails about safety
concerns. And what safety concerns are they referring to? How will taking
down the barricades affect those?
Geiger: The majority of the safety concerns have to do with people
walking on the unimproved streets. If you take the barricade down on
Catoctin, the people walking along Catoctin have a safe place to walk. They
have a sidewalk now. I think those are the major concerns in condensing all of
the emails that I read.
Butler: The bottom line is these are people walking and whether the
barricades are up or down, in your judgement, won't affect the safety of people
walking on unimproved streets.
Geiger: If the barricades stay up or down?
20 Pa c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Butler: Yeah, whether the barricades stay up or down, is the safety
issue changed?
Geiger: It's still unsafe on the unimproved streets. Yes.
Butler: But it won't be any less safe or any more safe whether the
barricades... the barricades are not going to affect that safety?
Wright: On which street are you referring to?
Geiger: Yeah, which street are you referring to?
Butler: Any of them. I mean the Catoctin barricades.
Geiger: Washington and Queen are probably going to stay the same,
but Prince Street is going to see a difference because with Catoctin open, you
have now two avenues to go so there might be... there will very likely be less
traffic on Prince.
Hammler: Which is not improved.
Geiger: So that's improving it, but it's making it less unsafe.
Butler: Less unsafe. I'll take that. Another thing that I have to admit
that I learned was that those streets... so Catoctin has never, ever been a
through street.
Geiger: At that location? No.
Butler: Okay, so I understand definitely some of the concerns. I think
my biggest input that I am going to be looking at from staff is if we open the
barricades now, Catoctin is going to get a lot more traffic. If we open the
barricades in 2014 after Queen and Washington are opened, Catoctin is going
to get a lot more traffic. How much more traffic will they get now versus
2014?
Geiger: I don't know, but I am hoping that Calvin's traffic studies will
help show that.
Butler: So, if they are going to get hammered in 2014, and they are
going to get twice as hammered now if we take the barricades down, that will
be significant, but if they are going get hammered now and it's going to be get
hammered in 2014 and it's going to be approximately the same because not
that many people will be diverted from Washington and Queen, okay, then
that's a whole nother position. So, the traffic data will be important.
21 Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Hammler: May I quickly follow -up? But I do think we need to keep in
mind the central point, which is the overall safety which would include those
who live on Prince Street given what would happen if the barricade stay in
place. In other words, you are making a point about comparing one versus the
other over time, but clearly today we need to address the central question
which is the barricade staying or removal based on the maximum safety for all
concerned.
Butler: Right, but certainly... it's a difference for a resident on Catoctin
Circle, there's a difference between saying "Look, we are just going to take the
barricades down earlier ". It's going to be bad either way, whether we take it
down now or later... it's going to be the same amount of bad, then it's simply a
timing issue as opposed to saying well we are going to take them down now
and it's going to get a lot worse on Catoctin because we are helping people on
Prince, that's a different dynamic, a much different dynamic. And so,
anyway, I think that the traffic studies will show us a lot and I'll be looking
forward to those.
Reid: I want to thank all the residents for coming out tonight and I
promise you all I will get back to your emails within a couple of days or so and
I want to thank you, Anne, for a very thorough report. You really touched a
lot of bases here. I do have some questions about... so the cost... Ms.
Hammler said the cost of the Catoctin Circle portion alone was $2.2 million?
Or is that... can I have the cost for the other streets? A ballpark.
LaFollette: The $2.2 includes the traffic circles, the design, the land
acquisition, and construction of Catoctin and the drainage outfall. So, it's the
whole phase I and phase II of the project. The project cost... the total project
cost in the CIP as it is approved right now is $6.4 million. When we put that
budget together, we were estimating that the cost for Prince Street would be
approximately $1.8 million.
Reid: Does that include Woodberry, the $6.4?
LaFollette: No. Woodberry is a separate project.
Reid: And that's how much?
LaFollette: Woodberry is $850,000.
Reid: And that's including the sidewalks?
LaFollette: We were estimating Queen and Washington to be
approximately $1.5 million and the balance of the project goes to the
remainder of the design, utility relocation and the easement acquisition.
22 Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Reid: Okay. Why is this taking so long? I don't understand why if this
was put in the CIP in the late 90s.
Geiger: Well, that's two bullet points, that I can tell you. In 1995 to
about 2005 was the decision of what to build.
Reid: Really?
Geiger: Yup.
Reid: I thought we were in Montgomery County. In Montgomery
County, Maryland where paralysis by analysis, that's what they call it over
there. I lived there for about 10 years. I take it that the traffic calming issues
came in and the committee was formed, but it seems like the committee's work
was only two years out of that.
Geiger: Between 2005 to current, we had the design issues within a 40
foot right of way, actually preparing the construction drawings. We had ADA
issues that kept changing. We had road grades and this was the most
important thing that our consultant had to get to grade such that we were
taking care of the drainage in the road and we didn't exacerbate drainage
problems on private property. If somebody has a low back yard, we cannot fix
that. That's improving private property, but we can make sure we don't make
it worse. That was a fine line.
Reid: During all this time, all you folks have had flooding in your back
yards, right? No. Well some of you have? Okay.
Geiger: we have storm drainage issues. You have got a lot of houses
packed into a small area. We had utility crossing issues between the storm and
sanitary. Water line you can move because it works under pressure, but the
other two are governed by gravity. We had utility issues. Dominion Virginia
Power had given us the design of the entire five streets. We obtained our
easements for Dominion, Comcast and Verizon based on that, and when we
actually asked them to move the poles, they said "oops, we made a mistake on
Catoctin. If we move the pole one foot, it becomes too close to one house on
Catoctin, so they had to move over to the other side. So, we had to go back to
all those residents and get additional Comcast, Verizon and Dominion
easements in order to move the utilities on that side. Land acquisition issues.
We originally had expected the property owners to give us the easements
because we were improving their property and we ended up having to pay for
them.
Reid: Really?
231Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Geiger: All of that ended up just taking... three months here, four
months there, six months here and it just added up.
Reid: But the intention of this originally was because of flooding from
the new developments?
Brandon: It was to get through streets that were up to standard. The
other issue such as drainage and utilities came into play but the primary
purpose of the project was to make a street that was up to standards and could
carry the traffic.
Geiger: It was basically a transportation project.
Reid: Transportation project? But yet we only have 419 on Woodberry
and 839 on Prince even with this blockage. It seems to me that the traffic is
probably really going onto Mayfair and Edwards Ferry Road and Plaza. It
would seem to me that the lack of the street openings is probably impacting the
other streets... Edwards Ferry, Mayfair.
LaFollette: Marshall.
Reid: Plaza, North.
Geiger: I have a vehicle count done this... recently. Plaza between
Edwards Ferry Road and North Street has 5,370 per day.
Reid: That's between what?
Geiger: Between Edwards Ferry and North Street.
Reid: Just between Edwards Ferry and North. So, basically they have
taken the brunt of the traffic.
Geiger: The street is built to take it.
Reid: It is built to take it, yes, but...
Butler: It is about four times as wide.
Reid: Yeah, that's true. That is true, Dave.
Geiger: Mayfair is probably the one that has taken the worst brunt.
Reid: There was a fellow on Mayfair who I talked to who raised a
question about the Baptist Temple. Are they... is there some internal
discussion now with their losing parking? Are they losing 23 spaces?
241Pabe
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wells: It's a separate issue. It's part of their land development project.
I can't speak to the details. I know that's something that has been looked at by
staff. I don't know the details, again. So I'd be happy...
Reid: that's due to their expansion plans, not the Catoctin Circle...
Wells: It's a combination.
Reid: It's a combination? So maybe that has to be resolved too.
Wells: I know we have some issues to resolve. I can't say how that
talks to this.
Reid: Now, in terms of the barricade. There is a resolution here from
2002 which says the updated traffic study concludes that the removal of the
barricades would have minimal effect on the road network and there would be
no significant increase in any roadway in the study area.
Geiger: That was the specific update to the 1999 study that Wells did to
take down these two and these two barricades. The reason that this was not an
issue with that, is that the road construction was complete.
Reid: Okay, so it was not due to the north /south barricades. Okay.
Finally, the key resolution which was adopted in 2005. I looked at this several
times and...
Geiger: You are talking about the ad hoc committee?
Reid: No, I'm talking about the Council resolution. The barricades at
the end of Catoctin Circle, Washington Street, and Queen shall be removed
after construction completion. I asked for copies of the minutes and what
was... the Council's intent? You can really look at that in a way... the
barricades at each street could be opened after each street is completed, but
what was the discussion at that time because there is a lot of emails coming in
saying... and it's not just from people on Catoctin Circle. I'm getting emails
from people in a variety of areas saying a promise was made to keep all the
barricades up until all the streets are completed. Was that... when I actually
looked back at least on one of the minutes of one of the meetings and I didn't
see that.
Wells: The impression that I had. I was here at the time so this isn't
second hand. Was that at that point in time, after the work of the ad hoc
committee and the Council had come to an agreement on funding and a
construction program for this, at that point in time, it was envisioned that the
entire Lowenbach project would be done at one time and that is how it was
251Pagc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
presented in the CIP. And the Council resolution, in my understanding of
what that meant at that time was that all of the barricades that were up, which
were three at point, Catoctin, Queen and Washington would remain up until
the Lowenbach project as then defined would be completed.
Geiger: That's correct.
Reid: But we have some policy decisions. We could vote to lift the
barricades on Queen and Washington before the improvements, if we wanted
too. I am not suggesting that.
Wells: A resolution can be passed that would undo that resolution.
Reid: There is nothing in ordinance. There is nothing in the CIP
except the CIP changed in 2008 with the advent of the Woodberry project and
that's why that is going ahead of Washington and Queen...
Wells: There are actually two changes... one is the advent of
Woodberry project but also the decision that has changed some of the
dialogue, I think, is that the Lowenbach project is now being done on a street
by street basis as opposed to the entire project. That is basically the difference
between the time that resolution was passed and where we are at now.
Reid: Well, I definitely want to see the traffic data. I definitely want to
see the impact on Edwards Ferry Road, Plaza, and Mayfair. I really think
that we have got to do some detailed work here in figuring out what the impact
is going to be, but you know, I will say this... if they were predicting 1500 to
1700 cars on Catoctin Circle back in 1999, was that it?
Geiger: Yes, 1999 was when the traffic study was done.
Reid: When the traffic study was done. We have to figure out what
that traffic is going to be on Catoctin Circle for the sake of these folks in 2011.
So, I think that we can't really skimp on the data. I do support the schedule
that Katie and Kevin outlined by having an input session and preferably in the
community and vote at the first meeting in November, whatever you can do,
but the details are going to be very important. I need to see those traffic
details. You know I am a traffic guy, so I need to see what the impact is going
to be, but I would like to see what is going to happen to Plaza, Mayfair as well.
It would be nice, I don't know if you can conjecture what would happen if all
the barricades were lifted. I am not proposing that, but it would be interesting
to see if that would maybe help the Catoctin Circle people if the barricade was
lifted not just there, but on the other streets as well. Again, I'm not proposing
that because they are not improved so there could be other impacts that could
be deleterious by opening those two barricades. So, thank you very much.
26 a
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Again, thank you to the public for coming out tonight. I really appreciate it. I
really do.
Mayor: When Catoctin is opened and I support what all my colleagues
have said about the need to see the projected traffic numbers. What do we
estimate is going to happen at the intersection of Edwards Ferry and Catoctin
with all the southbound traffic that probably would be coming down Catoctin.
Right now, of course, we have the four way stop. In your experience, is that
going to back people up more than a traffic signal or would a traffic signal back
people up more and the reason I am asking it right now is if people are backed
up, are they apt to look for alternate routes to get to Edwards Ferry?
Brandon: I don't think (inaudible).
Mayor: So, you want to wait to see what happens. We can't do any
projections?
Brandon: We can make some projections, but the real answer is going
to be when we get (inaudible)... traffic will spread itself out so people will find
the best way to go. That will occur over time. It won't be the first (inaudible).
Mayor: Okay, alright. And that would be consistent with what I think
at least one of the residents has expressed that once Catoctin is opened, you
may get more traffic going down some of the other north /south routes, but we
can't predict. We have to wait and see if that happens.
Brandon: We can make some predictions, but they are just predictions.
Wells: Just to build upon that point, at the time the Lowenbach project
reconstituted itself in the 2005 -2006 CIP, there was a separate project that
included a traffic light at Catoctin Circle and Edwards Ferry. As I recall, there
were a number of concerns raised by residents by our chair of the SRTC
regarding the workability of the four way stop versus the traffic signal. And
the direction from Council was that-and I believe there was a motion to this
effect... or a resolution to this effect that the traffic signal would not be
included in the CIP until after Lowenbach was completed. If I also remember
correctly, that project is funded by a proffer from the County as a result of the
Court's system. One of the implications of having that project move out past
the conclusion of Lowenbach, is I don't think it shows up in the CIP anymore,
but our footnote and reminder to ourself is that rather than just putting that in,
I believe the Council had asked for actual experience with a fully completed
Lowenbach subdivision to then reexamine what the best thing to do for that
intersection, hence Tom's point that we need to wait and see.
Mayor: I appreciate that. And you are right. There was considerable
opposition to replacing that four way stop with a traffic signal because a lot of
27 Pa e
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
folks who lived in Lowenbach felt that was just another... I don't know how
you express it... but modernization, industrial modernization they didn't want
to see as part of that neighborhood.
Reid: Well, the four way stop is working. It worked. I was on the
Council when that happened and it was a no brainer.
Mayor: Yeah, but I don't know what is going to happen when Catoctin
is opened. I don't know whether the residents in Lowenbach who opposed a
traffic signal before, would want a traffic signal and I don't have a sense right
now that we know whether you will get a huge back up on Southbound
Catoctin Circle traffic or a minimal back up at the...
Reid: People won't be speeding to the light, though people will take
that attempt to go through. A stop sign... a four way stop, you have got what
Liz Whiting said... you are looking at the other driver, you are looking up
above.
Mayor: Very true. Good point.
Butler: That would certainly change the look of the neighborhood.
Mayor: The other point I would just like to make to back to the history
of it, because I know that some of our Council members have asked or touched
on this... this whole project was for many years extremely controversial. An
awful lot of Lowenbach residents did not want it at all. We had a lot of
impassioned pleas from residents on Prince Street that they did not want their
street to be changed. We heard the same from Woodberry and we heard the
same from Catoctin and we had very passionate presentations to Council from
Lowenbach residents in opposition to all of this so I don't want us to be under
the impression that this was something that Lowenbach residents demanded.
Some were certainly in favor of it, but a lot were saying this is being forced on
us against our will and that is why the ad hoc committee was formed and they
worked a long time to try to reach a compromise and get something most of
the community could support. I want to thank them for all their hard work.
They put in tremendous numbers of hours. But, Anne, thank you for your
presentation. Anyone else on Council have anything to say before we move
on to the Legislative Agenda?
Martinez: I am back on speed bump in the 200 block. Is it just going to
be in the middle of the block? Do we have any idea where you are planning
that?
Geiger: It is in front of 213 Catoctin and is generally in that same
location on all four streets. So, if you pull up 213 on your map, it will give you
an idea. It's not right in the middle. It's a little bit further north. The biggest
28�E' age:°
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
issue was to find a place where there wasn't a driveway on either side because
you can't have a speed bump in front of a driveway.
Mayor: Anne, just one last question and just for my own
information... I know that the Prince Street residents are very concerned about
getting more of the traffic if Catoctin remains closed until the end of the
project. Is there any mechanism to prevent more traffic from easily accessing
Prince, cut through traffic? Is there anyway to make access for cut through
traffic more difficult onto Prince?
Geiger: I'm not aware of any way. Restricting traffic on a public road?
I don't think so.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, one last...
Mayor: Stop signs. They are always so popular.
Hammler: Just in terms of the process and anticipating making sure we
get as much input from all of the important sources so that we can keep our
promise to have some action the first meeting of November, what about the
SRTC and if they should be involved and provide any input? If we could just
make sure that any other committees are notified in the meantime, that would
be great.
C. Lep-islative Agenda
Betsy Fields: What you have before you is the draft legislative agenda
and the draft legislative positions statement. I presented this several weeks ago
in August and as requested the numbers are off and it is now a bulleted list. I
do have one correction to the town (inaudible), I omitted an item... it should
read at the end of it for the currently elected mayor and council members as
necessary.... Because I think you all had changed all of the... of course that
item is dependent upon the results of the referendum in November. But, you
have had... we have gone over these items previously and I am open to your
comments on things to change, things to delete, things to add.
Martinez: I resist the effort for us to bring up anything city wide. I have
no objections to us petitioning to be a city, but I think we need to... as the old
cliche is get our ducks in a row and make sure that when we pose an argument
to our delegation that it is backed with actual data. Like I said, I'm not
adverse to it, but I don't want to go out there asking for city status without
some corroborating data that says the benefits. Not just the benefits to the
town, but maybe some benefits to the county to give an argument for all of it.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, just a quick follow -up. Marty, if I may.
John, could you just advise on the timing because that is expected to come
before secession.
291 Pa c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wells: preliminary numbers... the numbers that we are working on at
the staff level, we should have... as I have stated before we will have it this fall
so we will be at work on some numbers and look for it before Thanksgiving.
Wright: In general, I am fine with this. There is nitpicks here and there,
but in the interest of time and peace, love and harmony, I am fine with it. To
follow on Marty's comment on city status. In general, I agree. Obviously,
depending on the numbers and how the numbers look, there may be
annexation activities that need to complete prior to city status, but the city
status discussion is going to be an ongoing one for several years with the
delegation and it doesn't hurt to at least keep it on their radar as opposed to it
just drifting into nothingness and coming back. So, that's why I don't have a
hardcore objection to it remaining on.
Hammler: Two things. The key one, Oliver was going to be here from
the technology committee, but we thought we would be here very late talking
about Lowenbach, so on his behalf because he had shown tremendous
leadership working bringing together all the key parties given the fact that our
studio was going away, we would gratefully appreciate putting on the county
legislative agenda specifically that we would seek a joint partnership with them
to come up with a very similar process and memorandum in spirit as we did
for instance with the Mason Enterprise Institute, so that we are not doubling
up efforts. They have their own studio, we have ours. So, if we could have
staff highlight that, that would be great. There is no objection at the legislative
end for the county. One other quick item, at the state level I had sent Council
an email on the 23rd because I am chairing the economic development policy
committee for VML, I am on the legislative committee and they have asked all
the legislative committee members to please weigh in on the top five priorities
in terms of the overall legislative positions for VML. I didn't know if now was
an appropriate time or if you just wanted to email me your thoughts, but I
would certainly appreciate Council's weighing in on that before I send that in.
Obviously it's one vote, but it is the committee that is going to guide the
approach for VML which could back up obviously our town priorities as we
have outlined in this list. So, Madam Mayor, however you want to handle
responding to that email.
Mayor: You know, I think it's important to act quickly on that and
throw all council members... does it work better, Katie, for you if staff tries to
hound us to get our top five in?
Hammler: Maybe someone could tell me what to say and I will send it
back? That would be great. You do all the work...
Fields: Is that the top five legislative issues overall, or economic
development?
301Pagc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Hammler: I cc'd you on it to your inbox, Friday, September 3, 6:11
p.m., but any questions, I can just follow -up with you.
Butler: First, on the town charter amendment, I wonder if it might be
worth putting something in there to say we would also request the opportunity
for our referendum to change the date from November to May in case we find
that we are electing just dodos on the council after we change the date to
November.
Hammler: How can we determine that before we...
Butler: We won't. Right now, if we change it to November, then there
is no legislative way to change it back.
Irby: And there is going to be no way to change it back. So, the only
purpose of this was to conform with whatever happened in the referendum....
Butler: So, I am thinking, do we ask the General Assembly for the
opportunity to change it back, since that does not currently exist?
Irby: Sure, and that's up to Council, if you want to do that.
Mayor: But Dave, if the reason we want to do that, is because we have
- elected dodos, are you confident that the dodos will want to change it back?
Butler: That's why we are having a referendum.
Hammler: Why don't we cross that bridge when we get to it.
Butler: Yes, but we can't be... the Council won't anyway ... there is no
way to reverse the decision and that concerns me.
Mayor: To take it seriously...
Hammler: At least you are consistent with your positions.
Mayor: There is no... let's put it in these terms. There is no way for
the public to change it back. Really irrelevant what we think, but they don't
have referendum authority to put it back to May. If everybody who normally
votes in the May election gets very short line... is stuck in a long line in
November and gets really irritated, they have no recourse. So, I guess that's
what you are trying to say in a more serious tone.
Butler: Yes, it's possible to have a referendum to change it from May
to November, but there is not an option to change it from November to May.
31 P a g c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
So, I don't know why there shouldn't be both directions, unless the General
Assembly is really excited about getting everybody to November elections.
Wright: The General Assembly is really excited about getting to
November elections. I don't disagree with Dave's point, but you could put it
on there and it is just going to waste ink. I think the bigger question may be
that I think the public may get more excited about a discussion of going from
even to odd because I think that's one of the critical issues with the current
ballot question, is you are creating dramatic swings between the two Council
elections based on one being aligned with presidential election and one being
aligned with the mid -term election and neither of those elections being aligned
with local issues, but I don't think you are going to get many people down in
Richmond excited about going back to spring elections because there is a ...
the whole reason this whole conversation started was based on lobbying efforts
by the Board of Elections to get us off of May elections. So, I think there are
those in employed positions in Richmond that would...
Butler: Well, I would be happy to expand that to include moving from
odd to even years or the other way around.
Irby: Right now, it is even, but only the 2014, so in any event
something is going to have to be clarified after the referendum because after
2014, we are not having an election. That is the way the question is written, so
something is going to have to be fixed.
Butler: Okay, but bottom line is there doesn't seem to be any
opportunity in the Virginia code to move the elections from even to odd years
or from odd to even years.
Reid: It's not just for 2014, it's for every two years.
Irby: That's what was certified by the Circuit Court.
Reid: It's every two years.
Irby: But it doesn't say every two years. It says 2012 to 2014. So, it is
going to have to be clarified by some mechanism. I mean I understand the
intent of the referendum, but you just can't quit after 2014. It is going to be
even years, the way I am reading it.
Butler: Well, it becomes a life -long appointment in .2014, is that right?
Reid: Whatever.
Irby: There needs to be some housekeeping. The way this referendum
is done, there needs to be some housekeeping.
32 Pahe
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Butler: Okay, I don't care that much.
Irby: Do you want language... again, we will know after the
referendum in November and then you can bring it up again if you want to
include odd years or even years...
Butler: I will be surprised if the referendum fails. Now where is the
one that is on the constitution... eminent domain. I think in addition to just
saying that the town council opposes it for these reasons, I think if we make
the assumption that it is going to pass, which I would be very surprised if it
didn't, the real game is going to be when you define... how you define lost
profits, etc. So, we may want to put in there something to the effect that you
know... I don't know... the intent would be, look what they are trying to do is
they are trying to protect farms and such like with the activity that is going
down in Purcellville where they are trying to slam a road through a farm and
all the farmers are up in arms about it because they are not going to get
compensated and they don't want to lose the farm etc. and so forth. Nobody is
really considering the impact that you brought up before about okay
McDonald's saying "ha ha, I lost profits because my drive through was open
24/7 and so no matter when you guys construct some on that road, I am going
to ding you for profits".
Irby: Or have the parade on Main Street and you close the street.
Butler: Okay, so, the people who wrote the constitutional amendment
were not thinking of that. So, is there some language that we could put on
there saying we recommend to the general assembly that... that the process...
that when you consider the definition of lost profits in the constitutional
amendment that it includes the farms, but doesn't include McDonald's, only
something that is more legally defensible than that.
Irby: Let me think. Yes, VML has been...
Hammler: I was gonna say VML, this is... I would say their top
priority.
Butler: Okay, because there is no chance that the General Assembly is
going to oppose the intent of this, which is farms, so at any rate.
can...
Hammler: ...ready to focus in on that...
Irby: with a very narrowly defined definition of lost profits and then we
331F'ae
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Butler: Right, because they are not going to re -write the constitutional
amendment at this point, because it already went once... that ship sailed. But,
yeah, the narrow definition of lost profits would be acceptable and would
protect us. I'm done.
Mayor: Thank you, Dave. I'm going to do a follow -up to Jeanette.
What do we envision... well, we probably have no way of predicting what the
court standards are going to be... if we close Market Street because of the
fourth of July Parade or the Halloween Parade...
Hammler: Or the Christmas Parade...
Mayor: Or the Christmas parade...
Reid: Or the 9/11...
Mayor: Or the 9/11 ride, let's say we are taken to court by a business
on Market that says I lost profits. Do you think we can make a counter case,
yes, but because of the added visibility that your income increased in the
following months... are we going to... there is no way to work all of that into a
constitutional amendment.
Irby: Right, and I think to Mr. Butler's point, I think the General
Assembly, because they have a different group after this election has to vote on
- it, because it has to be voted on after an election... before and after an election.
They definitely need to look at the definition of lost profits. I know that VML
is working very hard to limit the damage because unintended consequences are
already creeping into the discussion such as the parade and certainly the
economic argument of making the reason why we do these parades is
economic development so that people come to our town and partake in the
businesses and eat here and do whatever. So, certainly that is going to be part
of the discussion. The interesting dynamic argument...
Butler: In the amendment, it specifically says that the definition of lost
profits would be per the General Assembly, so they have to define all of those
and... but there is a big difference between somebody coming through and
building a four lane highway through a farm and somebody trying to say...
widen Market Street. The impacts are totally different and it's easy to get
behind the farmer, but not so easy to get behind... Arby's.
Mayor: Fast food restaurant chains?
Butler: Fast food restaurants, because you have a parade.
Irby: In defense of the fast food restaurant, not that I am defending
them, but those lost profits translate into decreased tax revenue.
34 a c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Mayor: That is true.
Irby: So, overall things that have to be considered when drafting
appropriate language.
Butler: So what we don't want to do, right, is have to get to decreased
tax revenue because of the lost profits and then have to pay for the lost profits.
Mayor: Good point.
Reid: Well, it just so happens that there is a business who could
document a loss of revenue due to the Flower and Garden Show. This is not a
conjectural thing. This is a pretty civic minded person, but still this is a real
serious threat. So, I hope we can get our legislator's attention. It's going to be
very difficult when we are electing new people in new districts and after
November 81h, they are going to get slammed by every single lobbyist, special
interest in the state. I think that we are going to have to be ready to go out of
the box in November with a dinner or something. We should even probably
invite the candidates now. That would be my suggestion and to let them know
that we are going to have a meeting on such and such date, or we could give
them two or three dates, because for all I know the majority of the leaders, or
the minority leaders are going to want to collar them down to Richmond
within the first week. I would hope that every other municipality in the state is
doing the same thing when it comes to this one issue that we are dealing with.
I am not going to name the business, but I could certainly tell you off line.
Again, this is a very serious, serious issue. No, I don't want... in terms of the
election change, I don't want anything in there about that at all. Except the
charter amendment. The voters, if they vote it up or down, we have to do the
will of the voters and to try and monkey with that, I just... that law, I don't
think there is going to be any possibility of it, but I don't think we should have
it in our legislative agenda. I would like in the legislative agenda two things
and one of which I referenced when we first discussed this is even though it is
probably going to be difficult, but I would really like to have legislative
authority to allow this town to have that South King Street widening built with
an open break so that we don't have to do the access road or any other kind of
mitigation.
Mayor: I don't think legislation solves that problem.
Reid: I mean a legislation that would essentially shield the engineers
from any kind of liability in that we would basically...
Hammler: That's interesting.
351Pa,c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Reid: We can only ask, Kevin. It doesn't mean we are going to get it,
but I think that if VDOT says we can maintain and build our roads the way we
want and yet we have a private engineering firm that has the power to
basically tell us that we can't design that median break the way we want, I
think is really crazy.
Mayor: The trouble is that assumes that there is no entity above the
state. No nationwide entity that is in charge of licensing. But, anyway, Kevin
you wanted to jump in.
Wright: I was going to make the same point. The state can say sure
design it however you want. You still have to have an engineer that is going to
certify it as safe and we had three engineers sit there in the front row and say
it's not safe. So, you can have any legislative piece of paper you want. If it's
not safe, you are not getting an engineer to say it.
Reid: But what I want is legislation that would give the town...
Wright: No legislation is going to make something that is unsafe
today...
Reid: Well, I am on record... if nobody wants to put that on the
agenda... unless you want to do a straw vote. I am in favor of putting it in the
agenda... asking for legislation. We can have it researched so we have...
Irby: You have the authority now to do that and disregard the
recommendations of the engineers.
Reid: But they won't work on the project and we won't get bids...
that's what we were told.
Irby: Right.
Dunn: You don't know that for sure.
Irby: However, you are not going to get an engineer to sign a plan that
they feel that they are negligent... gross negligence to sign.
Reid: Even if there is a statement of indemnification?
Irby: If you ask me to break an ethical rule, even though you say you
are going to indemnify me, I'm not going to do it. I don't care what kind of
indemnification you give me.
Reid: The other roads that were built to these same standards in the
past that have open breaks in front of roads... the others...
361 Pa c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Mayor: Yeah, but unfortunately national standards change over time...
state standards change over time...
Butler: yes, just like medical standards. I mean would you go and ask
a doctor... well I really want this unsafe operation, but don't worry I'll come
up with a law that says a doctor can do it and will indemnify him.
Reid: It just so happens that the food and drug administration has rules
that allow doctors to design certain drugs and custom devices for specific
patients and there is an exemption. There is an exemption from liability for
PMA approved... I won't get into the details... devices, it's in the law.
Martinez: Let's get back to the legislative agenda.
Reid: Well, I'm on the record and I want the minutes to reflect that I
asked for that. The other thing that I would like to know... is Lyme disease.
haven't had a chance to indicate... really research this, but there is some
legislation that could be done... are we restricted from doing certain kinds of
mitigation of ticks with these deer poster feeders or spraying? Is there some
kind of legislation... the governor's report outlined some restrictions and I
don't know what they are.
Irby: That's a state and county function. We don't have that
department of health, so that's not something that the town could do unless we
started a department of health.
Hammler: Well we could add that to the County legislative agenda or
something along those lines.
Fields: We could certainly add it to the position statement.
Reid: Yeah, that would support legislation that would help prevent
Lyme disease not just through educational efforts, but through eliminating
ticks and whatever legislation we need to allow parks and whatever public
facilities to do what they can do to do that.
Hammler: Do you want (inaudible)?
Reid: Well, I wish I could, Katie, but you know Ida Lee seems to be a
place for stink bugs.
Butler: Nobody died from stinkbugs.
37 a c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Reid: Finally for the county... so, we are good on Lyme disease?
Finally, the Balch Library, I would like to add that to the County agenda, so I
think the county should help fund it.
Fields: Funding, you mean state... or county support?
Reid: County support, yes. We keep putting that off and I think that
we should add that to the agenda.
Hammler: Ken, if I may support that. We received an update from the
Balch Library listing some of their key upcoming initiatives one of which is
again training of Loudoun County school teachers.
Reid: Well, but I am talking about the county since I think most of the
people who use the Balch are county residents, at least according to the
statistics. I think the county should have a role in funding that.
Mayor: In a way, that is separate from the legislative agenda.
Reid: That's for our county agenda... issues just with Loudoun
County. I just wanted to add that. Thanks.
Dunn: Motion to adjourn. Just a couple of things. I guess, I'm not
sure... and I wasn't here for the briefing. The town charter amendment... is
that really needed?
Irby: It's required under the code.
Dunn: So, once it passes, the town has to actually go through the
motions of making the charter amendment?
Irby: And go through the motions of the justice department. It's
housekeeping, but it's required to be done.
Dunn: I'm not in favor of the city status being pursued. But, that's all.
Mayor: With the additions that I have heard tonight, I am very
comfortable. I am in favor of requesting the end of a moratorium so that we
can actually logically examine it on city status. I do believe that it would be a
tax savings to our residents because the other cities throughout the state
manage to deliver all our services and more at lower tax rates than we pay
both to county and town, so I think it's something we need to look at. That
would be the pitch I would make to the general assembly. I don't expect we
will get very far with it but... Kevin?
38�1'ane
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wright: Is there anything that would prevent us from... in the interest
of time and being able to build the balance of the actions after this, that would
prevent this from being on for action tomorrow?
Wells: I think we have it planned for action. It's on your agenda.
Nothing I heard... we can be ready.
Fields: Very minor changes. Adding that one thing to the position
statement, it can be on the agenda for action tomorrow night.
Hammler: This is just a footnote question because I was just reading in
the latest VML magazine about Fall Church... excuse me, Fairfax City and
their new branding campaign. They literally have 11,500 citizens, which I
think is interesting. If we could just do a quick history snapshot of what the
status was of their seeking city status. That will come under our discussion
when you bring all that research back. That may just give us fodder for how
do we lobby appropriately given our population and taxing. Madam Mayor, if
I may, one quick thing... if anyone is interested in weighing in on the VML
five priorities, could you get them in tomorrow because Betsy and I will
finalize on Wednesday. The deadline is Wednesday.
Reid: Can you send an email out on that?
Hammler: It's in your inbox, Friday, 6:11.
Reid: Friday? Can you send it again?
d. Residential Parking in the H -1 District — Planning Commission
feedback
Chris Murphy: I want to make one quick edit on my staff report. Very
quick. I just want to move one slide up to another position and that's it. It's
done, okay. Okay, here we are. This is the parking in the B -1 district. As you
remember, the issue is should the zoning ordinance be amended to allow
reduced on -site parking for residential uses in the B -1 in order to allow
(inaudible). Remember that in October, initiation of the zoning amendment to
examine a potential reduction in the parking requirements for residential
development was initiated. Initiation did not specify any options so as to
allow staff greater flexibility in coming up with options to present to the
Planning Commission and Council. Back in July, staff came to Council at a
work session for several options on how to proceed with the amendment.
Council instructed staff to present these options to the Planning Commission
for their input. Tonight, I return with that input from the Planning
Commission. Again, this is the staff report we have for this evening. The
Commission sees the benefit of additional residential development downtown
and sees Options #1 or 5 to address parking demand in such development in
the short term, but the general consensus of the commission is that the zoning
39 Panc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
ordinance should not be revised in a piecemeal fashion and that a
comprehensive review of downtown parking is warranted if residential
development is to be encouraged downtown. Madam Mayor, I presented the
options and am prepared to go through each one, if you need to, but of course
Council has seen the staff report that explains the options. So, if you want me
to go through each one or just skip ahead...
Mayor: I know Council members probably remember the discussion. If
you want to skip ahead, but then come back and have that slide up for Council
member questions.
Murphy: Certainly. So, then doing that... this is a drawing... this is
attachment 4 of the staff report and this relates to Option #5, which would be
adopting... allow residential development in the downtown to provide parking
very similar to what is found in zoning ordinance section ... which is option
#1, would allow parking... would be limited to lots measuring 4000 square
feet or less in the H -1 zoned portion of the B -1 as specifically the area in red
that staff is looking at and that is from Liberty Street to Church Street from
south to north.
Reid: Can you put that back up again? I'm sorry I didn't have a
chance to look at it. Those are the three zones you are looking at?
Murphy: No, this is the area.. What this shows you... the red box...
that's Liberty Street to Church and from south to north, that's the area that we
are focusing on, but if you would chose Option #5, we would limit it to this
area. What this map also shows... highlighted are parcels that are in this area
that measure 4000 square feet or less and that the highlighted areas or the
circles, are 500 foot buffers from public garages or public parking lots. We will
get into a discussion of that when we get to the options. Staff recommends for
you this evening... staff recommends option 1, which is keep the ordinance as
is. That is zoning ordinance section 11.4.1, currently allows residential
developers who cannot provide onsite parking due to practical difficulties as
determined by the planning commission to enter into agreements with other
private property owners to provide necessary parking off site. Or, Council
recognizes the immediate need to the community with Option 5, since that
option as tailored by staff would have the least short term and long term
impacts on parking downtown; however, in the long term staff suggests the
development of a long term strategy for the disposition of public parking in the
downtown as recommended by the Planning Commission. Then, speaking of
a long term, comprehensive look at parking downtown, I have outlined a
comprehensive parking study... what staff would recommend. This is a rough
outline of what you would be looking at. What we would recommend you
look at for a parking study that includes an update of the 2003 parking study,
analysis of future demands, analysis of public parking options. So, I will go
back to the options and open it up for discussion.
40 age
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wright: Thanks, Chris. Question for you. I know when we were last
here, I think Council was split. I know my conversation was there is a lot of
things in the zoning ordinance that need to be dealt with to try to take a more
comprehensive look; however, looking at your last slide there, it seems that
comprehensive look was broader than just a comprehensive zoning look. I
guess part of what I would need to do to make a decision of whether we need
to do #5 in the intermediate time is to understand the work plan and if that
work plan is internal or has external costs to do the comprehensive look
because if the comprehensive look is not on the calendar and is going to be five
years, then that is obviously different than if the comprehensive look is six
months away. That's the last piece of information I really need because the
one issue with #5, is if we are still looking at doing some sort of payment in
lieu even on a small scale with #5, we have to... if you do that then you also
have to fix the payment in lieu calculation because it's just fundamentally
wrong right now.
Mayor: Very good. Mr. Reimers is here and his letter has been
handed out. He is requesting that Council go forward with option #5.
Hammler: I was going to zero in on this particular letter as it relates to
more concrete information to determine obviously we are not typically in a
position to do say spot policy making but as it relates to looking at some
concrete benefits to going with option five and what the benefits are relative to
-- an overall goal, certainly I would support listing here as number one, we have
been trying very hard to find a way to diversify downtown and have a vibrant
downtown as relates to feet on the street, so if you could point to those key
projects and how say option five or any of the others would help us reach that
goal, I think that would be helpful.
Murphy: I think Option 5 would allow us to get you through an
immediate need. It would allow for... because we are going to limit the area,
short of a comprehensive look at public demand in the future. If we expanded
this to the entire H -1 or B -1 district, this allows for interim development for
residential use in the downtown, give you a feel of the impact. The one thing
that I would point out is that parking spaces can be used up very quickly with
residential use. For instance, with the map... I'll bring the map up so we can
look at it, on this map within the red box, there are 96 parcels, so if we develop
those 96 parcels with one /two bedroom unit on each, that equals 182 parking
spaces, two bedroom units on each is 384 spaces. Three two bedroom units on
each parcel equals 576 spaces, four two bedroom units on each parcel equals
768 new parking spaces that will be demanded.
Wright: Are all those vacant parcels, Chris? Are the parcels you are
listing vacant parcels?
411F'agc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Murphy: No, not all of them.
Hammler: This is exactly what would be helpful for literally tonight's
work session as it relates to okay, in that case you can look at the balancing
issue of the fact that the benefit of this would be people are going to work
during the day so that those who are here for other business purposes are
utilizing the spaces. What is going to be any additional cost to the taxpayer to
make up the difference in the spaces that would therefore be missing because I
could certainly support this in the short term, but I would need that
information.
Murphy: That is exactly the point we are trying to make with using
number 5 as the short term.
Hammler: That would get us there.
Murphy: Right, but due to the fact that if this takes off and you start to
realize you know, that demand in numbers, it's close to a 1000 spaces, what
impact that is going to have on the streets. What happens when it is a holiday
weekend or we have the streets closed for a festival or fair. It happens to fall
on a holiday when most residents are home, but we have visitors coming to the
town and they are going to want to park but parking garage spaces are used up
by residents, they are going to need to go on the street, well you are going to
have additional people parking on the street.
Hammler: If we chose Number 5, it gives us a step by step ability to say
go ahead based on each different project.
Murphy: We are asking that if you use number 5, use it as an interim
fix, but give us the go ahead to start doing a comprehensive study to come up
with a long term plan for how to deal with these new parking demands,
especially if Council wants to initiate moving forward realizing more
residential development downtown.
Hammler: Well, I fully support that and I fully support that this would
really be an antisprawl step in the right direction.
Butler: I agree. I think that if this takes off and we need 768 more
parking spaces, that's a great thing. Because that means that there are all that
many more people downtown walking around providing tax dollars. The best
way to solve the parking problem is to ruin downtown and then no body will
come there and there will be lots of parking. So, we are trying to... this is a
problem that we are trying to create on purpose. You want more people
downtown. If there are so many people downtown spending their money,
going to restaurants and buying goods that there is not enough parking, that's
a good problem. So, I fully support number 5 and I hope it takes off. I hope
42 Pagc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
that staff is scratching their heads trying to figure out how to solve the
problems of having too many people on the street.
Hammler: May I add to your enthusiasm. Well, the other benefit short
of just parking and you know associated traffic gridlock, if you will, is it would
provide economies of scale for mass transit, so it would open up a whole new
level of services.
Reid: First of all, the study area... why are you limiting it to Church?
Why aren't you going all the way to Harrison? There are some vacant lots
over there, aren't there?
Murphy: We decided to eliminate that area due to the proximity of
where the are. Pushing it out, we didn't go beyond Church Street
specifically for that purpose because we have got Liberty Street lot, we have
the downtown lot and the Loudoun Street lot.
Reid: You have the Pennington Lots off of Harrison. I know that they
are not for the daytime, but they are good for the evening.
Murphy: Pennington?
Reid: Pennington, Semones lots.
Murphy: I believe those are... at least the Pennington surface lot. I'm
not sure about the other lots.
Reid: Would anyone mind if we extended the study area to Harrison?
Wright: Well this wasn't as much the study area. This is the area you
were looking to implement your category 5 because I think the other thing you
were defining in this area are the areas that would have difficulty providing on
site parking. Once you get over to Harrison Street, the vacant parcels there
have the ability to satisfy their own parking requirement, so I wouldn't see the
need for the short term.
Murphy: If you look at the map here, we are focusing this on... limited
to lots that are 4000 square feet or less and you see if you extend up Harrison
Street... Harrison Street would extend that up here, you see that there is not
very many lots and this cluster of lots right here has the townhouse
development right now, where they have garage parking. So, it really
wouldn't apply.
Reid: Nor, you don't see any need to go further west on Morven Park
or anything like that?
43 1Pa ;c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Murphy: No.
Reid: But it does cover south?
Murphy: Right, so this area gets the most.
Reid: But we are talking about a rule making procedure, not a
transportation... not a parking summit. Because we can go on and on about
what we need to do. We have talked so much. What we are talking about is
potentially relaxing the requirements so people like Mr. Reimers and others
can build and not have to pay for a $10,000 or whatever the fee is right now in
lieu of parking, that sort of thing. That option, that's what we are talking
about. But, how are we going to keep the planning commission on scope and
not get into these other areas about one way streets or things like that? We
had a big discussion about street parking and you know, I was lucky to get the
Council... we haven't done the info session yet, just to agree to you know do
the info session on Wirt Street. No one wants to look at the transportation
issues and that's where at least a study could be done to determine what would
happen if we one -way'd Liberty, Church or any of these streets. Because then
you add the street parking.
Wells: To answer your question of how do you focus the planning
commission, that is done by what you initiate as part of your action.
_ Reid: Right, but will they be raising those questions about street
parking because there are lots of areas of town, which we know could be
potential areas for on- street parking near the lots. How do we deal with that?
these?
Wells: You set the direction for them.
Reid: Does anybody want to get into the transportation aspects of
Martinez: I would just like to stick to....
Reid: Option 5?
Martinez: I would just like to stick to the discussion.
Reid: Option 5 it is. We still have the elephant in the room that we are
not talking about, that is even expanding what we do with Liberty Street,
which is just a vacant lot and what we do with the town garage and the street
parking.
Dunn: And yet, this doesn't look like it addressed any of the parking
meter issues.
44 Pagc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Wells: That's not what this is about.
Reid: That's the other elephant in the room.
Butler: We are not hunting elephants tonight.
Dunn: When are we going to get that settled?
Wells: That would come back... If I recall, we have got that coming
back in December.
Dunn: I look at Option 4 as being something that could be in
conjunction with the meters. We talked about possibly putting meters in areas
where there aren't any now and it's residential, but then they the residents
would have to use a permit to be able to park there and not have to pay a fee to
do so. I would like to see, having said that, some type of combination of four
with five, but I am thinking more along the lines of four with the permits for
on street parking, not in the lots. But we still have meters in the lot over here
off of Wirt?
Wells: No.
Dunn: Those are gone now?
Reid: And on Harrison too.
Murphy: Planning Commission actually dismissed option number 4.
They had concerns that if you restricted parking by residential permit parking
program, that what you are doing is you are going to end up pushing parking
to other streets and that could have an impact on other neighborhoods or on
actual businesses in the downtown, so they were hesitant to pursue option
number 4.
Mayor: Although, I have tremendous respect for Dave, I tend not to
go to towns or cities that have a real parking problem because I like to find a
place to park unless there is a really good public transportation system. We
don't yet have that in Leesburg and we are not going to have metro to
Leesburg anytime in the next 20 years, ever... etc. So, I continue to worry
about increased neighborhood strife because too many people are fighting over
too few parking spaces, which is why I would go with option 1, but I do agree
with staff that option 5 is better than 2, 3, or 4. We have seen it in
neighborhood after neighborhood and it is now cropping up in neighborhoods
in the downtown. People unable to find a place to park. Mr. Reimers did a
really fine project at Dry Mill and Loudoun and that works and the parking
arrangement works. But, we don't... we can't predict that it will always work
451 Page
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
or that it will work in the downtown given the different kinds of commuting
patterns and work patterns that increasingly people have. So, if you are
working out of your house and your car is right by the building you live in, but
that is also near a business that now has no on- street parking for its customers,
I think we are going to hear about it. So, I haven't heard anything that makes
me think we should move to any other option other than one, but I am hearing
a lot of support for 5, and I think that's better than the alternatives.
Hammler: Could we take those key points and figure out how do we
for instance somehow manage the expectation based on a survey of what we
would find out relative to resident's needs for their parking as it relates to what
we are expecting during the time frame during the day... if they work from
home or otherwise?
Wright: Isn't some of that accommodated by kind of the shared
parking agreements? Basically you show your calculation of hey, I have got
commercial, residential, and you are able to do those shared parking
agreements. I guess the following question would be the example we are
pointing to... the development at Dry Mill. Does that satisfy all of their
parking requirements or is that based on a reduced parking based on the
calculation of split uses?
Murphy: It just so happens that I am a resident of the Dry Mill
development that Mr. Reimers developed. One thing I would add is that it
works well, but we have had issues there. It works well if everybody plays by
the rules, i.e. residents are out in the morning and businesses are out in the
evening. We have had an instance where there was a business owner there
who is inviting customers, clients in for meetings at night that last until 9 -10
o'clock at night. This started to become very popular and put pressure on the
residential parking. So, the HOA had to approach the business owner and ask
him to ask his customers and clients to park on the street for these meeting
times to allow residents to be able to park at their homes. So, and that's what
gets into the shared parking, when you have a residential and commercial mix
is that it works when you play by the rules. If people work 9 -5 Monday
through Friday and businesses are open during the day and not so much in the
evenings. Well, if you have an active business community that is open on
weekends and evenings, you are going to have tensions. Madam Mayor, you
alluded to more people are starting to work from home or have different
methods of commuting and also another thing to take into account is because
Leesburg is a bedroom community, we are finding that ... we can probably all
count ourselves as to how many car households we have. Multiply that and
the same thing is going to hold true for the apartments downtown. So some of
the three bedroom apartments are going to have two vehicles minimum, so we
have to realize how things are in today's world and address them smartly.
This is a good start, if you go with number 5, it's a good start, but you are
going to need to come up with a long term solution based on facts and based
461 Pa,,c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
on more analysis about commuting trends and vehicle ownership trends and
what we can expect in the future and what we would actually have to address
in the future. The 2003 parking study, you know is seven years old now. A lot
has changed since then.... The parking spaces have changed. We have more
streets and more permit parking. We have more or less meters here or there,
so we are going to have to look at that and update that. Find out where we are
in relation to current demands for parking and then project outward to our
needs in the future. So, I think that's where staff and the planning commission
are saying that you need to look closely at this. If you really feel there is a
need to do something now, five is an option. But we really need to think about
something more long term.
Hammler: If I may, Chris, just in reaction to your point. The ironic
twist may be the more we look at macrotrends, the less likely we are to deal
with probably what needs to be setting the rules on a case by case basis. To
your point, if you set the rules that's what they become relative to the business
gets the space from this time to this time, end of discussion. The residents
come in from this time to this time. I would think at some point, we need that
level of specificity. Your points are extremely well taken and just for the
record, I think one of the worst studies that this town has ever commissioned is
that particular parking study. $50,000 spent on that one.
Butler: In that case, just for the record, I'm not trying to create a
parking problem. The point is, if the parking problem gets worse, we need to
fix it. But that shows that there is more vibrant economic activity downtown
whereas if the parking gets better all by itself, then that's probably not a good
trend.
Martinez: I'll make it quick. That parking study wasn't a bad thing.
The problem is we have councils who refuse to act on any of our studies. We
put them out there, they give us recommendations, just like the water and
sewer studies we have had over the years. The Council refuses to take the
recommendations. We can't say it's a bad study if we just put it on a shelf and
ignored it.
Hammler: We did act on it. That's the problem. We hired people and
all sorts of stuff.
Martinez: The other thing I was going to say. If we do this future
study and stuff, one of the things we gotta look at... I'm looking a lot at
Alexandria and DC and all those other areas... they have those kinds of issues
and they make it work, but they have a good transit system. You know people
living downtown... there are people in DC that don't even own cars because
there is a good transit system. I doubt very seriously if we are going to find
people living in Leesburg without a car, but we can reduce that with a good
transit system. I know I would be glad to give up my car if I could easily take
47111agc
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
a bus to the park and ride and take it to DC. But its one of those things that...
I think if we do any future studies we have to look at what is really going to
make it work with that kind of parking downtown. You know, bus service
that people can depend on every 20 -30 minutes and know by the clock that
they are going to be able to walk up to the curb, get on the bus and go where
they want to go.
Wright: Just a follow -up. I think that we have heard a lot of folks say
that they want to see something with option 5, so I think you have heard a
direction there. My concern is I don't want the more comprehensive approach
to get lost in the mix, so I would still like to see that work plan and I think I
need to be a little more blunt. I don't want to see another parking study. I
want to see a zoning related work plan. If you need to capture figures, do it
internally. Do not bring us a proposal to do a $50,000 study.
Wells: This is a different animal. I hear that.
Wright: Because our current planning director wasn't here when we
determined that study was a bad word. It still is a bad word.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Council Member Butler: Can we talk to whoever we need to talk to. My
understanding is that our town bus service does not go to the park and ride?
Wells: That's correct.
Butler: There was at least one person who took a bus out to Leesburg because
they wanted to go see Leesburg and then they got to the Park and Ride and they
asked okay, where do I catch the bus into town. And there was no bus into town.
That seems to me to be a horrible oversight.
Mayor: That's a bit of a hike down to the Park and Ride.
Wright: Well, if the bus drives to the airport, just go the rest of the way down
the road.
Reid: I actually asked VRT and the county to look into this because the
county is looking into a jitney service that would go from downtown Leesburg to the
park and ride lot but it would probably only be during commuter hours so they are
looking at it at the request of a constituent. But I haven't heard back.
Butler: We have a bus that goes not far from there... anyway, the only other
thing I want to mention is these numbers that John, you are working out for city
status, I am hoping that they also include... which was the actual original driver for
getting these numbers, is annexing the out of towners. By out of towners, I mean the
service area for our water. As a separate thing...
48 1 c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
by...
Hammler: If you haven't heard that before from Dave... in case that slipped
Wells: I got it.
Council Member Martinez: Well, I was certain that I wanted Susan to be
here, but she is out there talking. It's okay. In an article in the Virginia magazine
they talked about our great planning improvement process and a lot of work has been
done... it was a lot of work... my concern is that when I went to our planning
commission our planning staff is so short handed that our department director is
running the cameras. And you know... I'm not... all I am saying is that my question
when I see that is what are we not doing?
Hammler: That's the PEG issue back to the one we mentioned earlier about
working with the county making sure we had back up cameras and stuff.
Martinez: No, that's not the issue. The issue is why are we so short handed
that we have to have our planning director running the camera for the BAR meeting?
What is she not doing? What are other people not doing? I would like to see if there
is anything, John , that we can do staffing wise to not let that happen again. Even if it
means adding another staffer or somebody because I think... I don't have a problem
with doing more with less, but when department directors now have to start manning
cameras or doing other work that is taking away from their job of running the
department, it concerns me.
Butler: Just to jump on that, I have talked with a couple of planning
commissioners were complaining that gee, these things come from Council and then
we don't get them back for like eight months or something like this and why isn't the
planning staff going faster and I reminded them that we laid off half the planning
staff, so there are impacts. It's not just simple waste that we get rid of when we try
to...
Martinez: And this article on the planning process... that's great that we got a
new process in place, but we need people to enact it and keep it running.
Reid: Well the complaint that I got from the Planning Commissioners was
that we asked them to look at form based code for a larger area, so if we go back on
that, it will take some work off their backs. Well, I wanted to ask you, John, and
Council members if we could weigh in on the potential closing of the downtown post
office. I have a number of residents who are concerned if they close the downtown
post office all these folks with PO boxes are going to have to go down to Catoctin
Circle. It's going to create a lot of traffic. They did send a letter out to me. I did get
one at my office with a URL asking folks to comment. I would like you to make a
copy of this and I think that we should weigh in as a council against the closing of the
downtown post office even though they say they have enough post office boxes at
491Pane
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Catoctin to deal with the ones... the fact is that the traffic situation, the parking at that
post office is not very good.
Mayor: I agree. Is that something you guys would want to take up tomorrow
night to just authorize either John or me to send a letter to the postal service.
Reid: This needs to be a resolution of Council. I think it can come back in
two weeks so that we can have the details.
Vice Mayor Wright: I think a copy may have been out... Kaj might have been
the one who sent me an update on what the process was... if it wasn't it may have
been Betsy. If you could have that email circulated around. I think in all reality, I
think that it is certainly fine to say that we would like to keep the post office open but
when you have communities that have only one post office that area also on the
chopping block, I am sympathetic to the position that the post office may be in, so I
think it may be worth researching what plan B may be for an appropriate reuse of that
facility and how we may be able to facilitate that should plan A not work.
Reid: That's not a bad idea.
Butler: One of the problems with the post office on Catoctin Circle is that you
can go in, but there is only one way out.
Wright: Because they never fixed the parking like they were supposed to.
Butler: I don't know if there is any option for doing something else. If there
is, maybe we could put that in the resolution saying that if you are still bound and
determined to close the downtown one, at least do this on the other one so that it
doesn't crush us.
Wright: Tell them to do what they promised to do when they got their annex
facility.
Reid: That's why we have to do research.
Hammler: or back to Plan B, given that's the macro issue at the federal level
with the massive United States Postal Service deficit, increasingly the private sector is
engaged in providing PO boxes. Perhaps that's something that we could specifically
seek if there is someone that would be willing to come to the downtown location, be
more proactive based on looking at all of the issues. A couple of other quick things...
back to just a comment, if I may, the planning commission also got invited.. Mike
Chandler, I attended the Defensible work shop but one of the points that he made is
how important it is for directors to be able to participate in a multifunctional area to
really get trained and most notably the front desk and really honed in on that point,
which I thought was an interesting one. Two quick things. Madam Mayor and I and
Dave was there for a few minutes. The Country Club information session on Linden
501Pa;c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Hill. Some key points came up. I think that we need to isolate and deal with directly
which are some of the issues that they are dealing with on Country Club. Perhaps we
should send directly to the SRTC dealing with suggestions such as speed bumps,
sidewalks and things of that nature. I know we talked about lighting in the past. But
if we could take a comprehensive look at those issues that have now come forward
based on the opportunity to come speak to Council on the Linden Hill Access Road.
Just another very quick request which is I appreciate everybody's support for inviting
Paxton to join us for the Halloween parade. They were going to put a Shocktober
banner, which would then beg the question of who else involved in our trolley. So, if
Council would consider creating two banners for us to have for Halloween, which
would be Happy Halloween, Town Council, so that it is our trolley, if you will, at the
beginning of the parade, but that would be the quick estimate is $80 for one banner,
but if you put one on each side, it would be $160.
Reid: On the post office, just one more thing. Disposition of the current
facility is a good point and also the ingress and egress. I know that there are some
communities that are losing a post office, but I have to ask if they are as rapidly
growing as we are, because the growth here.. one side, the problem with the postal
service is that I don't think they looked at the future... the future demand at the
Leesburg post office, or any post office in Loudoun County is going to be significant.
Hammler: I think we need to look at the facts. It's so interesting when you
look at how much money the post office loses, the trends...
Dunn: Madam Mayor, you have got the post office on a future agenda? Is
there any other future agendas?
Reid: I want to raise the question about Linden Hill tomorrow. I mean if
there are things in motion. I know people are coming tomorrow, but wouldn't it be
wiser to have a work session discussion rather than to do something in a flash of the
pan tomorrow night.
Hammler: What is the date of the auction, again?
Irby: The next date is October 28t''.
Hammler: So we do have a work session on the 24th? I think that's reasonable
to have a work session if the auction isn't until October 28th.
Reid: Can we schedule a work session? Is it because we have Columbus Day
holiday?
Wells: Council decided to not have a work session because of the confusion
that typically ensues when you shift the dates back so instead of having a Tuesday
work session and a Wednesday meeting, the direction was to not have a work session
that night and just go straight to the meeting.
51 I'a c
Council Work Session September 26, 2011
Reid: Or we could just to go seven o'clock on that night.
Wright: Or we could just suck it up.
Mayor: There is that.
Reid: So, are we going to keep this on tomorrow night?
Hammler: Or we can perhaps decide how Council is going to deal with it
tomorrow knowing what the options are. It doesn't sound like tonight.
Mayor: As you probably know, Mr. Mileo has asked the Council again to
rename the Holiday Parade to Christmas /Hanukah Parade. I told him I would bring
it up. I am going to ask that it be added to the next work session for however brief or
long of a discussion.
Reid: I thought we decided to call it a Christmas /Holiday parade.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, for the record I asked staff if it was....
Wright: We call it the Christmas tree lighting and it has remained the Holiday
Parade.
Butler: We called it the Christmas Tree and Menorah lighting.
Wright: It remained as the holiday parade based on the advice of our attorney.
Irby: Plus, it's a seasonal event. It's not just about the Christmas holiday. It's
about the entire season and all of the events that take place during the season.
3. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Clerk of u cil
2011 tcwsmin0926
52 Page