Loading...
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