HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcwsmin1207 Council Work Session December 7, 2015
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen C. Umstattd
presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, Dave Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Suzanne
Fox, Katie Sheldon Hammler, Marty Martinez and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel,
Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of
Parks and Recreation Rich Williams, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry
Hill, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Deputy Director of Capital Projects Tom
Brandon, and Executive Associate I Tara Belote.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Items for Discussion
a. Outdoor Dining on Public Sidewalks
Barbara Notar gave a presentation on allowing dining on public
sidewalks.
Key Points:
• Widened sidewalks in the downtown provide the opportunity for
dining, including the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
• The goal is to streamline the process for restaurants to apply for a
permit for outdoor dining and the service of alcoholic beverages, if they
so choose.
• The use of outdoor dining encroachments, such as tables, chairs, and
umbrellas, will also be codified as part of this amendment.
• Permitting will be performed through the Public Works department,
much the same as other encroachments into the public right of way are
reviewed.
• There must be four feet of pedestrian access between the encroachments
and the curb. There is a vertical clearance requirement of seven feet as
well.
• There are a number of potential areas for service of food and/or
alcoholic beverages on the public sidewalks.
• Consideration for an application fee. Insurance will be required.
• Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulations and requirements will
be followed.
• Black-out dates will need to be considered for events such as Flower
and Garden Festival.
• Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) requirements will be followed.
Council Questions/Comments:
1 1Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
• Burk: In this particular picture, I am a little confused. The picture you
showed before with [inaudible] — so where are you saying the furniture
is going to go—next to the building?
Staff answer: Next to the building in between those white lines. Sony
—no farther than the yellow line.
• Burk: Okay, go back to that other one you just passed because that says
pedestrian traffic is in the middle.
Staff answer: Because of the tree—it is not the trunk. If the tree
extends, there has got to be four feet for access between the door—that
could be a table and chairs—there has to be four feet. Instead of a tree,
if that were a street pole, there has got to be four feet—you measure it
from that. That is what that is trying to depict.
• Dunn: Can you bring up the list of your proposed points? I am not
necessarily saying that I am for this, but to me it seems like there are a
lot of issues on there. It almost looks like we are trying to dissuade
people from applying because there are so many things they would
have to comply with. Insurance policy, I would think that they already
have and that should be something that is already handled by either
zoning or building inspectors. What's the insurance policy for?
Staff answer: They would just have to add the area and they would
have to add the area and they would have to add the town as an
additional insured to their policy and it might cost an additional—it's
probably not that much.
• Dunn: What I would like to find out and through this process is that I
doubt that is going to alleviate the town's responsibility and liability,
even if they insure. So, I don't think that removes us from being liable
if there is issues. A sketch must be provided by locality. To me, a
sketch, a photo, guidelines. Those all seem to be something that is
generally about the same. Can we pick one? I mean a photo and a
description of the furnishings? What do I care what they look like? If I
have gotten a sketch that shows that the furnishings are going to sit
within that area, and how much guideline works do I really care what
the furniture is, barriers? Do I have to have extra signage? I mean we
have got enough signage as it is. Umbrellas? I guess you've already got
other guidelines that says you've got to have 7 foot clearance anyway.
In other words, I just want to see is a piling on of regulations that we
already have. The ABC approval—is that required to be able to serve
beverages outside? Okay. Is health department approval required?
Staff answer: I think so —I know so. Yes.
• Dunn: Health Department approval is required. Okay? All BPOL and
meals taxes— isn't that required already? Just to be in business?
Staff answer: I thought it was a good idea. An additional way to make
sure that they are complying with the taxes.
• Dunn: Okay, it seems to be a little piling on of the regulations to do it.
Like I said, I am generally not in favor of this but if it should go
forward, I don't see the reason for—in essence—if I am not for it, I
21Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
would love everything up there because it is way of making somebody
not want to do it, but I don't play that game. So, you are either going
to be for a regulation or not for it. If you are for it, go ahead and let
people do it. If you are not for it, don't go and hide behind a ton of
regulations to keep them from doing it. Sidewalk clean of debris? I
think that is already in our ordinance that they have got to do that in
front of their property anyway. Does that sound right, zoning folks?
Don't know? They don't have to clean out in front of their properties
currently?
Staff answer: [inaudible]
• Dunn: So, in order to do this, we are going to ask them to keep the
town sidewalk clean because now they are using it? Okay. And when
can they— and again I know this is all about initiating it, but when can
they reapply? If it has been revoked?
Staff answer: That I don't know, but they all seem to be for a year and
they would renew each year. It was an initial fee and there was no fee—
that was over the range of ways to do that.
• Dunn: Okay, so right now, we are trying to get this sent to planning to
pound out the regulations? I would not, me personally—again I can
appreciate the need for an application to use public property. I am not
necessarily for them having alcohol served on public property. I think if
some folks want to have a drink they can have it inside, but if they want
an application to be able to serve regular food and beverage outside, I
can understand the application process, but I think this process that is
up here is onerous and I would not want to send that message to the
planning commission. They may come up with these or even more
when they are done, but I don't want to send this to them saying that
this is what Council wants you to work on.
Staff answer: It may not have to go to the planning commission. These
are in the town code. These are not in the zoning ordinance. There
might be a zoning ordinance regulation that we haven't thought of, but
I don't think right now that it would have to go to the planning
commission.
• Dunn: Okay, so this would be just to tell staff this is a policy that we
would like to see and we want you to start working toward this. I will
let the rest of Council chime in but I would not want staff to put this
much effort towards this.
• Butler: While I am generally in favor of them being able to serve
alcohol on the sidewalks, so one of the issues it sounds like you
resolved is that each business would basically own their own frontage
and I mean own with quotes. That they would decide what happens
with that frontage. The other issue is—I have a little bit of an issue
with the four feet. Because if you have trees and signs and things like
that periodically down the sidewalk if we kept it at four feet strictly that
would be kind of a serpentine stroll down the sidewalk for somebody—
say if all the restaurants on King Street wanted to do that. And some of
31Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
the streets that you listed on your map that have the potential for this,
in my opinion most of them are too skinny to have much outdoor
dining at all. So, I would be more in favor of something like okay four
feet plus whatever the widest obstruction at the curb is. So, like if there
is a tree that is going to cause it to go back four additional feet, then you
would make it eight feet the whole way down the sidewalk so
somebody could at least walk straight down the sidewalk instead of
having to go around these things.
Staff answer: Are you saying you would rather not have the outdoor
dining if it is going to be a serpentine type of walk?
• Butler: Well, what I am saying is that I would take the four feet and
make it four feet plus whatever the largest obstruction is at the curb so
somebody could at least walk straight down the sidewalk without
having to meander in and out and four feet is not a lot of room for
people to pass.
Staff answer: Four feet is the minimum.
• Butler: So, something like eight feet seems to make more sense to me.
Staff answer: If it is eight feet, there is going to be very little room.
You are going to have an ice cream table. The yellow line to the right
to the building is all the space there is to allow for ADA four feet
access.
• Butler: I understand that. The four feet—if you look here where the
curb comes in, I wouldn't have any expectation of outdoor dining there
even though in theory, I guess you could.
Staff answer: So, you would like the town code to say you want more
than four feet if possible.
• Butler: Yeah, because I could see all those restaurants, if they all come
out to the four feet, then we have defeated the purpose of the wider
sidewalks, so having some room for outdoor dining, like Shoes now has
a couple of two person tables—now that makes the sidewalk a little
crowded. They could loosen that up a little bit if their sidewalk were
widened. I mean that's the kind of a thing I think might make a little
bit more sense. So at least something so that the yellow stripe is
straight all the way down the widened portion of the street, the
whatever that distance is, that would make more sense. So you would
have at least four feet without having to weave in and out.
• Dunn: I think we are confusing things a little bit here, Dave. Can I ask
a question? The four feet is the distance from the curb to the yellow
line. The distance from the frontage to the yellow line can vary as long
as we are providing four feet of ADA from the curb to the yellow line.
Okay, so it sounded like we were talking about making it more—like
extending from the frontage—the yellow line pushing it out closer to
the curb.
• Butler: No, I want to move it further away from the curb so that the
yellow line is straight so you don't have to like—
4Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
• Dunn: Well in that picture then, if you are saying that straight line
theoretically—let's just say it comes straight down to the curb, you
would have at that point no ADA accessibility.
• Butler: No,just on the widened portion. Something like that, like the
red line there.
Brandon: That pole, the bumps in the yellow line that you see are for
the future light pole and the tree bed, so if you were going to have
circumvent those with the red line—
• Butler: Right, if somebody is in a wheelchair, they can go straight
down the sidewalk. They don't have to be meandering around tree pits
and signs and everything else just to keep an absolute minimum of four
feet. Also,just general pedestrian traffic on the street, you know, like
during First Friday, it has been great with the wide sidewalk, but I
would hate to turn the sidewalk into a four foot sidewalk and then have
people mashing tables up against it. So, give some room for tables, but
that is not the main purpose of the whole thing.
• Burk: Then I don't know why we are doing this. Why even bother?
Let's just forget about doing that and just let it be a sidewalk then and
not have people—I don't think that the different restaurants were
expecting they would have little ice cream tables out there. I am sure
they were expecting more. So, if that is what we are going to look at
doing, I would suggest that we forget about having outdoor dining all
together.
Staff answer: I will say to that, when Mr. Michael—I can't remember
his last name—he was very excited about the four tables.
• Burk: Right—it has got to be worth their while.
Staff answer: And he thought it was.
• Burk: Right— so to have two little ice cream tables is not worth their
while to put it out and so now we are totally changing...I don't know
what to say I am so flabbergasted. I guess we just have to wait for the
public hearing, but to me this makes no sense anymore if you are going
to—and I understand the idea that you want to make it as handicapped
accessible as possible, but I think moving it eight feet or whatever
makes for a totally different environmental and I'm not sure it is going
to be what the restaurants are looking for.
Staff answer: And they will only get to have a few tables, as you can
see—not a large area.
• Burk: Well, let me think about this.
• Martinez: Well, I am assuming you are hearing our concerns and are
going to do your best to make sure you take that into consideration
with these ordinances and the public hearing. I am very supportive of
this. I think it is something that we need to do and I was hoping that
we would be including Ida Lee. I know that in the past...
Staff answer: This presentation did not include the service of alcohol at
some of our town facilities, which we do already. You are allowed to
51Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
serve and consume alcohol at the rec center, if you have a permit. You
are also allowed to serve and consume alcohol...
• Martinez: I thought that was just beer and wine?
Staff answer: Right, beer and wine.
• Martinez: Well, I wanted to include— okay? One of the reasons I feel
that way—I know I talked with John Wells and in my case, and this
came to light when the owner of the Birkby House was wondering why
we were doing it because we were losing a lot of business for wedding
receptions. I know that we wanted to hold our wedding reception at
Ida Lee, but that was something that stopped us from doing that. It is
not that we are lushes, it is just that others wanted the opportunity to do
that, so that's my only caveat.
Staff answer: I could certainly add that to the initiating resolution
tomorrow night. You can all think about it and decide whether you
want to add that and we can take a look at serving alcohol at other
town facilities.
• Martinez: By a permit basis.
Staff answer: I will add that and you can add that to your
consideration.
• Hammier: I would support moving forward to hear from as many
people as possible so that we can revise accordingly. I would support a
fee for the permit in line with a jurisdiction of our size.
• Fox: The presentation answered a lot of my questions. I was
wondering about a couple of other questions. How is Parks and Rec
involved in this?
Staff answer: Parks and rec because we did talk a little bit about
alcohol at the facility. Right now, under the standard operating
procedure, they do serve alcohol at the Ida Lee Rec center, the Izaak
Walton building, and the tennis facility. So, they were involved in that
and they sometimes are involved in the clean-up of the streets after
events so they were involved in talking about what happens and who
should clean up.
• Fox: There is a few other things that I kind of— as you were talking I
started wondering about. In our packet, in our summary from the staff
it said some of the restaurants actually approached you and wanted this
and you mentioned Wine Kitchen. Which other restaurants were
interested in this?
Staff answer: McDowell, they are widening their sidewalk in front—
they are supposed to be widening their sidewalk in front to serve
alcohol and food. That is all that I know. Marantha may know others.
• Fox: Anybody else on King Street? So, you don't know of anybody
else along King Street who desires this? Because I was just wondering
with the sidewalk, I see some opportunity for some businesses to have
this opportunity, which I don't think is a bad thing, but other businesses
don't. I didn't know if you had any feedback about that.
Staff answer: I do not.
6IPage
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
• Fox: You talked about moving alcohol from one location to another.
How would that be enforced? Would it be enforced?
Staff answer: It would be enforced by the ABC. We would not enforce
that.
• Fox: Okay. I guess my last question would be if we did have some
tables out on the sidewalk and we had pedestrians walk in between the
tables, is that an issue? When the businesses put the tables out, that
means that's the business' turf or is that still town sidewalk?
Staff answer: It is still town sidewalk being used by town business
under permit.
• Fox: Under permit—so they would have exclusive rights to that area?
Staff answer: They would have a limited right to use our sidewalk. It is
not a property right. A permit conveys no property right and that is
why it can be easily revoked if they violate the provisions of the permit.
• Butler: Just one quick clarification. I am not sure if—they have to rope
off the area where they serve it.
Staff answer: With alcohol—yes they do.
• Butler: So, it would be unnatural for a pedestrian to walk in between
the tables. They would have to duck under a rope or something in
order to do that which would be not something that is permitted.
Staff answer: In that situation, yes.
• Mayor: This comes for a vote tomorrow night. I will probably support
it and because it is my last work session, I will resist the urge to say I
told you so, but there is never going to be enough room to have both—
anything other than your ice cream tables and lots of pedestrian
walking room, so it is going to have to be a choice between the two but
since I didn't support widening the sidewalks in the first place, I will
support allowing the restaurants to put their tables there because there
will still be the four feet, but you are not going to be able to
accommodate the moms with their strollers and the two people walking
side by side if you have anything other than these small, two person
café tables. I just think that's the choice the Council will have to make
and some council members will want to ensure that there is a dining
opportunity and others may value the ability to have many people
downtown walking on the sidewalks, but I never thought you could do
twice and it would look like you can't do both at the same time. I'll side
with the restaurants. That's where I will be tomorrow night.
• Dunn: I believe you mentioned MacDowell's, but I believe
MacDowell's had to widen their sidewalk because their current beach is
already encroaching on town property and they are having to increase
the sidewalk for ADA reasons, not for putting tables out there.
Staff answer: That is part of the reason, but no they do—they want
wide sidewalks to have outdoor dining. That is part of the reason why
they have wide sidewalks. Some of that right of way was sidewalk
already and some of it was the beach itself. The widened sidewalk will
allow them to have outdoor dining.
7IPage
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
• Mayor: The only thing I would add, Barbara, I think there was the
ability to of the town to revoke a permit at any time. Do you anticipate
that being with reimbursement to the property owner who paid for the
permit? I think unless they are just leaving a mess all of the time, or
violating whatever ABC regulations or health code regulations, I think
if we were to revoke a permit because we decided we just need more
room for pedestrians, then I think we need to pay back the restaurant
owner or business owner.
Dentler: May I just ask for clarification—I know there is no agreement
with all of the details, but I think there is agreement to move forward to
public hearing, is that correct? So, I can go ahead and place that on
consent for tomorrow night for public hearing. You guys have to deal
with the details.
b. On-Premises Food Service in Convenience Food Stores and Service
Stations
Chris Murphy stated this would amend the zoning ordinance to allow
on-premises food consumption associated with gas stations/convenience
stores.
Key Points:
• Current Zoning Ordinance language was written in the 1990s when gas
stations and convenience stores were separate entities.
• Amendments would bring language up to reflect current practices.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: I think this is good. I appreciate what staff has recommended.
I guess I wonder how the Thai restaurant at Liberty was able to do
what they did at the same location and from a former 7-11 employee for
about three weeks before I went off to college, we had convenience
store and gas stations. It might be different—it is obviously different
here, and that was before the 1990s. Let's put it that way, but I
appreciate this. About how long do you think this will take to go
through the planning process and get back to us.
Staff answer: I don't know—I haven't tried to figure that out. I don't
think it will be a very complicated question. As soon as we get it
scheduled, one or two meetings max at the planning commission. I
don't know when it will be scheduled after it is initiated tomorrow
night.
• Dunn: And it does have to go to the planning commission?
Staff answer: Most definitely. It is an amendment to the zoning
ordinance.
• Butler: I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't want to do this.
Thanks for bringing it forward.
• Burk: So, does this change any requirements on the part of the
convenience store like—I'm trying to think of a convenience store—
81Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
let's say Sheetz on Edwards Ferry Road, if they wanted to do this now.
If they wanted to put in tables.
Staff answer: They can't today, but if we amend the ordinance to do
this, they would be able to, yes.
• Burk: They would be able to— so it is not the matter of square footage
—there is no requirement in regard to square footage, it is just if they
want to they could do it.
Staff answer: They would have to get a permit for it—right—they
would have to amend their permit for it, but yeah, if they wanted to do
that to have on-premises dining we would say they could.
• Burk: So they could and there is no changing in the requirements.
Staff answer: If you amend the ordinance in this way, they would be
able to do that, yes.
• Burk: I'm just trying to figure out—there is no change in the size or
anything of that nature.
Staff answer: I don't foresee there being a limitation on the square foot
area of the convenience store/gas station. I don't know if we are going
to put limitations on— establish a minimum lot size/building size.
• Burk: Would it go under the category of a restaurant at that point?
Would it become gas station/convenience store/restaurant?
Staff answer: The term of art used in the convenience retail world is
called expanded convenience store—I put that term in quotations in the
memo that I gave you. It refers to the type of gas—you've got
convenience retail goods and sit down, buy your sandwich and eat it
there versus buy your sandwich and leave because there is nowhere to
sit inside. And then there is even something beyond that— a hyper
convenience store where you actually have groceries and convenience
store and sit down restaurant. We will examine that—it will address
Sheetz, which is on Edwards Ferry. If they wanted to add indoor
dining, they would be able to.
• Martinez: I really have no other question. I do have a comment.
When are we going to get a Sonic here?
• Fox: I think it is fine to go ahead and initiate the resolution to amend
the zoning ordinance.
c. Downtown Parking
Keith Markel stated the Downtown Parking Taskforce met over the
summer and developed some recommendations which have been discussed.
Some of the recommendations have been implemented.
Key Points:
• Short term parking spaces have been created at either end of King Street
between Loudoun and Market.
• Lighting has been increased near the garage entrances to make it more
inviting.
• End cap parking spaces in the garage were widened.
91Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: I think that if I am looking at this you are looking for some
answers on about seven or eight items, is that correct?
Staff answer: That's correct and a lot of them are interrelated. The task
force recommended that the garage change its function from pricing
making the first floor charged, the second and third levels at no charge
with the assumption that although you would pay a premium to be on
the first level and being business friendly allowing the second and third
levels to be free parking would encourage higher occupancy on the
deck. From our studies that we did last spring we saw that the deck, at
no time for the month of March met its full capacity. The highest we
ever had was after office hours here on First Friday evening. We are
still seeing that. If you are here Friday night, the garage was absolutely
packed solid until 9 o'clock or so. So, we are seeing high utilization at
those peak moments, but throughout the week and most weeknights we
are not seeing that utilization. So, the task force felt that by having free
parking on the second and third levels that would be an added draw.
By doing that, they would also recommend that you have a payment
kiosk system so that there would be a self-serve payment system and
that can actually come in a number of different configurations but each
space would be denoted be it by a number or however that would be
done and then the person would actually get either a ticket coming into
the garage or pay once they are in the garage. Going to a kiosk and
make that payment and then return to the car and put it on the
dashboard paying through an electronic means. That would allow us to
remove the payment booths and the gates—they can be sort of a
distraction and a detractor for folks who weren't familiar with the
garage to use the garage. That was another recommendation that came
through the task force. Then you are looking at with free parking on at
least two levels of the garage, does that mean that the town can do
away with the parking validation program that the downtown
merchants use and the one hour free parking. Because, again we were
offering free parking on the second and third levels. First floor, again
premium, so you would be charging from the moment the person
begins using that space. All of those are interrelated, so you can't really
solve for one without addressing all the issues.
• Dunn: I would,just for time consideration, because we have gone
around about this so many different times that you really just go
through and tally up the yeses and the nos on each item and go forward
from there. But, I think you are right. All of these issues are all
interrelated and it is really going to come down to whether we are going
to have paid parking or not because I don't see how you can manage
two upper levels for free and one lower level paid unless you are having
someone monitoring that payment process on a regular basis, which
would probably negate the fees we are collecting anyway other than
making it a premium. But, we would be basically making no money
101Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
when you consider what it is going to cost for us having somebody
monitoring the driver actually making the payment versus the amount
we have to pay them to actually go and do the monitoring. So,
anyway, I would be for all three levels being paid, having a kiosk either
at the doors— a couple of locations, one on each floor—whatever it
takes to allow people to pay on each level which would also mean that
you can remove the gates. You don't need the attendants then, so they
could be used for parking enforcement, which wouldn't be just for the
garage and I would be for eliminating the town parking validation
program because I haven't heard where that is getting a lot of mileage
out of that anyway unless somebody has some actual stats on that I
would be interested in hearing it and then eliminating the first hour free
which again is a management issue, because I'm not sure how you
would be able to do that using kiosks. So, that's what I would be for
doing. If, however, Council were to want to go with any of the floors
being free, then I would just say you might as well make it all free
because I don't see how you are going to be able to manage that
process. That would then mean that you don't need kiosks. You don't
have to worry about parking on the first or second floor because all
three floors would be free. You wouldn't have to implement a rate
system on the first floor. We could remove the gates. We don't need
the attendants for attending or enforcement. There also wouldn't be
any need for a validation system since everybody would be free and
number 19 would also be negated because it is all free. So, that would
be my view. Either go forward with making the garage costing money,
paying by kiosk. Really getting rid of everything else or making it all
free and get rid of everything else. That's it. Thanks.
• Butler: I would support all seven of the recommendations of the task
force. I have a personal preference for making all three floors free
because then we don't need to spend any money on payment kiosk's or
management of them, but I could be—I would be willing to go for all
seven. I would also like to add an eighth, which I think I am not sure if
we ever came to any conclusion on that, but having a parking app on
your phone for the meters outside of the parking garage, I think that
would be something pretty simple to implement and you know it pays
for itself.
Staff answer: We are researching that right now.
• Butler: Good, because I would like to see that, but other than that I am
good with all of them. If we want to make all three floors free, per
Council Member Dunn, I am fine with that as well.
• Burk: I think we are a little premature here because we don't know
what the county is doing and what the implications of what they hope
to do could brush off on us. So, we could say okay all parking is free
and the county comes back and says we are going to do this garage, it is
going to cost us money. We need you to make sure that you are
charging money—then we have to change the program again. I think
11 ( Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
this discussion is premature until we find out what exactly the county is
doing. What plans they are doing. We just went back with the
validation program. Just reprinted all sorts of stuff to hand out to
people to give out and now we are talking about not doing it. So, I
think we would be making the same mistake if we don't wait and find
out what the county is going to do, we are going to end up getting
stuck, I think. I like a lot of the ideas, but I really think we have to find
out what is happening in regard to this other project that will have a
direct implication to us.
• Martinez: Do you have any idea of when the garage will be built—the
county's? It could be five or six years from now.
Staff answer: Correct.
• Martinez: It will take a few years to get it done. The reason I ask the
question, is I kind of go with Kelly wondering, but I am also thinking
that we need to do something now. I don't think we need to wait for
the county. If five years from now, the county builds a garage and they
want us to charge parking, we can address it then. That's a whole
`nother council. I do want to say...
• Burk: We might have a better idea. Yeah, you're right they may not be
able to build it, but Keith, aren't they going to have some sort of
agreement in place before some point—before too long. I mean before
it is built, we will know what they are expecting, I would assume.
Dentler: At this point, we don't know what the county will do. They
are having discussions, but we don't know where they will land. There
is a new board coming on, as you are aware and we don't know what
that new board will want to do once they become aware of all the
details of what is out there.
• Martinez: I want to thank you and your task force for doing all this
work. I really do appreciate it. I read the report and I really thought
that was well done. So, thank you for that. I agree pretty much on
much of what you are doing. I do, on item#10, that you have listed,
one I don't want to give away the parking so I am not for free parking.
I do think that if you try to manage the first floor or second floor and
third floor, as a mixture of fee and non-fee, it could be a nightmare, so I
would be in favor of just charging everybody. The other question is— I
noticed the only mention about the basement is that you want to
recommend that we keep it as is at$60, and the question I was going to
ask is that the going rate? Does the actual value of the parking need to
be looked at?
Paige Buscema: [inaudible] on the task force and she —her company is
large in downtown Leesburg and rents many spaces. She indicated
because of salaries and payscales in the area that if you went over the
$60 limit, it would become cost prohibitive for both companies and
employees —they pay part and the employees pay part to be able to do
that. So, she was sort of adamant that was a key and it was sort of a
deal breaker if you started edging that up too high.
121Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
• Martinez: I just wanted to make sure you guys looked at it and since
you did, I am perfectly happy with the way it is now. What about the
parking in the basement on the evenings and weekends? I think it is
really funny how I think there are a lot of people that don't know that
they can use the parking evenings and weekends. The last thing I
would talk to is the people that use that garage as overnight parking.
What are we doing to take care of that, or do we really care?
Staff answer: There is not strict enforcement on that.
• Hammler: Thanks to all the task force members and Paige and Gigi,
for coming out this evening. We appreciate all the time and effort you
have been putting in. What was the proposal for how you would
manage the first floor kiosk because that was an answer that was raised
as an issue?
Staff answer: Very much like on-street parking spaces, is how the task
force envisioned it. So, each space on the first level would have a
number. This is just one scenario. Then that number—you would go
to the kiosk and select that number like you would for an onstreet
parking space, make payment for the hour, two hours, three hours
whatever it is that you select. Either that would get logged into the
machine and the person who would be doing enforcement which is the
person who is currently in the booth would be spending more time
walking the streets doing onstreet enforcement would be doing the
garage, the same as they are doing onstreet enforcement. Checking
either the device through a tablet to see who is paid up, what spaces do
not have payments and then validate that a car being in that space.
You can do a more technical sensor system that would probably be cost
prohibitive at the dollar an hour or two dollars an hour that we would
most likely be charging, or you could have it so that you pay at the
kiosk, printed on the slip and put it on the dashboard and that would
have the date stamp and time stamp on it and that would be enforced
because we would just have the enforcement agent checking the slips of
paper as they would on onstreet. Or you could just go very low tech
and just put meters at each one of those spaces and could have them
feed the meter with coins or use an online payment program—like pay
and go or some form or fashion of that. So, there are a number of
different scenarios that would work that would allow us to have
payment on the first level, entry on the second and third. What you
can't have when you have payment on the first, free on the second and
third, is having then a gate that you then exit through because your
person in the booth would obviously have no idea of where that car was
parked for the last several hours. So, you would have to pay in location
and it would have to be enforced in situ the same way we would with
an onstreet space. You won't catch everybody, same way as you don't
catch everybody when you are onstreet. But you make the loop and
you mix up the pattern that you do your enforcement on and you
hopefully create enough of a disincentive that people follow the rules.
13 Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
• Hammier: Appreciate that response. Given the original problem we
were all focusing in on, which is ensuring there is ample short term
spots and that there is turn over for those short term spots, it strikes me
that keeping the first floor short term parking and driving that, no pun
intended, turn over is something that would be a goal of ours. So, I
would support that. Given the fact that we have consistently said there
is ample parking in the garage the incentive for promoting that is of
course saying it is free on the second and third floor, so I would support
that. I appreciate Dave reminding us all that the epayments app is
really important in this day and age. We have, you know, highlighted
examples, like that is what Alexandria uses I think throughout most of
the city. So, would look forward to hearing back on that. And of
course, this isn't on the list, I guess you pretty much know I could put it
on the list and give you my answers here— so payment kiosk, yes, free
parking second and third, yes, implement parking rate for first floor,
yes, remove gates, yes, reallocate attendants to parking enforcement,
yes, eliminate the validation program, yes, and I think by definition
eliminate first hour free because you already have a different solution
for that. The other thing that I do think strategically we need to keep
looking at is hopefully we will have you know, additional amenities,
such as we are going to have drop off zones and ways to really promote
car pooling downtown—you know come downtown and it is easy to
pick up and drop off and easy for that person who is the drop off person
to park. But to that point, we are trying to get more and more people
feet on the street, so thinking about again overflow parking idea as well.
Like on-demand shuttle. Maybe there is a way to certainly as we are
managing peak times on a regular basis—how can we begin with peak
timed ways to tell people—like last Friday night, I don't know how I
personally found a spot in the garage. I was shocked I actually found
one because it was so crowded for the tree lighting, but in situations like
that—First Friday, could we implement a plan for overflow parking so
that there is a shuttle on a regular basis. I would just add that to the list
of things for us to consider. I am happy to give my plan b and c if we
can't get a majority on four votes back to Tom's point and Dave's on
free versus not free.
• Fox: Gigi and Paige, thank you for being here. Quick question—can
you define first floor? I know—is it first floor when you are coming in
at Market Street or Loudoun Street or both?
Staff answer: Both—both levels la and lb. So, they would be the at-
grade levels, but the daylight levels -not the basement. The first level
you come in from either entrance.
• Fox: What makes the most sense to me—what makes the most sense is
what is proposed. The proposal to do the actual payment on the first
floor. I totally understand that for turnover's sake; however, I have
heard an ear full, especially from businesses, especially over the past
few months about parking issues and how it is really tough for
141Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
customers to park, get into the store and go back. So, my preference
would be—I feel like if we have first floor paying for parking we would
have to go ahead and implement the kiosk and have all that
enforcement and all that expense and I feel like we are negating the free
parking. I just feel like it makes no sense if we have parking paid here
and not paid here and then we go to all the expense to change
everything around. It just doesn't make any sense financially in my
mind to do that so if we could find a way to make that financially make
sense, I would be for it; however, listening to what the businesses say
and to —I know that there are some struggling businesses here in town.
I would actually vote for free parking over paid parking on all three
levels if that were the case.
• Burk: I didn't respond to any of the recommendations. I would be in
favor of all of them that were recommended but I also understand we
don't have a cost analysis of what the kiosks are going to cost us and I
think that would be very key to determining if we could make it all free
or not. Because, as Suzanne says, it would end up being a very
expensive cost to put them in. I know Frederick has them in all of their
places, but I don't know how much it cost to put in there so that would
be a key piece of information I would need to have. But I like all of
them. Good job, ladies.
• Dunn: Just because it was brought up, I would not be in favor of
waiting at all for the county. For me, that's a nonissue because we
need to act independent of that. We don't know what's going to
happen there, but to me it is not even an issue of free or cost. It is an
issue of manageable or nonmanageable. I think to try and figure out
how you are going to manage first floor payment system and then the
others being free is going to be very tough. I think that it could have
been done if you put just level la as a pay system and level 2 or lb, the
back side, that's where it goes free. So,just the premium spaces are on
the lower level, but even that I think that again it is about a
management issue. If it really comes down to then what we are trying
to manage to is space turn over, as Katie mentioned, then you can
simply write on the wall downstairs or as they go in 45 minute parking
limit. You can only park here for 45 minutes. You can have your
attendants mark the time that cars come in. They will be able to tell if
that car has been here for more than 45 minutes, it is time for them to
go or they get a ticket and then the garage is just free. You don't need
any of these other issues. You can paint on the wall very inexpensively
45 minute parking only and you manage to that and then you are done.
Because I really feel this mixed process of paying versus nonpaying is
really just setting yourself up for managing or not managing and then
again the additional cost. Then you wonder well why are we doing the
cost if we are going to charge a fee, but the fee is being reduced because
of the cost to administer the fee, then why are you doing the fee? Well,
then it goes back to trying to turn over the parking spaces. Well, then
15 I Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
what are the ways we could turn over parking spaces. You just put up
signs that say you are limited to how long you can spend in those
parking spaces. Whatever that time is, whether it be 15 minutes, 30
minutes, 45 minutes, 2 hours, or you have your attendants go ahead
and manage to that. But that would be my recommendation.
• Mayor: The only comment I would have is if we are only installing the
payment kiosk for first floor parking, as Kelly said, we don't know what
the cost of that is, but that—paying whatever that cost is for a relatively
small percentage of the garage spaces—I don't know whether the price
per space for that kiosk is going to be too high or not. But that would
be my comment—maybe there should be uniformity although I
understand where you are coming from with the recommendation for
the first floor paying and the upper floors free, but this won't be my
decision. I am not going to comment beyond that, but I appreciate
Paige and Gigi.
Paige Buscema: I just want to be really clear that we as a committee,
were not in a position to address funding or how much these things
would cost and we were all across the board unified in the desire to see
the same technology in the garage go across the town for all street
parking. So, when Keith says to you we were looking for it to be
managed like street parking, it means we wanted uniformity across the
whole town so that to the consumer all of this made sense. The other
piece when you talk about directing people and Katie brings up the
need for people to understand—the other piece that everybody was
unanimous on was the desire to have adequate clear signage that is a
critical piece of this so that it directs people to the upside or the more
remote parking regions and that it is free at key times of the day or all
day—whatever the case may be. So, the whole package, as Keith has
said, is critical as a whole. The purpose in the garage was not
necessarily to make money, but to create the turnover that you have
addressed and to understand that the street parking and the street level
parking in the garage is convenience parking so it is a premium parking
just like street parking would be in our minds and by making the upper
levels free, as somebody pointed out, it then encourages people who
don't want to pay to park or want to park longer term to move to the
upper levels of the deck or use more remote regions. We talked about
this outside of even this committee, but the committee was very clear
and concise and pretty cohesive on all of those things, but if you take
one step, you have to take all of them or it doesn't make sense—it starts
to fall apart. I just wanted to clarify for each of you that there are
pieces of this that need to make sense and it all has to be one package.
We may not be able to rip it off like a bandaid because there is
technology expense that goes with it. We were very, very united in the
desire to see as updated technology as possible go across the board
regardless of what we do because we have to sort of get ahead of the
curve. We don't want to keep having to readdress this as we go. So,
161 Page
Council Work Session December 7, 2015
those are my comments from my perspective. Gigi may have
something else.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Council Member Butler: I do have two votes I would like to add on the
second meeting in January— one is a vote on sidewalk widening on North King
Street. There is a proposal put together by Renee for $100,000 to do sidewalk
widening on North King because we haven't addressed that yet. The second thing is
the crosswalk at Battlefield and the bypass, which is necessary for all the reasons we
stated before, plus for the bicycle loop.
Council Member Dunn: Two things, the motion for tomorrow night, Item
#11, I won't be making that tomorrow night. I need to look into a couple of other
things, so I would like to bring that up at one of our January meetings—probably the
first one. It shouldn't take too long.
There was no opposition to remove Item Ila from Tuesday night's agenda.
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the meeting
was adjourned at,&;47 p.m.
\
Clerk of Council)
2015_tcwsmin120'
171Page