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