Re: Authorization for the City Manager to execute the appropriate legal documents in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, extinguishing one City of Rockville sanitary sewer easement, and one sanitary sewer/storm drain easement, located on the Wootton Crossing site in the Proposed Lot 15, Block 6, Hungerford parcel as approved under USE Permit No. USE 2004-00681

Since these easements are no longer required as the sanitary sewer line has been abandoned and the sanitary sewer/storm drain easement was never used and is not needed, staff is recommending abandonment. 

Upon motion by Councilmember Hoffmann, duly seconded by Councilmember Robbins, and unanimously passed, the Mayor and Council authorized City Manager Scott Ullery to execute the appropriate legal documents in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, extinguishing one City of Rockville sanitary sewer easement, and one sanitary sewer/storm drain easement, located on the Wootton Crossing site in the Proposed Lot 15, Block 6, Hungerford parcel as approved under USE Permit No. USE 2004-00681

Re: Discussion regarding refuse study pilot to evaluate proposed changes to the refuse and recycling collection services

Mr. Ullery asked Director of Finance Gavin Cohen to explain the financial background of the refuse program in terms of its operation as an enterprise fund.  Mr. Cohen explained that an enterprise fund should operate as if it were a separate business, charging fees that would be commensurate with its expenses.  He said that there are other parts of the City’s government which operate this way, including the water fund, the sewer fund, and Red Gate Golf Course.  Councilmember Robbins asked what the rationale was behind isolating this type of service from the rest of City government, which are part of the general operating budget.  Mr. Cohen said that the types of services covered by enterprise funds are somewhat different for general operations in that they provide a specific service, which can be segregated from other types of services for which a fee can be established based on usage.

The refuse fund is in a crisis now because there have been eight years of losses with costs continuing to go up, resulting in a positive cash flow changing to a negative one.  Mr. Cohen said that something needed to be done to bring costs in line with expenses, including the creation of a reserve fund to cover unexpected expenses.  Mayor Giammo reminded the Council that the reason a crisis has been averted so far is because earlier money had been set aside for a transfer station that had never been built, resulting in a surplus.  It is that surplus which has enabled the City to keep costs down over the last few years, but that the surplus had dwindled.

Mr. Ullery confirmed this and said that the City would be looking at considerable rate increases if something were not done soon to change the trend.  Other reasons for looking at different ways to handle refuse include the wear and tear on the workers which results in lost man-hours and excessive men’s workers’ compensation claims.  A new way of doing things would promote more recycling and extend the life of equipment. 

Councilmember Robbins asked if the workers had been consulted about the upcoming changes.  Director of Public Works Craig Simoneau responded that those in the pilot area had been.  He said that it was important to treat workers well.  Refuse workers have been the subject of some attention because of the high absentee levels and turnover levels.  Mr. Simoneau said the situation is inherently confusing, and somewhat unfair, with some neighborhoods having backyard pick-up while others do not while the rates are the same for all properties.  The current methods also result in too many confusing rules and too much preparation of refuse and recycling by residents. 

Byron Turner, Operations Maintenance Superintendent for the refuse program, showed the Mayor and Council several pictures of typical workers and the types of challenging situations they face every day while picking up refuse.  Mr. Simoneau then described the pilot that would be used in one route in Rockville.  It was pointed out that two members of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Giammo and Councilmember Hoffmann, live in the pilot area so they will be able to comment on the pros and cons as they experience them.  The pilot, which will take place from March to September, would provide for pick up one time per week, with refuse and recycling on the same day. The City would provide large receptacles.  Recycling would be co-mingled with paper and other recyclables in the same bin.

Staff continued with an analysis of the costs between doing nothing and the changes proposed.  The environmental advantages as well as the economic advantages were reiterated.  There will be extensive public outreach with the results of the pilot projected to be discussed with the Mayor and Council sometime in the fall of 2006.  If the pilot is a success, the Mayor and Council could decide to move forward with full implementation.

Councilmember Hoffmann said she was delighted to be part of the pilot.  She asked about the collection of “white” goods and hazardous waste, which Mr. Simoneau said would still require a phone call if they were large.  Mr. Simoneau said that those who were elderly or disabled would just need to call to make special arrangements.

Councilmember Marcuccio asked about how the cost of the pilot would be covered.  The cost for the bins, etc., is estimated to be about $100,000.  If the changes would be implemented, any costs would need to be absorbed with in the enterprise fund.

Councilmember Dorsey asked if there were going to be any changes to the workday.  Mr. Simoneau responded that he did not think that would be the case.  Mr. Dorsey also asked about the cost of replacing bins, which could be very costly if not monitored carefully.  Mr. Dorsey asked what the basic difference between Rockville and other cities seemed to be in terms of refuse.  Mr. Simoneau said, in his experience, he had never seen two times per week pick-up with a backyard component. 

Mr. Dorsey said that it was very important to be sensitive to the human side since the kind of change being contemplated would require a significant cultural shift.  Mr. Simoneau said that citizens would continue to be surveyed so that any issues could be addressed.  Mr. Ullery said that it would be expected that there would be a transition phase with some time needed to work out some inevitable glitches.

Councilmember Robbins said that she had heard from a number of people who are against the proposed change.  She remarked on the detail of the analysis, saying she wished she had had as much information about some other issues.  She said she still thinks that picking up two times per week is preferable, but agreed that backyard pickup is outdated.  Councilmember Robbins said that the service level of refuse pick-up is the type of thing that makes Rockville unique and that sometimes the benefits of the level of service which two pick-ups per week represents is more important than money.  Mayor Giammo said that this type of service is not supported by tax dollars, but many people may decide that they are willing to pay the additional cost to maintain the extra service.

Councilmember Marcuccio said that it was her understanding that the only decision requested this evening of the Mayor and Council was to decide the merits of conducting the pilot, not whether or not to move forward with once or twice per week refuse pick-up since there would be time later to decide on any additional steps.  Mr. Ullery responded that was indeed the case.

Upon motion by Councilmember Hoffmann, duly seconded by Councilmember Robbins and unanimously passed, the Mayor and Council directed staff to proceed with the pilot as recommended by staff.

Re: Discussion and Instructions to staff regarding Planned Residential Development Exploratory Application PRU2005-00022 to construct thirty-six (36) single-family detached homes, rehabilitate and reuse the Little Lodge into one single family dwelling unit, re- construct the Ice House and Stable as accessory structures and rehabilitate and convert the historic Chestnut Lodge building to seven (7) multi-family units, Chestnut Lodge Properties, Inc., Applicant

 By way of introduction, Planner Rebecca Torma summarized the changes to the plan that had been made since the Public Hearing in order to address issues that had been raised including:

• Moving the emergency access road, including the pedestrian path, to the west closer to Bullard’s Park
• Moving one house from the southwest corner of the property to the location where the emergency access is currently located.  This will enable the applicant to reduce the height of the retaining walls that would be behind the homes on Tall Grass Court.  Also, the applicant plans on saving a large black walnut tree located on the southwest corner of the property.
• Lowering two retaining walls behind the homes that back up to the homes on Tall Grass Court from fifteen feet to five feet
• Replacing an out parcel planned for open space with the house that was originally at the southwest corner of the property
• Reversal of the garages on two lots which allows for larger rear lots and the buildings to be located further away from the rear property line and the Rose Hill Mansion.
• Changing the Rose Hill Barn formfrom an accessory structure to use as the garage for the new single-family home in the Chestnut Lodge development with access from the internal road rather than Autumn Wind Way
• Donating the Rose Hill Mansion owners a .20 acre parcel of land instead of the .37 acre parcel and the Rose Hill Barn

Ms. Torma also reviewed public comment since the public hearing highlighting the issues of traffic and stormwater management.  An outstanding issue remains with regard to the possible dedication of open space adjacent to West Montgomery Avenue to the City as parkland. Other outstanding issues include the use of Frieda’s Cottage and the type of curb to be used along Thomas Street.

There was extensive discussion regarding the use of the open space as a possible park. Councilmember Robbins asked if the applicant was obligated to turn the property over to the City.  City Attorney Glasgow said there was some flexibility in how the applicant could meet the requirements for contributing to open space or parkland as required by Rockville’s law.  Director of Parks and Recreation Burt Hall said that it would be most advantageous if the open area could remain that way.  He said that the only other park in the near-by area was Bullard’s Park.  Mr. Hall said he thought it might be difficult for the homeowner’s association to maintain such an area compared to the City’s capability.  It would be a “passive” park with no specific amenities or equipment.

Previously, the applicant, Morty Levine, has stated that the area should be kept as open space, but for private use, not public use.  He has said that the maintenance of the facility should pose no problem and that the people who would be buying the expensive houses on the property would have very high expectations regarding the upkeep of all of the open space and landscaping in the common area.  Mayor Giammo asked how long the applicant had had control over the property and what had been done so far to maintain it.  Mr. Levine replied that it had been in his control since June 2003.  Since that time, the lawn has been mowed and leaves have been removed according to Mr. Hall, but fairly little else has been done to make the area attractive.  Mr. Levine also explained that some routine maintenance had been provided for the trees, but nothing more, since he did not know how the detailed plans would develop. 

Mayor Giammo countered that if Mr. Levine were as concerned about preserving the trees on the property as he said he was, more care would have been taken to preserve them.  Mr. Levine said that in response to some questions posed at the Public Hearing, a document outlining the plans for tree preservation on the property had been delivered to the West End Citizens Association.

Regarding Frieda’s Cottage, Peerless Rockville would oversee the renovation of the cottage but the future homeowners would be responsible for maintaining it.  Peerless has determined that it would not be useful for their own use.  There were also some questions about the location of the emergency access road and its relationship to the adjoining residences as well as the amount of traffic that would be generated by the development.

Other issues mentioned included the capacity of the two stormwater management ponds on the Rose Hill property, which will require some upgrading on the part of the applicant, the amount of parking allocated for residents of the Lodge building that is proposed for condos and the re-use of the Ice House.

Mayor Giammo expressed some concern about the appearance of the grading on the site, especially in the rear of the property.  He suggested that it might be wise to take a first hand look and mentioned that it might be worthwhile to invite the Planning Commission and Peerless Rockville to join the Mayor and Council.

City Attorney Paul Glasgow asked the Mayor and Council if they wished to reopen the record and they responded that they did.  There was more discussion about the location of the sidewalk on Thomas Street.  In order to save some trees, it is proposed to put the sidewalk on one side halfway down the street, then to put the remainder on the other side, resulting in a mid-block crossing.

It was also suggested that the location of the light at West Montgomery Avenue and the entrance to the property where there is an existing light be considered for a red light camera if SHA would approve.

In terms of formal discussion and instructions to staff, discussion began with the issue of the open space and trees at the front of the property.  Concerns were expressed with the possibility that, if the area was not dedicated to the City as a park that the property and the trees might not be well-maintained.  Councilmember Marcuccio said she considered the viewscape from West Montgomery as a “revered” area in the City.  However, she was reluctant for the City to have to take over the cost of maintaining the area as a park.

City Attorney Glasgow suggested that one remedy might be to put a conservation easement on the property, which would enable the City to have some say in how the property could be used with funds put in escrow for maintenance.  A similar method has been used in King Farm.  Councilmember Dorsey said that he, too, was not comfortable with the idea of the City owning the property and thought it might be valuable to give Mr. Levine the opportunity to take care of it the way he was describing once the plan was approved.  Mr. Levine said the value of the property is that it would be maintained as a gateway feature to the community.  Councilmember Robbins said it was a very visible feature which would benefit the entire neighborhood if well-maintained.  Mayor Giammo suggested a possible contract between the City and the HOA to ensure the level of maintenance.  Art Chambers, Director of Community Planning and Development Services responded that staff would develop two or three options for the Mayor and Council’s consideration.

Concerns were expressed about the separation of the Rose Hill Barn from the Rose Hill Mansion and the lack, not of a vehicle connection between Rose Hill and the Chestnut Lodge property, but of pedestrian access.  There were also some more questions directed to staff about the maintenance of the brick sidewalks throughout the development, which will be built by the developer but maintained by the HOA, the height of the garage which would be a maximum of 24 feet, and the calculation of the number of total units based on the inclusion, or not, of Frieda’s Cottage.  Eileen McGuckian said that the cottage should not be considered as one of the residences in the count since it was not a new structure. 

On another issue, Councilmember Hoffmann commended the applicant for the increased attention to the landscape buffer between the development and Thirty Oaks.  The Mayor and Council also expressed satisfaction with the stormwater management plan as proposed.

There was agreement to keep the record open indefinitely.  There was also agreement to have a site visit soon, perhaps on a weekend, after which staff will come back to the Mayor and Council with a draft resolution for approval pursuant to the comments and direction of the Mayor and Council.

Re: Introduction and Adoption of Ordinance granting Zoning Text Amendment Application TXT2005-00216, Revisions to Accessory Structures regulations.

Ordinance No.26-05
 
The Ordinance was introduced by Councilmember Dorsey.  Upon motion by Councilmember Hoffmann, duly seconded by Councilmember Robbins and unanimously passed, the layover period was waived. 

Upon motion by Councilmember Hoffmann, duly seconded by Councilmember Marcuccio, and unanimously passed, Ordinance No. 26-05, granting Zoning Text Amendment Application TXT2005-00216, Revisions to Accessory structures regulations was adopted.

Re: Future Agendas

 While there had not been sufficient time to discuss any issues related to the changes in the Zoning Ordinance this evening due to the prolonged discussion about Chestnut Lodge, Mr. Ullery said it might be necessary to have some additional meetings this winter to address some of the policy issues associated with the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance.

Re: Adjournment

Mayor Giammo remarked about the amount and level of input that the Mayor and Council had received so far about Chestnut Lodge.  There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.