Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcwsmin0427 Council Work Session April 27, 2015 MINIM Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen C. Umstattd presiding. Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, David Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Suzanne D. Fox, Katie Sheldon Hammler, and Mayor Umstattd. Council Members Absent: Council Member Dunn arrived at 8:02 p.m. Council Member Martinez was absent. Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Deputy Town Attorney Shelby Caputo, Director of Capital Projects Renee Lafollette, Assistant to the Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of Public Works Tom Mason, Director of Plan Review Bill Adman, Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Mumaw, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, and Executive Associate I Tara Belote. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Work Session Items for Discussion a. Food Trucks Chris Murphy gave a presentation on the subject of food trucks that originally began in June 2013. Key Points: • Council directed staff to investigate allowing food trucks/carts in town. • EDC with two members of the Planning Commission discussed on July 3, 2013. No clear recommendation was made; however, consensus was that restaurants and food truck owners should be included in discussions. • Staff is seeking further direction as to whether Council wants to allow food trucks/carts on public streets, private property or both. Council Comments/Questions: • Butler: The EDC and Planning Commission were split? Staff answer: EDC was split down the middle as to whether to recommend allowing this use. The only recommendation that was made was to be sure to include vendors and restaurants in discussions. • Burk: If this goes any further, you definitely have to invite the restaurants. I can't imagine that any of the restaurants would be anxious for a food vendor in a truck that does not cost anywhere as much as they put into their bricks and mortar restaurants downtown. I think it would be a terrible thing to do. There might be some places outside the downtown that might work—like Cardinal Park or some place where you have construction going on. I personally am not particularly in favor of having carte blanche trucks anywhere they want. 1 ' Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 We would have to be very, very careful where we would allow it and definitely do not want it downtown, as far as I'm concerned. • Hammler: Thank you for the report and thank you to all who have contributed great ideas so far. I completely support getting input from restaurants. The other way of looking at it is restaurants may think of this as another delivery method for being able to expand their offerings in creative ways around town. When I've been at certain parks around town, sort of the buzz in conversation is "wouldn't it be great if we could at the dog park grab something to eat", because people spend a lot of time and it encourages socialization and getting people outdoors. I definitely look forward to vetting the issues, but I do think there could be some very positive benefits. Certainly another consideration, if we are open to the downtown is—I would think we wouldn't want too many food trucks just in terms of BAR issues and even just the architectural issue, but I'm sure we can't—all cars are allowed downtown, but I'm sure you can't pass guidelines as it relates to what a wheeled truck would look like, but that would be a consideration in the downtown. I would also be interested in finding out what other municipalities are doing in this area. • Fox: I look at it from a different perspective. I just took a look at the zoning ordinance. You have permissible temporary uses for fairs, carnivals, farmers markets. There are certain businesses that do benefit from these food trucks. They are big with weddings and special events. I know that from personal experience, so I'd like to be able to add that to the zoning ordinance and also I would like to have input from the businesses as well. I'd like to see what they have to say. • Mary Harper: This is the discussion we had almost two years ago with the EDC and the topic of food trucks came up and what brought it up is there is a vegan food truck that parks down at the farmer's market on Wednesdays and on Saturdays. It's a really great way to grab a quick bite and we did definitely make the delineation between that and the unsavory roach coach. It would not be anything like that. We thought about them being downtown, but not parked in one area all day long. It was a good way for young families rather than trying to take your little kids in a stroller and everything else into Lightfoot on a weekend or if they were here for a special occasion, to grab a quick bite and we definitely wanted to discuss with the restauranteurs in town, their feelings. I think it might be a mixed bag. Some of them might be totally set against, as they view it as more competition. It is also a way for some of the restaurants to do a lighter fare or a less expensive menu for young families. We looked at it as an opportunity to put feet on the street. That was basically the discussion, but we were going to take it to you, see what you guys thought and also get some input from the businesses in the downtown area and not necessarily limit them to downtown. They could be at the dog park, at the dog swim. I cannot tell you—at the dog swim because the snack bar is closed. 2IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 • Doris Kidder: I would just add that the spot that is east of town there was a barbecue truck—best barbecue that you've ever tasted. He is in Ashburn now because of our regulations. I think it is a shame to lose someone like that. I think that food trucks can add to the festivities of special events. It's like the Flower and Garden show, it's really great to have all those food trucks. I don't think they hurt the local restaurants. I think it adds to the festivities of the town. • Umstattd: I agree with Kelly. It is absolutely essential to bring the restaurants into any discussion. My concern with having either carts or trucks in the downtown is the impact on sidewalk access and street access because we don't have very wide streets in the downtown and even though the sidewalk along King will be wider, if we are now filling it with food carts, it takes away some of the rationale most members of Council had for supporting the widening of it. I don't know where they are going to fit and how much they might impede pedestrian or traffic flow, but it's something that if the restaurants were supportive, I think might be worth looking at. • Mary Harper: We did talk about that situation and we were leaning more towards the food truck versus a hand push cart getting on the sidewalks, colliding with strollers, running over pedestrians and hogging up what space is available downtown. It was basically food trucks offering different types of cuisine or possibly working in partnership for lighter fare from some of the current restaurants that are in town. • Butler: I'm certainly in support of exploring this idea because for the most part I don't see them in direct competition with most of the restaurants. The sit down restaurants, they take a while to serve you. I see the food trucks as more of a competition to the fast food places than I do the sit downs even though I'm sure that all the sit downs won't want it. I would assume that. We have also had experience with carts. There has been ice cream and hot dog carts downtown on occasion for quite a while. So, I think we should move forward and explore what some of the actual ramifications are and I see that staff threw in some language to make us nervous like we won't be able to capture meals tax or BPOL or any of that stuff. Let's figure out how to do that. You know, it's not an unsolvable problem because other places do it so we can certainly do it if we put our mind to it and follow best practices of other localities that are smaller and larger than we are. I think we should take some next steps and get some community input. Have a series of meetings perhaps and also talk to some potential vendors and look at what would be the best locations around town to do this because there are parks, weddings and other special events that are not directly related to the town. I don't want them lined up along King Street, because there is not enough space. That would be bad, but there are a whole lot of other places where people congregate that wouldn't necessarily be in direct competition. 3IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 Staff answer: It seems like the majority of the Council who are present J tY p would like to pursue this further. So, what I'm gleaning from this is that we will do some more research and come back in a few months after we have done analysis and gotten some feedback from businesses and restaurants and give you that information at that time. b. Public Parking Signage Downtown Scott Parker stated presented the item on parking signage in the downtown area. Key Points: • Looking for feedback as to whether the current wayfinding signage adequately directs people to parking. • Wayfinding signage plan was approved in 2004 and any changes to the graphics would require an amendment through the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and approval from Council, although a simple amendment would not require the BAR approval process. • Signs could be altered to add the word "public" before "parking", which would be helpful particularly in the case of the Pennington and Semones lots. Council Comments/Questions: • Butler: This is definitely a move in the right direction. I would encourage staff to look at how few words can be put on the signs and how big the font can be made. For example, where it went from the big P to a small P that says public parking in town hall garage. Another option would be a medium sized P with parking after it. Option A, there is way too many words. I see no value in saying Town Hall Garage at this point. Who cares? Somebody coming through wants to find public parking and whether it is a garage or street or something else. So, I would not recommend option A. Option B, I think if you took the P, moved it down slightly, you could move it all the way over to the left and then you could make Parking a much bigger font and add Public above it. Then you have a big P and it says Public parking. That's in the sweet spot. The public parking on Option A is tiny print and easily missed. On existing Option A, Option B on the town hall garage. There is no reason to say garage, because it is obvious it is a garage. If you want to keep Town Hall there, I think that's not inappropriate, because we like to name our parking structures and places, but I think public parking could be a much bigger font. Use it all up—big. If all capitals looks better, great! Make it as big as possible. The next one, you'd have parking garage that's larger font. If that said public parking, I think it might be a little bit better. Again, down here under the existing Town Hall parking garage, if we change it to Town Hall Public Parking, I don't know what the value is of saying Town Hall there. If someone is looking for Town Hall, there should be 4IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 other signs that say Town Hall that a way. If it is parking, it is not a � Y Y p g, Town Hall Parking Garage—it is a public parking garage for all venues downtown. It just happens to be named the Town Hall parking garage, but every time you name it the Town Hall parking garage, there are going to be people that don't park there because they might think it's just for the town hall, like the county parking garage is. So, if we can get rid of the words Town Hall, I think that's an improvement. Staff answer: The signs indicate where Town Hall is as well. Would you be amenable to having Town Hall/public parking? • Butler: I don't care about the words. The more words, the smaller the font and we want to have big font. We have one of these signs where you have existing option and one is in front of the Tally Ho that says Town Hall information—got it. That's a Town Hall wayfinding sign. You don't have to have parking there, it's just Town Hall is that way so if somebody wants to go to Town Hall, that's where it is. We might want to keep those separate if possible. The big green P with the arrow —Purcellville has signs similar to this that say Public Parking. It's the same color scheme and basically looks the same with a small arrow. I think the last sign at the bottom are the signs actually at the lots. If you are at the lot and it says Pennington, Liberty or Semones, when they are there, but leading up to there, I think the biggest thing we have to remember is that somebody from the public—they want to know where to park. If it can say public parking as big as possible—that's our goal. This is a major step forward compared to what we have currently. • Burk: I have no desire to add more signs. Changing the signs so that they all say Public Parking, is what I am interested in. People don't understand that they can park in these places, so the more you can have public parking on it, fine. How you design it—you and Dave can talk about it yourselves, but I'm just interested in making sure you have public parking on the signs that we have. We don't need to add more signs. We just need to make the signs that we have more clear and efficient. • Hammier: I agree that the key word is public. The only other thing I would add is this is more interior to our garage. The biggest thing you see in the lower level is parking by permit only. I know we've tried to fix this, but we need to make it much more prominent that area is available for parking after 6:30 and on the weekends, because usually nobody goes down there and there is a heck of a lot of parking down there. If we could work on that as well, I'd appreciate it. • Fox: I think the public parking wording is necessary. There needs to be uniformity throughout the town with that. I think the color scheme is tasteful. I think it's noticeable and I would like to keep it all one color as well. To go to some of those green and blue and white signs, I don't think it's necessary. I agree—I don't think we need more signage, just properly mark all the parking, whether it is free or not and have it say public. 5IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 • Umstattd: I would agree with most of what has been said. Keep the �' P same signage coloring. I agree with Dave. Make a large P designating public parking. I don't think we have to put the name of the lot or Town Hall Garage on any signs. Just make sure it's a big P and public parking. I don't think you need to say Free after certain hours. You can do that inside the garage, if you want to. I don't think I disagree with any of the other Council members. • Burk: What would be the cost of making these changes to the signs. Staff answer: It would depend on the number of changes and number of letters needed for the 17 existing signs and could be completed within six months. • Gigi Robinson: Is there a parking task force dealing with signage? Staff answer: There is a parking task force that is not dealing with signage, because the direction has not been given for them to look at signage. There was consensus of Council to move forward with these adjustments to the current signage. c. Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) Program Bill Adman, Charlie Mumaw, and Renee Lafollette presented information about the TMDL program. Key Points: • TMDL is the pollution diet established in December 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to limit the amount of phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay from the watershed. • When it rains, run off carries phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment pollution into the bay. • Despite extensive restoration efforts for the past 25 years, insufficient progress has been made resulting in continued poor water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. • The longer water sits in stormwater ponds, the more sediment falls to the bottom. • The town was required to get an MS-4 permit in 2003 because of the size of the town and the amount of storm sewer outfalls throughout town. Because of the MS-4 permit, the town is required to comply with certain reductions in the amount of pollutants over a 15 year period. • This will require construction of more holding ponds and make them more efficient. • All new construction projects must meet the new criteria unless they were granted an exception by the state. • Various projects have already been undertaken as part of permit renewal such as marking all storm drains and mapping the storm drainage system. 6IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 • Within 15 years (three permit cycles), 100%reduction target must be achieved. • Loudoun County and Town of Leesburg have distinct and separate permits and programs. Council Comments/Questions: • Burk: Do we only use ponds? Staff answer: No, there are other methods, such as rain gardens and bio-retention facilities. • Burk: Who is responsible for maintenance of these facilities? Staff answer: The way deeds are written today, if it is a storm water management facility on a commercial development, it is a requirement for the owner to maintain and report. • Fox: Will individual home owners associations be responsible for maintenance? Staff answer: All new developments have this written into the deeds. • Burk: What will be in the reports that the developer or HOA submits? Staff answer: They have to give pictures of how it is functioning and have either a professional engineer or somebody certified by the state inspect the facility. • Umstattd: Have all HOAs been notified of these new requirements? Staff answer: Yes, a couple of times. • Burk: When I was at the County, they had just started to have these underground collection ponds. Some of them went through pockets where trees were planted and some were very large underground ponds. The discussion was who was going to end up maintaining those. I hope we don't get to a point where the town will have to pay to maintain different types of ponds or the filtering process. Staff answer: There will always be some that the town will be responsible for because they come off of our right of way and are town facilities; but the current direction is to put the requirement into the deeds so that the HOAs and new businesses are required to maintain their own facilities. You are exactly right—those underground facilities are expensive to maintain. • Burk: Are there any underground facilities in town? Staff answer: There is one that is town responsibility at the airport. It was the only way to meet the BMP requirements. • Burk: As I remember the discussions, it helps the developer achieve more density to have the stormwater facility underground. Are we covered that they would have to maintain it? Staff answer: Currently, the way our regulations are written, yes. • Umstattd: I have a concern about the assumption that homeowners are going to be able to afford to maintain any system. Right now, we get occasional complaints by townhouse communities and single family home communities like Beauregard Estates about maintaining private streets. We can argue that is what they bought into, but most people do 7IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 not realize what they buy when they buy into anything. So, now we are going to be expecting homeowner associations to raise homeowners fees to cover the maintenance of these. You see this in rural Loudoun. Communities will not put the money into maintenance of their package sewage plants. You will have homeowners in rebellion over the cost of maintenance. The council will come under tremendous pressure to take over maintenance of this. If we are going to have a rezoning that will require homeowners to take on higher and higher fees for the maintenance of this, maybe we shouldn't go for the rezoning because I don't think these communities will be able to afford the additional regulations. Have we given any thought to that? Staff answer: That is a valid point. Staff's hands are tied because the way the state wrote the new regulations, they said if it is in our clearinghouse, the jurisdiction has to accept that type of facility on construction plans. Staff will look at Council to determine what they want to look at during rezonings. • Burk: We are talking about new developments. Are we going to require developments that are already in place to change what they are doing? Staff answer: They are currently grandfathered. • Burk: So we are only talking about new developments that have not come on line yet. You are going to tell them they have to have this new system in place and they would be aware of it—during rezoning is fine with me. • Umstattd: You can make people sign something that says they are aware of it, but they don't read it. • Burk: This will be new so they will be thinking that their HOA fees are $100, not realizing that a part of it has to do with storm water treatment. They will just know that their dues are $100 a month. • Umstattd: But that will drive up the dues significantly and if they have to take on the added responsibility of more and more restrictive regulations from the EPA and the state, the dues will continue to go up. That is when we will get calls for relief. I just wanted to clarify one more point. In an earlier discussion on this topic, there had been talk from our staff about the possibility that communities like Fox Ridge or Exeter will be hit by an additional tax to pay for this kind of project. That goes against the grandfathering principle. Have we now moved away from an additional tax as an option? I can't imagine a community doing anything other than rioting if we suddenly said you have a special tax assessment to cover TMDLs. Staff answer: When I said they were grandfathered in, they would not have to go back and meet the new regulations themselves. They would not have to go back and retrofit any of their existing facilities. The second part of your question, is would they be responsible. There is a lot of discussion to be had in the future and that is do we create a storm district? Once you create a storm district, there is criteria that is in the 8 Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 state code. I'm going to give you the 100 000 foot view. Everybody g g � Y 100,000 rY Y who is in the storm district would have to pay a pro-rata share based on the rooftop and imperviousness. There is a lot of ways to get there, but it would be spread over the district. It would be separate from the tax rate. Another way to go would be pennies on the tax dollar to go to public works for specific storm water related TMDL projects. Without really going too far out on a limb, there was some legislation that was passed a few years ago and the Town of Leesburg was instrumental in having this legislation passed and that is if the County goes to a storm district—and my hunch is they may—if they do, they collect that tax from everybody in the county including town residents. The way that legislation is worded, if they collect a storm district tax, that amount of money has to be turned back over to the town, so that could potentially be another source of funding down the road. Loudoun County has not done that yet. I don't know what their ultimate plan is for that. If I was speculating, I would say they likely will, but I don't know timing or if for sure they will. • Umstattd: And you don't think that the fact that we have the donut situation is going to encourage them to be county-wide with their storm district excluding the towns. Dave has raised the point in the past—he is worried about us having to double pay for this. Is that a risk as you see it? Would we be included, potentially, in a county storm tax district. Staff answer: I don't have the answer to that. • Butler: First, we are going to have to hit 100% of our target sooner or later. Do we have a list of projects that we know of now that will enable us to hit that target? Staff answer: In the CIP, we approved separating Tuscarora Creek into two pieces. One of those is the TMDL (creek restoration project) that has a price tag of just shy of$1.4 million. The state has put in $641,000 via a grant. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL project has a price tag of about$2.7 million and we have grant funding of$963,000. That is six ponds that we are looking at—Kohl's, Fox Ridge, Greenway, Stowers, Stratford, and Exeter. • Butler: So, we will spend$2.8 million to refurbish six ponds. Who pays for the maintenance? Staff answer: The ponds the town currently has maintenance responsibility for, the town will continue to have maintenance responsibility for. Staff is still double checking and looking at deeds. There are two that the HOA's definitely have responsibility for. That is where when we do our easement negotiations, it could get tricky. • Butler: If we are going to do a project on those ponds that will cause their maintenance costs to go up, my best advice would be to assume that we will be paying for all the maintenance costs. If I was in one of those HOAs, I'm sure I would object to paying more maintenance on a project that the town is requiring us to do. 9IPage Council Work Session April 27, 2015 Staff answer: This is a map of each of the ponds that we are doing and the drainage areas are colored that goes to each of those ponds. It gives you an idea of why we picked the specific ponds that we picked. Then Tuscarora Creek takes in a drainage area from Greenway to the undeveloped Leesburg South area. Staff answer: In permit cycle 1, which we are in currently (2013-2018) it is estimated at$32,000 per year. You can see by permit cycle 3, we are up to close to $275,000 per year in maintenance costs. We plan to re-estimate those as we go through the design of each project because the maintenance costs will be solely dependent on the types of facilities we can construct based on the DEQ clearinghouse for the projects. With the projects that we build, we are building into each project a two year maintenance and warranty part with our construction contract so we can get a better handle on what is required for maintenance and take the construction costs for the contractor for maintenance and do a direct comparison what it would cost to do that with our own town forces so that we can get closer estimates. Right now, keep in mind that those are very preliminary numbers on a per year basis. These are current dollars. • Butler: It is just over 4/10 of a cent on the tax rate. The county deliberately took us out of their responsibility for the MS-4. Their TMDL responsibility is the donut and our TMDL responsibility is the hole in this graphic. So, we will be spending a total of$4 million more or less in capital projects and at least$270,000 a year in maintenance to solve our problem. The county will be spending—maybe has already spent some unknown amount of money to clear the donut. So, again, I want to meet with the county as soon as possible to talk about how we are not paying for one cent for them to clear their TMDL problem out of the donut. Considering they deliberately took us out of there and it is not affecting us positively in any way by their TMDL projects in the donut, I would hope that they do not even have a legal justification to be able to charge us for what they are doing that is absolutely not part of the town. We need to solve this because the county is going to be spending a lot of money and we are going to be getting hit for one eighth of it if we don't say something about it. • Umstattd: This will require some work by Barbara to find out what the legality of this is because if we have our own separate obligations because we have our own separate MS-4 permit, we need to understand could the county have chosen to take care of us as well or are we on the hook because we have a separate permit. I think we need to know the legal aspects. Dave raises a very good point. • Burk: I would say there is some positive aspect to it—that the water we will be treating—and hopefully the water the county will be treating will be coming in cleaner and clearer and the water leaving the town will be leaving cleaner and clearer. That is the intent of this whole process. That is the positive aspect to it. When the developer comes in, 101 Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 do they choose what kind of system they are going to put into place? So, they make that choice. Do we automatically approve it or is it by right? Are we able to say we would rather they have a pond or underground collection? How do we determine that? Staff answer: The way the storm water regulations were written at the state level gives the developer 100 percent choice in what they use in their development as long as it is in the state's clearing house. Before a method goes into the state clearinghouse, the state has to test it to determine what percent of phosphorus removal is accomplished. Once that has been tested and documented, it goes into the Clearinghouse. Once it is in the Clearinghouse, it is free to be used throughout the state. A jurisdiction does have the right to deny any type of facility; however, in order to do that, we have to have just cause, back up information, and submit it to the state as to why it does not work in our jurisdiction and then the state may or may not allow that to be taken out of the tool box for our jurisdiction. • Burk: This is certainly an important issue that is going to keep coming back to us. I hope that we do all realize that it is important and whether we have the county the do it or we do it, it has to be done to try to correct some of the problems going on in our streams and the bay. We have some streams in the county that are dead. There is no aquatic life in the streams. There may be some in the town, I don't know. We tested some in the county and that's a pretty awful thing to say—that we have streams that have no aquatic life and no prospect of it until we clean them up. It is an important issue and it will benefit us in the end as a town and as individuals and as people who have streams going through the town. It is an important issue and something most certainly the cost of is going to be something that will dog us for a long time. If we can get the county to participate more, I have no problem with that, but I think we do need to recognize that this is an important program that we need to get behind one way or the other. • Hammier: I was going to quote our petitioners from the Board of Virginia Knolls and that's exactly what they said referring to Tuscarora Creek that the creek is dead. To that point, clearly we need to work towards cleaning it up. That being said, I went back in the minutes and I was looking at what was going to be covered and my expectation, and maybe I misunderstood based on the previous discussion of asking for this particular meeting is that we would have the information tonight about the legalities and about cases of other towns and counties around the state to be able to help us understand as early as tonight what our ability is to request of the county that they take responsibility for the TMDLs. To me, that's a critical point that we accelerate getting that information. We need that information to be able to have a frame work to understand how we are going to move forward. We have had many general presentations before, so if we could at least understand when that information would be available—legal reference cases and other 111 Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 municipalities around the state, that would be very helpful. Other aspects of this, I know that Susan Berry Hill and team will be looking at proffer guidelines for new development. For instance, I know that many of us have had the preview meeting about Crescent Parke and it was stated that they will have no impact on Tuscarora Creek. We, as council members, need to understand if a new development is coming on—do we have any legal rights to say "hey you are impacting Tuscarora Creek negatively" and/or at least accelerating how best to be negotiating for proffers. We probably don't have time to change to the proffer guidelines when a couple of these rezoning cases come forward, such as Leegate, but we at least need to understand as a group that we should hopefully be consistent in stating as council members that we feel is important relative to our understanding and what our legal rights are. • Fox: This is an important issue, but it is also an unfunded mandate. Was this considered in the budget cycle? Do we take this information that we have now and look outward a little bit...we did. Okay, what you came up with through 2021 —that was taken into consideration. That was my one worry, I suppose, with what you are saying as far as the tax rate and what could possibly happen to it. • Umstattd: I think Katie raised a valid point. I don't recall a staff memo saying that Crescent Parke would have no negative impact on Tuscarora Creek. I do remember that Virginia Knolls Community was under the impression that Crescent Parke would have a very negative impact on Tuscarora Creek and the whole TMDL situation. I don't know where staff is on that particular question. • Hammier: If I may clarify, that is what the applicant said in a meeting with two council members. It was certainly nothing I had seen in a memo form from staff. I'm just saying that the applicant is saying that they have no impact. At some point, we need some guideline in terms of what our legal rights based on how we determine who is causing the impact. • Umstattd: Well, that would be very different if it was the applicant. Has staff taken a position on whether the applicant's statement is accurate or not. Staff answer: We are still in the process of looking at it. Anytime you have development, you always have some impact. In my personal opinion, I don't think you can ever say it doesn't have any adverse impact. So, you want to minimize it as close to zero as possible. • Umstattd: There are other questions that come up, but I'll bring them up later with you guys. I would just say that according to various water reports that have come out, the Potomac is cleaner than it has been in a long, long time. I personally feel that we are being penalized for all of that sludge that is coming out of Pennsylvania. I have a sense that we are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars here that will have 121Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 almost no noticeable impact because other areas are polluting the Chesapeake far more than we are, but that's just a personal feeling. • Burk: Does Pennsylvania have to follow these TMDLs? Staff answer: Yes, portions of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, New York, West Virginia. • Butler: Just a few things. I think the beef with Pennsylvania, though, if you look at the vast majority of what is coming into the bay and causes the pollution is farmers in Pennsylvania and farmers are not getting hit nearly as hard as towns like us. So to that extent, the towns, rooftops and roads are carrying the lions share of the dollars but yet it is the farmers—it is primarily Pennsylvania, because that's where most of the farmers are that the water drains into the Chesapeake—they are not paying nearly as much compared to the pollution they are causing. But two other quick points—to Suzanne's point, while it is nice that we talk about how we are cleaning the bay and we really need to get behind this, we don't have a choice. We have to get behind this. It is not optional otherwise we could get fined zillions of dollars every two seconds. I forget the details, but it doesn't matter. It is a whole lot cheaper to spend the $4 million to fix it than it is to accept the fines that would come from DEQ. So, we need to do that. To Katie's point, I hope that this agenda item was not based on what I had asked for because this isn't what I asked for. I asked for something specifically that we need to figure out a game plan to give to the county. This was a nice general topic, which we've had before. Suzanne hasn't had this kind of a presentation, I don't think, but we really need to have a staff memo and a discussion of how we take this to the county and it should be soon. • Umstattd: We talk about development creating more impervious surfaces. Our regulations have largely encouraged or mandated that. You are not allowed in many cases to have a driveway that is pervious —you have to have asphalt. What are we going to do with our ordinances to allow people to create more pervious surfaces on their property. Staff answer: That's a good question. Some of the things we are looking at is when you look at pervious surfaces, there are several kinds. You can help in one area and create a problem in another. You go with straight gravel that tends to wash down into the storm drainage system and build sediment in the pipes and carry itself into the streams and eventually into the bay. There are other things out there. This is pervious concrete that is available. Normally when you think about an asphalt driveway—the water runs right off. With pervious concrete, the water runs right through. That is an option that is available today—we have seen it on some of the rezoning applications that have come through—Jerry's Ford, Leesburg Toyota, and some others. We are encouraging that. We don't have to mandate it, because the new regulations encourage this type of development. It is more expensive 13 Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 and when you add construction dollars to a developer, they ask what else can we do—can we buy credits. The state says you can, but there are things that go into that as well. It is a mixed bag—we are encouraging that to the extent that we can. There are challenges. We do not use that on our town construction projects. The soils in the area are not good for permeable pavement—clay does not tend to let water through so it is hard to get the percolation and drainage through the soil. The other part is it drives our maintenance costs up using this in the right of way. It changes the type of materials you can use for ice removal and general maintenance so you don't damage it. Salt or sand will clog the pores. • Doris Kidder: If I am not mistaken, the parking lot at the new Potomac Crossing Park is pervious and is very nice. You should go see it. 2. Additions to Future Council Meetings Council Member Butler: stated she was hoping that tomorrow Council could vote to allow him the option of remotely participating in the Council meeting of May 12. He stated he would also like to explore the idea of mini-traffic circles with staff and then have them generate a memo about the possibility. Council Member Hammier: Asked Council's permission to bring forward a plan for a Youth in Local Government Day in the fall in conjunction with Morven Park's Civics Program for seventh graders since the County does Juniors and Seniors. She added that it would be a nice way to collaborate with them as kids are learning more and more about civic education. She stated she would like to meet with staff and have it added to a work session for discussion. There was consensus to add this to a work session to prepare for a fall event. She further observed that the County has their big feedback sign by Belmont Ridge that states "Drivers, please be aware of pedestrians and bikers" and in big letters right before the Harris Teeter. She suggested a similar sign for the bypass to alert drivers to pedestrians and bikers up and down between Battlefield, Fort Evans and Edwards Ferry. It was suggested that this go before the Standing Residential Traffic Committee because they recommend placement of the feedback signs but there was no consensus as to disposition of this item. She also noted that the minutes have changed and was curious to know why and how those changed. She further noted that she may be interested retroactively changing minutes that were approved in March. It was noted that the minutes are managed by the Clerk according to comments made by Council. The state code only requires a summary of discussion, those present and the results of the votes. Fox: Would like the Hershey's Shake Shop Ribbon Cutting, scheduled for 10 a.m. on May 1 added to the Council's Invitations list. 141Page Council Work Session April 27, 2015 Mr. Dentler noted that the meeting with the School Board and the County Board of Supervisors is the quarterly pre-scheduled meeting between those bodies, but it is scheduled on June 4 at 4 p.m., which is after the directed date of May 30. He asked that Council assign three members to attend. Vice Mayor Burk and Council Members Fox and Hammier were assigned to attend. Council Member Butler stated the purpose of the meeting was to see if moving the skate park to Douglass or another location is a viable alternative and the intention is not to decide, but to find out if there is interest in relocating it. He stated he is assuming that the representatives of Council will be interested in exploring these options. Council Member Dunn stated he would like to have a work session discussion to ensure that Council representatives are representing the majority view of Council. There was consensus to a work session discussion. Staff will provide a lay out of the Douglass site and provide information regarding the discussion points for the June 4 meeting. Ms. Notar apologized for not having a memo regarding the TMDL costs and cost sharing. She stated it will be completed as soon as possible. She noted that Senator Herring sponsored a successful bill that would allow towns to receive any money raised through special tax districts. 3. Adjournment On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Fox, the meeting was adjourned af9:21 p.m. Clerk of Co ncil' 2015 tcwsmin042 15 Page