Town Hall
Approved MINUTES
Joint Meeting of the Town Council and the Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plan Review
· CALL TO ORDER : Mayor Leggett: The following Town Council members were present: Mayor Leggett, Vice Mayor Lynch, Jerry Goebel, Claudia Mitchell, Jean Goodine, and Jeff Benson. Council member Alice Butler was absent. Town Attorney John Bennett was present.
The following Planning Commission members were present: Chairman Gary Schwartz, Mitzie Young, Robert Ballard, and Jean Goodine as the Council representative.
Mayor Leggett commented that although the main purpose of the meeting was the Milton Herd presentation the Council first needed to take care of an item of business relating to the Reservoir and then they would go into joint session.
· OLD BUSINESS : WW & ASSOCIATES WATER STORAGE TANK ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE FEE PROPOSAL: Mayor Leggett asked the Council to consider an augmented proposal (attached) from WW & Associates which provided the cost figures of the various elements of engineering assistance that would make up the bidding process. He described the break down of costs as $2,500 for the PER evaluation and $10,000 for bid evaluation for a total cost of $12,500. He said that these were estimated costs and were billable according to the attached rate schedule.
Ms. Mitchell asked if Don Hearl of ESS would be working with WW & Associates on the Reservoir Project.
Mayor Leggett said that was correct.
Ms. Mitchell commented on the $6,000 figure for design revisions being an unknown figure and asked if the Town was going to tell WW & Associates what to engineer or were they going to tell the Town.
Mayor Leggett said that they were going to make recommendations about the bids and that it was necessary for them to evaluation the bids. He asked for a motion to proceed.
Ms. Mitchell made a motion to accept the fee proposal from WW & Associates to continue forward with the water storage tank engineering and to accept the estimated bid of $12,500. Ms. Goodine seconded the motion and a roll call was taken and all council members present voted aye and the motion passed 6-0.
· JOINT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW: Mayor Leggett convened the joint meeting at and handed the meeting over to Planning Commission Chairman Gary Schwartz.
Chairman Schwartz commented that the Planning Commission had started reviewing the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Town every five years and that the Planning Commission had felt that they needed more expertise and had invited Herd Planning to help them go through the process. He said that this was the first of the three prospective public meetings for the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan and the next two would be held on the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings on the fourth Monday of March and April.
He introduced Milton Herd of Herd Planning and Vlad Gavrilovic who would be making up the planning team that would be taking them through the processes for the Comprehensive Plan rewrite and making recommendations for what needed to be done and what they should be looking at for the Town of Washington.
·
He discussed the objectives of the meeting saying they were fluid and changeable based on the Council’s judgment. He said that they would be throwing out some issues to generate dialogue between the Council, the Planning Commission, and the Public and that they would be taking notes of the discussion.
He reviewed the attached agenda saying they would review project purpose, scope, and schedule, identify and discuss key issues and that the planning team would review the major planning tools that were available, present preliminary findings of data and design, and facilitate a discussion to further identify mayor issues, concerns and desires regarding future land use in and around the Town. He said that the agenda also included a review of the next steps.
Mr. Herd discussed that the main project purpose was the review of the Comprehensive Plan and that the Town was not required to rewrite or make changes but to review in order to conform with State Code requirements. He said that the Town needed to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan reflected the needs and desires of the Town and to also ensure that the Comprehensive Plan policies and developmental regulations were consistent with the Town’s growth, management and historic preservation needs.
He discussed that the scope of work centered on the Planning Team preparing initial and final Issues and Options Reports that would be done in a format that would be adoptable as the Comprehensive Plan and that would give the Council maximum flexibility on how they wanted the Comprehensive Plan to be defined. He said that the preparation of these documents for review at public meetings should lead to inclusion of any of the Town’s changes and updates. He said that the reports would assess the current situation in terms of development potential particularly in relation to utility service which had been an issue for some years and was now coming into a culmination. He said the reports would also be looking at the linkage between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He said they would be offering recommendations that would be dependent on the Town’s reaction to where they were and updating and including current data such as data from the 2000 census.
He said that they wanted to affirm what the Town’s preferred future land use and character wanted to be in light of potential development and change facing the Town. To get there he said that it went back not only to regulations but to future potential investments and guidelines for individual property owners and making sure their land was saying what the Town wanted it to say by a guide adopted for public and private actions.
In discussing the schedule of tasks, he said that the first had been to attend that night’s meeting and to collect data which they had started and would continue to do and the data would evaluate existing census numbers and current new development rules. He commented on the second task which was to prepare an initial Issues and Options Report which would include evaluating the existing Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Ordinances; preparing conceptual alternatives for policies and future land development, which included build-out analysis and several alternative future land use scenarios; and preparing an initial report and submitting it to the Town. He said that would lead to task three, conducting the second Public meeting where they would share, discuss, and test out the report without any recommendations or conclusions only analysis and that this meetings results would lead to task four and the preparation of a final Issues and Options Report which would be presented at the third meeting on April 25 and from the reaction to that they would get findings for the final report.
Mr. Herd then discussed growth factors facing the Town. He said that the national economy was driving the growth pressures in Northern Virginia as well as regional job growth, rising incomes, and increasing housing costs to the East and that the was part of the reason the Town would probably continue to experience pressure in terms of development and that the Town’s reaction to that was critical. He also discussed increased mobility from motor vehicles and telecommuting which had their good points but also allowed people to move further away, and that the quality of life in the Town and County was an attraction, and that they were all pressures for growth including utility capacity.
He then discussed some key planning tools that were available including Traditional Neighborhood Design which included qualities of human scale design and pedestrian friendly design through the whole development. He said it was difficult because the tendency was to design for motor vehicles instead of people and that from a regulatory stand point many communities were using rules based on traditional based concepts to get a community like
He discussed urban growth boundaries and that the Town had its corporate limits and the utilities service area, which were probably similar, which would define what was to be rural and what would be urban. He said that other tools would be zoning regulations and rules, and Historic Districts. He said that some tools that could be used focused on the County such as controlling access to the community, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, and conservation easements.
Mr. Herd then discussed some key planning data saying that the Town’s population had declined from 1990 at 198 to 183 in 2000, the number of dwellings in 2000 were 117 with 88 occupied and the number of people per occupied unit was 2.1 according to the U.S .Census. He said that the public water supply served the entire Town and several adjacent properties and that the PER for the sewage treatment plant reported a peak month average water usage at 43,000 gallons per day and that the planned wastewater treatment plant was being designed for 60,000 gallons a day and that was an issue. He said that he noticed that the design was no longer considering service outside the Town which would have also been an issue. He said other issues included whether the plant was located in or out of Town and whether it discharged into the
He asked how did the utility capacity compare to the existing zoning capacity and how much development would the existing zoning allow in theory. He said they would do a build-out analysis to determine an estimate and present and discuss it at the next meeting. He said that the likelihood of maximizing out the zoning was very low but it was good to understand the situation and it would allow the Council to make good choices.
He discussed the existing zoning map saying it had several zones with in general half acre lots except for Rural which had a 1.5 acre lot size.
He raised several other key issues including: should the water customers outside the Town receive wastewater service; which wastewater treatment method should be used for the new plant; and what should be the Town’s plans and expectations for any future expansion of the wastewater treatment capacity. He also asked what should the policies and regulations be for in-fill development, what should the zoning and subdivision rules be for structures and streets, and what should the policies and rules be for future commercial uses. He asked what was the vision for the future of the Town of Washington for twenty to twenty-five years in the future and, how did they describe what it would be, and how did they want it look and function and what would its character be. He said they should look at it in two ways: how did they want it look for themselves and how should it be as the count seat and what was the Town’s role and obligation.
He discussed the previous vision statement that he had helped the Town develop and said that it was in general very conservative and reflected a willingness to accept some change in development but it was very limited and gradual and he wanted to hear more on that from them.
He them turned over the presentation to Mr. Gavilovic who made a power point presentation. He began by saying they would be looking at a softer issue then zoning but a critical one which was the design and character of the Town. He showed several slides which he said showed the elements of a sense of place including form, scaling, massing of the buildings, type of roads, the edges of the Town, the rural context of the Town, and the gateways of the Town.
He discussed that the biggest determinant of the Town was the original over two hundred year old survey from Washington which was still remarkably intact and that the platting of the streets and some of the original half acre lots were still evident in the Town plan and that was the biggest mandate to keep to the natural Town form. His discussed that two tributaries of the
He discussed that some of the characteristics about scale that made a sense of place and traditional character were the scale of buildings which were consistent from the larger buildings like the Court House to some of the smaller buildings like the County office buildings and that there were no large buildings that broke up the human scale. He mentioned that some building forms like gable ends and roof lines were repeated in both larger and smaller buildings and there was harmony and consistency in massing.
He discussed the roads saying that Main St. and Gay St. were very similar in character except that as Main St. extended out into the county side it gave a transition from the urban core and that the side streets were casual with one or two houses on each side street and tending to have side and backyards rather then front yards with no side walks with the topography heading out into open space. He spoke of
Mr. Herd asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
Mr. Randy Greehan, a property owner in town, spoke against the Town extending the sewer outside of town and commented that it could be brought in without affecting the density. He said that the Town could use the Zoning Ordinance to affect the densities it wanted. He said he was representing Loudoun as a lawyer in over 200 land use cases and he advised the Council to stick to their guns and protect the environment, atmosphere, and historic significance of the town and offered to help the Town if he could.
Mr. Jimmy Jenkins, Fairfax County’s Director of Public Works, speaking for his mother, a property owner outside of town, spoke against the 60,000 gallon a day design of the proposed treatment plant, saying it was designed for future growth which he said could be restricted with a land application system which would confine expansion of the system much more readily and prevent future development. He commented that if Town was addressing health issues they could restrict the capacity of the Treatment Plant to serve only the failing systems in the Town and design it for 50,000 gallons a day and not allow for future growth.
Mr. Lynch asked if he was saying that through the design of the treatment system the Town could deny people who have vacant lots in the Town the future use of them.
Mr. Jenkins said that in
Mr. Greehan said he would provide Chairman Schwartz with a copy of the ruling.
Mr. Herd said that although the Town may or may not want to do that it was good to know that the Town would have that authority.
Mr. Lynch said that he would love to see a copy of the ruling.
Ms. Diane Bruce expressed her concerns that if all the existing houses were occupied the Town would exceed the 43,000 gallons a day usage.
Mr. Herd discussed that there were months in the study that were 25-35,000 average gallons per day and that was something they would have to look at and make sure the Town was comfortable with the number being used to decide the capacity that would be made available. He said that ultimately the number would not give the answer but would give the framework to make the policy changes in a rational way.
Chairman Schwartz said that he wanted to mention the importance of tying the Comprehensive Plan with the Zoning Ordinance and using that to solidify any growth issues as they moved forward such as growth as a function of sewage capacity and that needed to be zoned and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and legally supported through the state.
Mr. Herd said that Mr. Schwartz was right and that the Comprehensive Plan was the fundamental planning document described and required by Code and everything stemmed from that and everything should be tied to it. He said that the zoning rules and revisiting efforts should be based on all the policies and procedures of the Comprehensive Plan and that was what gave it the power and the authority in terms of the Town to operate under the powers of the state.
Mr. Greehan commented that according to the VA Code the Comprehensive Plan determined where utilities were to go and how big they were supposed to be and not just sewer and water but any public utilities and facilities and if it was not in the Comprehensive Plan an argument could be made that it could not be put in and at the same time if it was in there that it was designed for a capacity of 150,000 gallons per day and someone would say that based upon the figure in the plan there needed to be more development.
Chairman Schwartz commented that the disconnect between the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and the vision was where jurisdictions got into trouble.
Mr. Herd said it was very typical for localities to over zone and they would write a Zoning District and map an area without figuring if that was needed and ended up giving away a lot more zoning then they needed to or should have in terms of what they wanted to become. He said that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map were totally different documents but they needed to be related and although that was particularly hard for large jurisdictions the Town had an advantage as it was small and well defined and should be able to get close to it. However, he said, there was the inherent uncertainties about land use and peoples intentions and the Town’s own struggles with the trade-offs and choices and they were not easy.
Mr. John Bennett asked about the development in the last few years of jurisdictions using the availability of special use permits to regulate higher density or intensive development.
Mr. Greehan said that the response was moderate but that some jurisdictions were taking what were allowed by right uses and turning them over for use by special use or special exception permits subject to VA Code and that it had to go through the Planning Commission and Council to approve it to get the same use that was once allowed by right. He said that the problem was that if it were given to one person then you would need a good reason not to give it to another.
Mr. Bennett asked about the process in light of the General Assembly passing legislation specifically aimed at offering counties the special use approach.
Mr. Greehan said that it was mainly offered to counties for agricultural use through use by special permit. He commented that the General Assembly was very much influenced by the development and real estate people and he had heard that they were not friendly to local governments but as of right then localities still had the power to use the special use permit as a tool to decide what uses have an impact based on Zoning District and give only the special uses with the approval and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the approval of the governing body. He indicated that there had to be reasons for the denial or approval based upon the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Herd said that he had learned a simple concept that you always had to have a reason for whatever decision you were recommending and for local government half the battle was to have a rational basis.
Mr. Bennett asked if as part of the Comprehensive Plan review and amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances was it possible for the Town to in effect lower the theoretical density of the existing Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Herd said yes and again the process had to be very rational and reasonable but there was no reason it could not be done if that was an outcome of the process.
Ms. Mitchell asked about the relationship between the Town’s and the County’s Comprehensive Plans.
Chairman Schwartz commented that there could be a relationship with the Comprehensive Plans in that the town could have some level of say, influence, or want in what the County did as far as the interests of the Town but that it was the Town’s requirement here to get something to the County and even though the County had its own Zoning and Comprehensive Plan that did not mean that they could not amend it.
Mr. Herd commented that it was never too late and that it was an ongoing process and the County could react to this process.
Ms. Mitchell asked about the lawsuits Mr. Greehan was defending and if they were brought by people saying that the right to develop their land had been taken away because when they bought it they could develop but now were told they could not.
Mr. Greehan discussed how they were mainly challenges regarding land once zoned high density and were now being rezoned for lower density.
Ms. Mitchell expressed her concerns about the Town not be able to afford numerous lawsuits because of the changes they wanted to make.
Mr. Greehan discussed that many land suits had resulted from down zoning and that this might be a good time to discuss with large landowners what they really wanted and also to consider the possibility of conservation easements.
Mr. Herd passed out a Vision Worksheet (attached) and asked everyone to fill them out and he reviewed the questions: 1) What places or features in and around Town do you most treasure. 2) What places or features in and around Town should stay the same (be protected and preserved). 3) What places or features in and around Town should be changed (removed, altered, developed, or exploited). 4) 25 years from now, what should the Town look like and how would they describe the feel, function, and character of what the Town should look like.
There was a very lengthy discussion of the Vision Worksheet with some of the following of the highlights:
Ms. Goodine said she treasured the witness stones that reflected the original survey.
Ms. Mitchell discussed that she treasured Avon Hall, the view of the Middleton Inn,
Mr. Benson said he treasured the open views in the Town, the uniqueness of the Town’s homes, and that there was no cookie cutter development.
Chairman Schwartz said he treasured the Post Office Building and the features that brought people together so they could meet their neighbors and provided that small town feel.
Mr. Greehan commented that he wanted to see the Town have green meeting places as well as open spaces.
Mr. Herd said that one of the things about the original plan was that there did not seem to be a town green.
Ms. Bruce expressed that she wanted to preserve the yards and green spaces between the houses.
Mr. Benson commented that he wanted to preserve the historic nature of the Town.
Mr. Herd raised the question of how much could the town architecturally change and still preserve the historic character.
Ms. Mitchell commented on how twenty years ago buildings had been torn down and replaced with one story structures when people had not looking particularly at historic preservation and after awhile the new buildings had become contributing structures and people had become use to them and they no longer seemed out of place. She discussed that it was difficult to integrate things like plastic and fake buildings into the fabric of the Town.
Mr. Herd asked if the Town expected to see occasional new buildings or additions over the course of time or was that a scary notion.
Ms. Mitchell discussed that some of the open spaces along
Mr. Herd said that was a huge question and asked everyone their reaction to that and how much change did they want to see. He commented that the prior vision had wanted change to be very slow and sensitive and was that what the Town wanted now or did they want to be as aggressively unchangeable as possible or was it being more open just making sure the architecture and design was consistent with the Historic District.
Mr. Goebel commented on how the Town had changed since the bank had left and that there seemed to be less hustle and bustle.
Mayor Leggett discussed that one of the things he would like to see changed was that no more buildings such as those built on
Mr. Herd brought up the issue of preserving the commercial vitality of the Town and the loss of the bank and the hustle and bustle and asked if they wanted to bring that back.
Mayor Leggett said his personal opinion was that they should have enough economic life in Town that people could walk around and go to different stores. He said that when the Town lost the bank it had taken away a lot and it needed to be replaced by something that was useful to locals otherwise the Town would become something like a boutique with real estate offices, antique stores, and a few restaurants.
Mr. Herd asked how much desire was there for the Town to become more a “real” town as opposed to a sort of preserved boutique type place. He said that neither was wrong necessarily but how much sentiment was there to grab onto additional vitality in the modern activity sense assuming that they were talking about compatible architecture. He asked if people were concerned that would be too much with traffic and parking concerns.
Mr. Greehan expressed his desire to see more professional offices such as lawyers’ offices along
Ms. Goodine said that she would like to see more services and that the Town had lost the Cash store which was like a hardware/general store and now days if someone wanted to buy something they had to drive but there was no place in Town for the little things where you could just walk to.
Mr. Herd said that was another huge challenge.
Chairman Schwartz said he would like to see revitalization as a balance between the services for the local community as well as the addition of commercial interplay that was supportive of the influx of tourists who were coming to Town to see the preserved Historic District. He said that the Town needed a little bit of growth for both the locals folks and for tourism.
Mr. Herd discussed that with increased commercial vitality there would come some intensity and that would be a tough trade-off with more parking and more populations and they would be real challenges.
Mr. Jenkins said that given the number of business that had closed and the number of existing places that a number of places could open up and still nothing would change.
Ms. Bruce discussed the high turn over rate of business in Town.
Mayor Leggett commented that the Theatre was very important to the life to the Town and County.
Ms. Mitchell talked about the decline in the number of walking around tourists and how there was no place for people to go and also expressed her concern of losing the Post Office and the Town becoming a dead town.
Mr. Herd said that Waterford was a Town with two or three commercial enterprises and people loved it that way and no one wanted it to change and compared it to Middleburg which had a huge commercial enterprise and they like it that way and they were like the two edges with the Town of Washington somewhere in between and the questions was where the Town moved.
Ms. Virginia Settle, a long time County resident outside of Town, spoke against growth and commented on the rapid growth east of the County and the traffic and sprawl that had resulted.
Ms. Mitchell discussed that no one on the Council was from the Town but had all moved here because they loved it here and they wanted it to stay beautiful but that there had to be some vitality but no one to fill up the spaces with commercial spaces and buildings. She said that Ms. Shepherd was doing a design book so that anything that was built would look as it should. She said that she did not want any growth at all but there had to be some services for people at some level and discussed how she liked to go to Sunnyside and buy a sandwich and coffee and have the opportunity to meet her neighbors.
There was a discussion of the declining census figures in the Town.
Ms. Young discussed that the B&Bs brought the population figures down since there were less people living in the larger houses.
Mr. Jenkins commented that in 1967 that the population figures were just about 200 people.
Ms. Mitchell said that the census had once included people from the jail in the population figures.
Mr. Herd asked what phrases and terms would use to describe how they wanted the Town to look in 25 years.
Mr. Jenkins commented that although not a resident he had spent his childhood here and the beauty of the Town to him was that after fifty years the character and feel was the same and if they wanted economic vitality they would need to be careful how they planned it because once they started down that road it would be hard to stop.
Mr. Bennett spoke about the economic experience of St. Michaels where they had wanted to attract more businesses but now it had gotten away from them and they had attracted too much and the residents were dissatisfied with it and compared it to
Mr. Benson discussed that the Council needed to make the right decisions now regarding the wastewater system in order that it did not need to be redone in twenty years. He said he would like to see the Town pretty much the same but he was not against growth but was for smart growth and that the Council needed to be looking at the issues such as the wastewater system and upgrading the Reservoir now for the future even though in twenty years this Council would be gone.
Ms. Mitchell discussed that the Town in all its history had never been under the pressure it was now that it was preparing to put the sewer system on board and that the Town was inexperienced in this and had hired professionals in every single area so that they would have the information they would need to make the right decisions. She said that the Town had to have a sewer system but no one wanted to ruin the Town or have it said in twenty-five years that the 2005 Town Council had ruined the Town.
Mr. Herd commented what the Town was going through in regards to it’s failing septic systems was something that many towns went through and they should be able to manage it if they did it right.
Chairman Schwartz discussed how he never wanted to leave Town for a vacation as he felt like he was on vacation living here and that he hoped twenty-five years from now he could feel the same way.
Mr. Benson expressed his concern over parking issues if the Town was to grow some.
Mr. Gavrilovic discussed how in the Plains they were limiting growth by having on site parking and so ended up with smaller buildings.
Mr. Herd discussed that parking was an issue because when George Washington laid out the Town there were no cars and that with the density of the historical fabric of a town such as Washington it was difficult to accommodate that but it could be done with the occasional lot, street parking, and suffering a little bit.
Mr. Benson commented that the Town was a walking town but when there was an event in Town there was a need for greater parking.
Mr. Goebel spoke about the need for more parking when the Court was in session.
Mr. Herd said that some towns fostered peripheral sites where visitors could park and walk in and said that they would run the numbers and apply them to the alternatives to see what the needs were.
Ms. Mitchell commented that one of the things she would like to see changed was to have all the overhead utilities buried underground and to have something done about all the large land moving equipment and large trucks which could be seen parked around Town and seemed out of scale.
Mr. Herd collected the Vision Worksheets and said they would be summarizing them.
Ms. Bruce expressed that she would like the Town to explore the possibility of some of the Town’s Rural Residential properties being considered for conservation easements or tax-credit type land. She also expressed her concerns that the Town should limit the access to the Town.
Mr. Herd asked if anyone had any further questions, comments, or concerns that they contact him.
· ADJOURNMENT : There being no other business to discuss Chairman Schwartz adjourned the meeting adjourned at
JOINT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
Respectfully submitted,
Eugene S. Leggett
WW & Associates Water Storage Tank Engineering Assistance Fee Proposal
Milton Herd Planning Comprehensive Plan Update Agenda for
Milton Herd Planning Visioning Worksheet