Minor Hill Task Force
24 January 2001 Meeting

At the January 24th meeting, about a dozen Williamsburg residents met with seven Arlington County staffers to move forward with the Minor Hill Project – one of two priority projects that Williamsburg intends to submit for funding in the County's spring funding cycle. Ms Nixon, from the Neighborhood Conservation staff, opened the meeting by reviewing the deadlines for the funding cycle. By March 30, the spring funding cycle projects must be "scoped." That is, we must agree on a brief (one paragraph) description of the proposed project, plus a list of items we intend to include; in addition, we must have cost estimates. The price tag should be under $250K. The County Staff will provide the cost estimates.

We next discussed the constraints:

Constraints Associated with Historical Considerations: Michael Leventhal, from Historic Preservation, indicated that (while Minor Hill has a significant Civil war history), it is not yet a historic district. The County staff probably will do a survey of the site sometime over the next year or so.

Constraints Associated with Water Facility: Dave Hundelt, from Public Works, outlined the constraints created by the existence of the four underground water tanks. He noted that the Minor Hill storage tanks store 24 million gallons of drinking water, representing 3/4 of the County's drinking water reserve. The two separate tanks (nearest the pump house) store six million gallons; these tanks are covered with 12"-18" of dirt and grass. The large structure (where the basketball courts used to be located) has a concrete surface and two separate cells of six million gallons each. The existing fences were installed, in part, to protect an above-the-ground structure which has long since been removed. Mr. Hundelt then answered questions from the citizens:

• Are the existing fences necessary for the integrity of the water tanks? Not necessarily. Under certain circumstances, some or all could be removed.
• Can we site a dog park on top of the tanks? No, the land above the tanks cannot be used as a dog park, because ground water can get into the tanks between the joints.
• What is the weight limit for the tanks? There is a weight limit of 100 pounds per square foot.
• Can we locate rest rooms on the site? No, at least not on or near the tanks.
• Could we use the land on top of the tanks for something like a soccer field? Possibly, but the vents would have to be relocated (a very expensive proposition).
• Could we build a picnic pavilion or some other structure on or near the tanks? Possibly.
• What are the constraints on the areas immediately adjacent to the tanks (i.e., the asphalt area between the tanks)? These would have to be maintained in such a way to allow the County maintenance crews to get to the hatches. Also, there is a storm sewer and pipes which should not be disturbed.
• Do you anticipate any other major maintenance projects over the next twenty-five years. No.
• Are there any other major constraints relating to the parts of the property not adjacent to or on the water tanks? No. However, we need to factor in the impact of any use change on vandalism, which has been a problem on this site.
• Can we plant big trees on top of the tanks or in the middle space between them? No. The only acceptable vegetation for the top of the tanks is grass.
• What areas on the Minor Hill property offer most potential for active uses (i.e., a tot lot)? The 10,000-12,000 square feet wedge-shaped parcel on the Powhatan street side, adjacent to the 15 car parking area. There is another wedge on the west side of the property where the old elevated tank used to stand.

Constraints Associated with Park Status: Sharpe Park (according to the Open Space Master Plan) is a natural resource/open space park that is normally used for certain types of uses such as passive uses (hiking, wildlife observation). The main constraint here would be to maintain the tree canopy. Emily Sharp park may also have some constraints associated with the fact that this land was donated; Erik Beach (County Staff) will check on this.

Constraints Associated with the Interests of Near Neighbors: Both citizens and County staff concurred that the interests of the Civic Association and the neighborhood as a whole (i.e., a desire to use the property for some active recreational use, such as a tot lot) must be balanced against the interests of the near neighbors, who are naturally opposed to changes that are detrimental to them (i.e., changes that create parking problems, noise, vandalism). Some of the near neighbors expressed a preference for passive uses.

Opportunities: Among the items mentioned (either in the Williamsburg neighborhood survey or by citizens/County staff at meetings):

• Trail (Nature Trail and/or Exercise Trail)
• Landscaping
• Park Benches
• Picnic Areas
• Parkland
• Tot Playground
• Wildflowers
• Birdhouses
• Small Pond with Fish/Water Lillies
• Butterfly garden.
• Appropriate Lighting.

Strategy: Ms. Nixon suggested two options:

• Use Plan for Minor Hill: Ask NCAC to fund a $30-40K study of long terms uses (active and/or passive) for the Minor Hill/Emily Sharp Park property. The major benefit would be that of obtaining an integrated plan, including a series of projects that would be eligible for different types of funding (not just the very limited Neighborhood Conservation funds). The major disadvantages are that this project would use up one of our "Big Four" projects (projects that get high priority because they are our first four NCAC projects), with no tangible or immediate benefits. The study itself would take 18 to 24 months. Then and only then could we begin to lobby to get some of the planned measures actually funded and implemented.

• Use Plan Combined with Short Term Beautification Measures: This would be a package combining the use plan with some short-term measures, such as installation of a nature/exercise trail system, landscaping, park benches, picnic tables, birdhouses, and other measures. This package project would have the benefit of offering some quicker tangible sign of progress – progress which is critical to show that the excruciatingly slow Neighborhood Conservation plan process (which we began over four years ago) has some kind of tangible payoff in terms of improvements to our community.

Next Steps: Arlington County staffers developed two options for our consideration. We publicized these options on the web site and then held a follow-up meeting of the Minor Hill Task Force on 18 February for neighbors to express their preferences.

Return Home