Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986_05_28 212 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN r0UNCIL, MAY 28, 1986 A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, SW, Leesburg, Virginia on May 28, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor with the invocation given by Mr. Tolbert and followed with the Salute to the Flag led by Councilman Bos. Present were Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers Charles Bos, Arl Curry, Brian Kelley, Jerry Pelkey, John Tolbert, Jr., and Charles Williams. Staff members present were Town Manager, Jeffrey Minor, Assistant Town Manager, Steve Owen, Director of Planning, Zoning and Development, Martha Mason-Semmes, Director of Engineering and Public Works, Tom Mason, Town Attorney, George Martin and Deputy Town Attorney, Deborah Welsh. On a motion by Charles Williams and seconded by John Tolbert it was recommended that Item 10C, an Ordinance amending the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding additional residential density in the Old and Historic District, be referred to the next Finance and Administration Committee meeting scheduled for June 3, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None On a motion by Charles Williams and seconded by John Tolbert it was recommended that the minutes of the special meeting of May 21, 1986 be approved as submitted. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None PETITIONERS Chip Groff, a Leesburg resident and manager of White's Department Store, addressed Council as president of the Downtown Business Association. He referenced a letter sent to Mr. Minor regarding the downtown municipal center and parking complex. As members of the business community, the Downtown Business Association endorses this project. Chuck Thornton, Chairman of the Retail Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, also gave an endorsement for the downtown municipal center and parking complex. He stated that the physical location of the police office in the new complex would definitely deter the fear of crime in the parking complex. The major concern is the appearance of the structure, but he feels that the staff will be sensitive to this and assure that it will be aesthetically pleasing to the downtown landscape. Frank Raflo commented on the compromise reached between the town and the county on the Xerox agreement. He felt there was a positive step toward working on a mutual settlement. Next he went on to make comments on the parking complex and municipal center. Noting that tourism in the Loudoun County and Leesburg area is sure to grow each year, parking will be a crucial issue. He had some concerns about project figures on profit from the garage, but feels they will work themselves out. He urged that general obligation bonds be used, but cautioned that with the combination of the county bonds, the bond co-panies look at the overall picture of the tax payers debt, not just the local picture. He urged that the town stay away from revenue bonds, and was not enthusiastic about a parking authority. He urged the town finance and run everything themselves. Mr. Raflo also endorsed this project. The Mayor thanked the citizens for their support of the Downtown Parking/Municipal Center report and the project in general. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 213 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1986-1987 BUDGET Jeff Minor reminded the Council that they had received the prelim- inary budget in April and also mentioned to the general public that copies are available at the town office for their review. The Cornwall Street storm drainage project was approved in the CIP. An expenditure of $70,000 is represented in this project to correct sidewalk and inlets, curb and drainage problems. Mr. Bos asked Mr. Minor to state last year's tax rate and this year's proposed tax rate. Mr. Minor responded that the tax rate remains the same at $.18, but there is an increase in effect because of the reassessments effective this year. Fred Flemming, a Cornwall Street resident, spoke about the serious drainage problem on the north side of Cornwall Street. He had written a letter supporting a remedy to this problem. He asked that the Cornwall VJ Street project be considered in this year's budget, rather than the N following year. N UJ Fred Williams, the resident at 206 Cornwall Street, lived in the CCI house that flooded continuously during rainstorms. He was very pleased that the town is considering the storm drainage project in this area. He suggested that some of the sidewalk does not need rehabilitating at this time and that maybe the monies that were to be used to repair it could be put into further storm drainage improvements. He also mentioned a vandalism problem on Wirt Street. They must now park their cars in the street, and he suggested that possibly ramps over the sidewalk so that they may construct driveways would be a solution. Fred Hetzel, another Cornwall Street resident, urged that this pro- ject be included in this upcoming fiscal year's budget. He went on to mention that the construction could be potentially damaging to some of the older structures and that care must be taken. Charles Smith, President of the Virginia Knolls Homeowners Associa- tion, spoke on stormwater drainage also. He was referring to the Virginia Knolls area and the many problems they have been experiencing. He is concerned about the Tuscarora Creek floodplain in that area. The FEMA reports that he has reviewed were in serious error, in his opinion. The channelization that was done will not cure the problem and much more must be done to correct the problem. This is a critical problem and the costs of storm drainage projects will run very high. The proper amounts must be budgeted. He went on to support the parking garage concept, . hoping that the building will be kept within the general architecture of the downtown area. With regard to the effective tax increase, it seems somewhat high to him, but if the town is responsive and services are good, then it would be worth it. He supports expansion of the police department, and went on to laud the general services that the town provides such as garbage co'lection and the police protection. Mel Converse, a resident of the south side of Cornwall Street, addressed the sidewalk issue in that area. He does not experience a drainage problem because of extensive reconfiguration of his yard area, but does support the project. He is concerned about the sidewalk on the other side of the street because of the large trees and the yard area that would have to be sacrificed. The concern in the area should be more drainage related and less sidewalk replacement related. Mr. Minor interjected that a sidewalk on the south side of Cornwall Street has not been planned, but he could not expand on the storm drainage project because the design had not yet been done. He feels that the problems being experienced in the area can be solved by the proper drainage design on public lands in the area. 214 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING Stanley Caulkins, reiterated on the comments made by Mr. Smith on the storm drainage problems. He also stated that until the town can make large monetary commitments to projects of this nature, the problem will remain. The main reference was the Tuscarora Creek runoff. This creates a large volume of water and with the increasing co^struction in town, the problem will only increase. Because of the nature of the soil in the area and the basin that Leesburg sits in, this will be a continuing problem that needs to be addressed. Since there were no other members of the public who wished to address the subject of the budget, the public hearing was closed at this time and referred to Council level for discussion. • The budget will be further reviewed by the Council at the next budget workshop session scheduled for June 10, 1986. At this point there was a five minute recess in the Council meeting. The meeting was called back to order by the Mayor. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Bos gave a report on the Board of Architectural Review meetings of the past few weeks. The former Hatcher's Building plans were turned down by the Board. The owner will be appealing this decision to the Council. Mr. Bos went on to comment on the Memorial Day Services that he had attended which were officiated by Mr. Kelley. He thought they were very nice. Mr. Williams brought several items to Council's attention. First the Xerox agreement was a beneficial one to both the town and the county and he was pleased with the cooperation shown by both parties. Secondly, the Environmental Advisory Commission met last evening at Market Station to tour the project and be apprised of the development process in that area of town. Today the Heart Fund had its cardiac "arrest" segment at Market Station. This was a fund raiser that "arrested" leading citizens of the town for "bail money". Lastly, he also commented on the Memorial Day services and commended Councilman Kelley and the VFW for a fine program. Mr. Pelkey commended the professionalism demonstrated by the town's lawyers in arriving at the Xerox agreement. This was his first experience in this type of agreement and he felt that it went very well. Mr. Curry attended the Planning Commission meeting of May 15 at which the Commission approved the final plat for Rock Spring Subdivision, Phase I, the preliminary plat for Memorial Place Subdivision, recommended for Council approval ZM-75, C. J. Payne, and recommended to Council the proposed zoning ordinance amendments regarding density in the Old and Historic District. Mr. Curry went on the address some zoning ordinance issues. For two years the town has been working with two zoning ordinances, one for the annexed area and one for the old part of town. He thinks it is time to set a deadline for completion of a combined zoning ordinance so that one document may be used. He would like this issue to be brought up at the Finance and Administration Committee meeting and felt that 30-days would be sufficient time to complete this project. Mr. Kelley thanked Jeff Minor and the police department for their support of the Memorial Day ceremonies. He also complimented Steve Owen and Jeff Minor on the letter they compiled to the Governor regarding the State Certification Process. Mr. Tolbert attended the Airport Commission meeting last Thursday and reported that it was/ stormy session. He also stated that the Activity Report highlights the progress on the airport project. MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Minor made a brief comment about the zoning ordinance. On the agenda for Monday and Tuesday, there will be two divisions of the zoning MINUTES OF THE MsY 28, 1986 MEETING 215 ordinance for Council review, one on landscaping and one on parking. Mark Nelis is working on revising the ordinance, along with Tom Poupard. In terms of the municipal government center and parking complex, the concept percolated around town for many years. There is no one author of the concept but a culmination of the concepts of many. What staff tried to I do was to provide this concept as an alternative to an ever increasing problem. I Pulte Homes has donated $52,629 for landscaping and planting material for the new park, along with Phase I of the trail system. Proposals for the 643 waterline project are being received. The deadline for these proposals is this Friday. The agreements with Richlynn, the County and Brownell, Inc. are being executed. Bids will be opened for the Catoctin Circle/Harrison Street traffic T signal tomorrow. Hopefully this will be on the next Council agenda. CD Comment was made on how well the availability fee connection account is N doing. What was projected as a deficit account for the next few years has N turned into a profitable account making funds available for many new W utility projects. QLEGISLATION On a motion by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Mr. Williams, the following 1 ordinances and resolutions were proposed as consent items and adopted: I 86-0-23 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTIONS 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 6-2, 8-1, 8-2, AND 15-1 OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the general and community business zoning districts permit the construction of dwelling units by right; and 1 WHEREAS, this Council has recognized conflicts between business and residential land uses; and WHEREAS, larger setbacks and screening are required to buffer these incompatible uses and control the location of dwellings in business districts; and WHEREAS, the revision of these zoning district regulations is an objective of the Town Plan; and I WHEREAS, the Council and Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on October 9, 1985, and the Planning Commission recommended these amendments to the Council on March 6, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held an additional public hearing concerning these amendments on May 14, 1986; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the policies of the Town Plan and are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The use regulations within the B-1, Community Business District, as they relate to single-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings are hereby modified by amending Sections 5-1, 5-2.1 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows: Section 5-1 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES 5-1-1 All "R-1" and "R-2" Residential District permitted uses, except single-family and two-family dwellings which Are a per- mitted use only within the H-1 Historic Overlay District. 216 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 5-1-2 (No Change) 5-1-3 Hotels, Motels, and tourist homes 5-1-4 (No Change) 5-2.1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION (No Change) 5-2.1 (b) Multi-family dwellings meeting the standards provided in Section 8-2-11-11A of this ordinance. 5-2.1 (c) Single-family attached and detached dwellings and two- family dwellings meeting the standards provided in Section 8-2-11-11B of this ordinance. SECTION II. The use regulations within the B-2, General Business District, as they relate to single-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings are hereby modified by amending Sections 6-1 and 6-2.1 as follows: Section 6-1 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES 6-1-1 All "B-1" Business District permitted uses, except single- family and two-family dwellings which are a permitted use only within the H-1 Historic Overlay District. 6-1-2 (No Change) Sec. 6-2.1 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (No Change) 6-2.1 (b) Multi-family dwellings meeting the standards provided in Section 8-2-11-11A of this ordinance. 6-2.1 (c) Single-family attached and detached dwellings and two- family dwellings meeting the standards provided in Sec. 8-2-11-11B of this ordinance. SECTION III. The size and dimension standards for the B-1 Community Business District, as they relate to dwellings, are hereby modified by amending Section 8-1-2 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows: Section 6-1-2. In the B-1 Community Business District: (a) Zoning lots shall be at least 8,000 square feet in land area for detached dwellings. and 10,000 square feet in land area for each two-family attached dwelling. (b) (c) (d) (e) (No Change) (f) Rear yards shall be at least 20 feet deep for residences and 15 feet for all buildings on lots abutting an existing residential use or "R" district. SECTION IV. The size and dimension standards for the B-2 General Business District, as they relate to dwellings are hereby modified by amending Section 8-1-3 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows: Section 8-1-3. In the B-2 General Business District: (a) Zoning lots shall be at least 8,000 square feet in land area for detached dwellings and 10,000 square feet in land area for each two-family attached dwelling. (b) (c) (d) (e) (No Change) (f) Rear yards shall be at least 20 feet deep for residences and 15 feet for all buildings on lots abutting an existing residential use or "R" district. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 217 SECTION V. The types of special exception uses which may be approved by the Town Council and the standards for approval of such uses are hereby modified by adding new sections 8-2-11-11A and 8-2-11-11B to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows: Sec. 8-2-11-11A. Special Exception Multi-family Uses in the B-1 Community Business District and B-2 General Business District. The Council may grant a special exception to permit multi-family dwellings in the B-1 or B-2 District when the following standards are met: (a) Maximum Density: Twenty-two dwelling units per acre, or 30 units per acre if all one-bedroom or efficiency units (b) Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet (c) Minimum Yard Requirements: (1) Front: 30 feet T (2) Side: 30 feet, with opaque screen approved by CD the Council (3) Rear: 30 feet, with opaque screen approved by Nthe Council W (4) Distance Between Structures: 20 feet (5) The Town Council may modify the above yard re- quirements within the H-1 overlay district when Q deemed appropriate in order to maintain the character of the Old and Historic District. (d) Maximum Height: 40 feet; provided, however, height may be increased at the Council's discretion by one foot for every two feet of additional setback up to an absolute maximum height of 50 feet. (e) Minimum open space: 30% of lot (1) The Town Council may modify the above open space requirement within the H-1 Overlay district when deemed appropriate in order to maintain the character of the Old and Historic District. (f) Minimum Recreational Amenities: Multi-family developments containing 20 or more dwellings shall include a minimum of 250 square feet of active recreational space per dwelling unit, improved with recreational facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts and playgrounds. All recreational facilities shall be constructed prior to completion of fifty percent (50%) of planned dwelling units. (g) Architectural Treatment: Architectural treatment shall avoid massive, monolithic and repetitive building types, facades and setbacks, and shall be compatible with surrounding areas. Building eleva- tions and architectural details sufficient to show compliance with this standard shall be submitted with the final development plan application. (h) Locational Criteria: In addition to the above height, bulk and yard requirements, the Council shall consider the following factors: (1) Conformance with the Town Plan; (2) Compatibility with adjoining land uses; (3) Access to the site and impact on the adjacent road network; (4) Availability of public services including parks and recreational areas; (5) Architectural compatibility with neighborhoods; (6) Avoiding concentration of multi-family units; (7) Opportunity to buffer- apartments from adjoining land uses; and • (8) Availability of alternative, more suitable, locations for multi-family construction. 218 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING Sec. 8-2-11-11B Special Exception Single-Family Attached and Detached Dwellings and Two-Family Dwellings in the B-1 Community Business District and B-2 General Business District. The Council may grant a special exception to permit single-family attached or detached dwellings and two- family dwellings in the B-1 and B-2 District when the following standards are met: (a) Area, Size, Height and Yard Requirements: The proposed use shall satisfy the minimum area, size, 111 height and yard requirements of Section 4-3 of this ordinance. (b) Screening. The Council may require the installation of solid or vegetative screening along property lines adjacent to a commercial as a condition of approval of the special exception. SECTION VI. The definitions of open space and multi-family dwelling as presented in Sec. 15-1 of the Zoning Ordinance are amended to read as follows: Section 15-1-26. Dwelling, Multi-Family. A residential structure located on a single zoning lot containing three or more dwelling units. This defini- tion specifically does not include attached single family units. Section 15-1-53. Open Space. Land area intended to provide light, air and space to be designed for aesthetic or recreational purposes, and to be accessible and in reasonable proximity to residents or occupants of the development. Open space shall not include streets, drives, off-street parking and loading areas, and areas so located or of such size or shape to have no substantial aesthetic or recreational value. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 86-0-24 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 4A-3 OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS WHEREAS, the R-4 multi-family district regulations presently do not require adequate yards and open space for multi-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has identified the amendment of these regulations as an important objective; and WHEREAS, the Council initiated these amendments on July 10, 1985; and i WHEREAS, the Council and Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on October 9, 1985 and the Planning Commission recommended these amendments to the Council on March 6, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1986; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the policies of the Town Plan and are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare: ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The size and dimension standards applicable to multi- family dwellings within the Town R-4 Residential District are hereby modi- fied by amending Section 4A-3 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows: MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 219 Sec. 4A-3. AREA, SIZE, HEIGHT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS In the R-4 Residential District: (a) Zoning lots shall be at least 8,000 square feet in land area for detached single-family dwellings and 2,000 square feet for attached single-family dwellings. Zoning lots shall be at least 10,000 square feet in land area for two-family dwellings. The total number of multi-family dwellings on a zoning lot shall not exceed 22 dwelling units per acre, or 30 units per acre if all units are one-bedroom or efficiency units. (b) Zoning lots shall be at least 75 feet wide for detached single-family and two-family, 100 feet wide for multi-family dwellings and 20 feet wide for attached single-family dwellings. (c) No single-family attached or detached dwellings to two- family dwelling shall exceed 30 feet in height. No multi- family dwelling shall exceed 40 feet in height; provided, lJJ however, the Planning Commission may approve an additional N one-foot in height for every two-feet of additional setback, up to an absolute maximum height of 50 feet. No other w structure shall exceed 50 feet in height. (d) Front yards shall be at least 20 feet deep for single- family dwellings and 30 feet for multi-family dwellings. Required front yards for attached dwellings shall not be used for off-street parking or driveways. (e) Side yards shall be at least 10 feet wide for detached single-family and two-family dwellings and 15 feet for each main structure for attached single-family dwellings. Non-habitable additions to single-family and two-family dwellings, such as a garage or carport, may be located 111 within five feet of the side lot line. Side yards are not required between attached single-family dwellings. Minimum side yards for multi-family dwellings shall be 30 feet and shall include a screen approved by the Planning Commission that is opaque when located adjacent to more intensive uses or semi-opaque when adjacent to less intensive residential uses. (f) Rear yards shall be at least 30 feet deep for attached single-family and multi-family dwellings and 20 feet deep for all other structures. Multi-family rear yards shall include an opaque or semi-opaque screen as provided in (e) above. (g) No structure shall contain more than eight attached single-family dwellings and no more than two adjoining dwellings shall have the same front yard depth and such depths shall vary not less than one foot from the adjoin- ing pair of dwellings. (h) Attached single-family dwellings shall not be contructed to a greater density than eight dwelling units to the gross acre. (i) All multi-family structures on single lots shall be separated by a minimum horizontal distance of 20 feet. (j) Multi-family developments shall include a minimum of 30% open space. Multi-family developments containing 20 or more dwellings shall include a minimum of 250 square feet of active recreational space per dwelling unit, improved with recreational facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts and playgrounds. All recreational facilities shall be constructed prior to completion of fifty (50%) percent of planned dwelling units. (k) Architectural treatment of multi-family developments shall avoid massive, monolithic and repetitive building types, facades and setbacks and shall be compatible with surrounding areas. Building elevations and architectural details sufficient to show compliance with this provision shall be submitted with the final development plan appli- cation. 220 . MTNUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 86-0-24A-RESOLUTION - AMENDING CHAPTER 12.1, ARTICLE 21 OF THE TOWN CODE (ARTICLE 21 OF THE PERSONNEL MANUAL) TO COMPLY WITH STATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE POLICIES WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has established statutory mandates for local grievance procedures; and WHEREAS, the state has reviewed the Town of Leesburg's current grievance procedure and has recommended changes to bring the Town's pro- cedures into compliance with State law: ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Section 12.1-53, paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Town Code, (Article 21 of the Personnel Manual) are, amended to read as follows: Sec. 12.1-53. Intent and Application. (a) For the purposes of this grievance procedure, a grievance shall be construed as a complaint or dispute by an employee relating to his or. her employment, including, but not necessarily limited to: (1) disciplinary actions involving dismissals, demotions, and suspensions provided that dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting from formal discipline or unsatisfactory job performance; (2) concerns regarding the application, meaning or interpretation of these personnel policies, procedures, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes; (3) acts of reprisal as the result of utilization of the grievance procedure; (4) complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, handicap, age, national origin or political affiliation; and (5) reprisal on the part of the town as a result of an employee's participation in the grievance of another employee. (c) Questions of grievability shall be resolved by the town manager. When either the town or the grievant so requests, the Town Manager shall decide, within (5) five work days of the request, whether or not a matter is grievable. The decision of grievability shall be made subsequent to the reduction of the grievance to writing but prior to the panel hearing and a copy of the decisions shall be sent to the grievant. The issue of grievability shall be decided prior to the panel hearing or it shall be deemed to be waived. Decisions of the Town Manager concerning the issue of grievability may be appealed to the Loudoun County Circuit Court for a hearing de novo on the issue of grievability. Proceedings for review of the decision of the Town Manager shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal with the Town Manager within five (5) work days of the date of the decision. Within five (5) work days thereafter, the Town Manager shall transmit 'to the clerk of the Circuit Court a copy of his decision, a copy of the notice of appeal, and the exhibits, with copies to the grievant. Within 30 days of receipt by the clerk of such records, the Court, sitting without a jury, shall hear the appeal on the record transmitted by the Town Manager and any additional evidence as may be necessary to resolve any controversy as to the correctness of the record. The Court may affirm the decision of the Town Manager or may reverse or modify the decision. The decision of the Court is final and not appealable. SECTION II. Section 12.1-54 paragraphs b, c, e, and f of the Town Code (Article 21 of the Personnel Manual) are amended to read as follows: Sec. 12.1-54. Procedure. (b) Step 2. If the grievance is not resolved in Step 1, the employee shall reduce the grievance to writing within five (5) days and present it to the appropriate department head. It shall include a statement of the grievance and the facts involved, alleged violation of these rules, the initial decision of the immediate supervisor and the remedy requested by 22f MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING the grievant. Within five (5) days the department head shall arrange a meeting with the grievant and his immediate supervisor where applicable to review the facts and shall notify the grievant of his decision in writing within three working days of such meeting. Step 2 and Step 3 shall be waived if the Town Manager serves as the grievant's immediate supervisor. (c) Step 3. If the grievance is not resolved in Step 2, the grievant may ask the Town Manager for a meeting to discuss the grievance further. Such request must be made within 5 working days following receipt of the Department Head's reply. Such meeting shall be held within two working days of the date of the request and shall be attended by the grievant, such representatives as he may select, the Department Head and the immediate supervisor. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel, management likewise has the option of being represented by counsel. The Town Manager shall provide a written decision to the grievant with a copy to all other attendees, within three working days of the date of the meeting. This section shall not be construed as limiting the Town Manager's authority to require additional meetings with only the grievant present to discuss matters pertaining to the grievance. N (e) After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure of w� either party to comply with all substantial procedural requirements without just cause will result in a decision in favor of the other party on any grievable issue, provided the party not in compliarcefails to correct the Q noncompliance within five work days of receipt of written notification of the compliance violation. Such written notification by the grievant shall be made to the Town Manager. Failure of either party without just cause to comply with all substantial procedural requirements at the panel hearing shall result in a decision in favor of the other party. SECTION III. Section 12.1-55, paragraphs (b)(4) and paragraphs (d)(2) of the Town Code (Article 21 of the Personnel Manual) are amended to read as follows: (b) Panel Selection. (4) The following relatives of a participant in the grievance process or a participant's spouse are prohibited from serving as panel members: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child, sibling, niece, nephew and first cousin. No attorney.having direct involvement with the subject matter of the grievance, nor a partner, associate, employee or co-employee of such an attorney shall serve as a panel member. (d) Powers (2) The majority decision of the panel shall be final in all of its determinations, and shall be consistent with the provisions of law and written policies. The manager shall enforce all decisions of the panel and the grievant may petition the circuit court for implementation of the panel's decision if the manager fails to act on the panel's decision. SECTION IV. All prior ordinanes and resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION V. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 86-92 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF PORTION OF OLD VIRGINIA ROUTE 621 WHEREAS, an application by Carleton Penn and Lucas D. Phillips has been submitted for vacation of a portion of old Virginia Route 621 right- of-way in the Town of Leesburg, comprising 5,427 square feet and located between South King Street and the relocated section of Route 621 north of the Route 7 By-pass, as shown on a plat dated April 18, 1986, by Bengtson, DeBell, Elkin and Titus; and 222 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING WHEREAS, the applicant requests that a hearing be held by the Council of the Town of Leesburg on said vacation: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The Clerk of the Council is directed to publish a notice of intention to vacate the above described street, pursuant to Section 15.1-364 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, in the Loudoun Times Mirror on June 5, 1986 and June 12, 1986, for public hearing on June 25, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia. 86-93 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PAINTING CONTRACT WITH SOUTHERN CORROSION, INC. , FOR RECOATING THE CARR ELEVATED STEEL TANK EXTERIOR WHEREAS, the above described project was an approved and appropriated capital outlay item in the FY 86 budget; and WHEREAS, sealed bids for this work were solicited in accordance with Leesburg's Purchasing Policy; and WHEREAS, of the seven bids received, Southern Corrosion, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder: • • THEREFORE, RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with Southern Corrosion, Inc for therec a inof the Carr s o o f g Elevated Steel Tank exterior in the amount of $27,600.00 86-94 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH SULLY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOXRIDGE PUBLIC PARK WHEREAS, sealed bids were solicited for the construction of the Foxridge public park in accordance with bid documents prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates in accordance with park master plans approved by the Council; and WHEREAS, Sully Construction Company of Leesburg, Virginia submitted the low bid for this work in the amount of $336,117; .and WHEREAS, the Pulte Home Corporation, builders and developers for the Foxridge Subdivision, have tendered an offer to the town in the amount of $12,763 for Phase I trail development and $39,866 for Phase II landscaping which will reduce the town's share for park development by a total of $52,629 contingent on development of both phases of the park; and WHEREAS, the approved Town Plan recognizes the development of quality parks and recreation facilities as an important goal of this Council. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The manager is authorized to execute a lump sum contract, on behalf of the town, with Sully Construction Company for the construction of Foxridge Park, Phase I, in the amount of $163,825. SECTION II. A transfer of funds is made from the General Fund to Parks Construction Capital Projects Fund, Account No. ' 9400.700.090, Foxridge Park, in the amount of $163,825 which said appropriation shall remain in effect until the project is complete. SECTION III. The manager is further authorized to execute a lump sum contract, on behalf of the town, with Sully Construction Company after July 1, 1986 for construction of Foxridge Park, Phase II, in accordance with bid documents and specifications issued for the project, contingent on sufficient appropriations to the Parks Construction Capital Project Fund in the adopted FY 1987 budget. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 223 SECTION IV. The manager is authorized and directed t0 accept, on behalf of the town, payments from the Pulte Home Corporation up to the amount of $52,629 to offset town expenses for this project. I i 86-95 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PERMIT FOR DOWNTOWN LEESBURG SIDEWALK SALE DAY WHEREAS, a request has been submitted by the Downtown Business Association for a sidewalk sale on June 29: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The manager is authorized to issue a permit under paragraph 10-13 of the Town Code to the Downtown Business Association for a sidewalk sale on King Street to be conducted on Sunday, June 29 from noon until no later than 6:00 p.m. and is further authorized to close King Street between Loudoun and Market during those hours. vl SECTION II. The permit may contain reasonable and appropriate N conditions as determined necessary by the manager and shall require the Ntown to be named as additional insured under a $500,000 public liability CO insurance policy secured by the Downtown Business Association. 86-96 - RESOLUTION - SUPPORTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND Q TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED WIDENING AND PAVEMENT OF ROUTE 643 FROM THE TOWN LIMITS SOUTH TO ROUTE 648 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation proposes to improve a 1.47 mile section of Route 643 from the town limits south to Route 648; and WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg has adopted a Town Plan identifying Route 643 as a major arterial roadway; and WHEREAS, Route 643 is proposed to be improved to a four-lane divided roadway from the Town of Leesburg to Washington-Dulles International Airport, also known as the Loudoun Parkway: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Town of Leesburg supports the improvements to Route 643 proposed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. SECTION II. The Town of Leesburg also supports the eventual improvement of Route 643 to a divided highway from the town to Washington- Dulles International Airport. SECTION III. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to present this resolution at the VDH&T public hearing to be held on June 11, 1986. 86-97 = RESOLUTION - APPOINTING JOHN W. TOLBERT, JR. AS THE COUNCIL'S APPOINTMENT TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE ROUTE 643 WATERLINE DESIGN PROJECT WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal has been issued to select an engineer- ing firm to design the Route 643 waterline project; and WHEREAS, the cost of these services will exceed $35,000; and WHEREAS, Paragraph 8.2-5 of the town's Purchasing Policy requires the appointment of a councilmember to serve on the Review Committee to recom- mend contracts to the Council: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: 224 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING John W. Tolbert, Jr. is appointed to serve as the Council representa- tive on the Review Committee to recommend a design engineer for the Route 643 waterline project. 86-98 - RESOLUTION - ESTABLISHING A SANITARY SEWAGE CONVEYANCE PLAN FOR THE CATTAIL BRANCH SEWER SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1984, the Town of Leesburg annexed 7.17 square miles; and WHEREAS, there is no approved general plan for a sanitary sewer conveyance system within major parts of the annexation area; and WHEREAS, this Council has approved the Potomac Crossing planned development within the Cattail Branch service area and other applications are active and pending for significant development in this area; and WHEREAS, a general plan detailing the approximate location and size of necessary conveyance facilities and pump stations as well as estimated sewage flows is essential to effectively coordinate the review and approval of the sanitary conveyance systems approved for new development within the Cattail Branch service area; and WHERAS, the sewer conveyance plan and projected sewer flows by development tract are essential for developing pro rata cost sharing agreements for the extension of specific sewer conveyance facilities pursuant to paragraph 15-15 of the Town Code and for calculating amounts due the developer from the town for oversizing sewer lines pursuant to paragraph 13-84(a) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, paragraph 13-84 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations further requires all sanitary sewer improvements to be designed and completed to such sizes and capacities as prescribed in the town's master plan for sewer works; and WHEREAS, the last trunk sewer master plan in use by the town was submitted in January, 1976; and WHEREAS, a revised sewer and water master plan for the expanded town will not be complete for at least six months; and WHEREAS, a report has been sumitted by the professional engineering consulting fins, B.C.M.Potomac, Inc., which includes the information and data necessary to establish a generalized sewer conveyance plan for the Cattail Branch sewer service area within the town corporate limits; and WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the plan and concurs with its recommendations: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The report dated April 29, 1986 submitted by B.C.M.- Potomac, Inc, as amended to incorporate minor modifications suggested by the Director of Engineering and Public Works, is approved for use as the town's master plan for sewer works pursuant to paragraph 13-84 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. SECTION II. The Director of Engineering and Public Works shall have the authority to interpret and modify the location of sanitary sewer lines and sewage flows as necessary to accommodate changing development plans within the Cattail Branch sewer service area in keeping with the general concept of the conveyance plan adopted herein. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 225 86-99 _ RESOLUTION - INITIATING A REVISION TO THE LEESBURG ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR THE HARRISON SQUARE SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS WHEREAS, the Harrison Square South Condominiums were constructed with federal funding assistance as part of the South Harrison Street Community Development Project specifically to provide moderate-income homeownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the town's agreement with the developer of this project required that the condominiums be sold for moderate-income residential purposes only; and WHEREAS, the present B-2 zoning of this property would permit non- residential use within this residential project; and WHEREAS, the continuing residential use of this property is essential to support the goals of the South Harrison Street Community Development Project and the Town Plan for the maintenance of moderate-cost housing in the downtown area; and N WHEREAS, the rezoning of this property to an appropriate residential N district is in the interest of good zoning practice and the public welfare: CO THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia CO follows: Q SECTION I. An amendment to the Zoning District Map is initiated to rezone the Harrison Square South Condominiums, located on .7553 acres of land as shown on the attached map, from B-2 to R-4. SECTION II. A public hearing on the proposed zoning map amendment, assigned #ZM-77, shall be held at 7:30 p.m. on June 25, 1986, in the Council Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, SW, Leesburg, Virginia, and, in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, this hearing shall be a joint public hearing of the Council and Planning Commission. The clerk shall give notice of this hearing and the Council's intention to adopt the zoning map amendment on June 5, 1986 and June 12, 1986, and shall advise the Planning Commission of the purpose, time and date of the hearing. SECTION III. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment within 30 days of the public hearing. 86-100 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS CHAIRS RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: An appropriation is made from the unappropriated General Fund balance to General Fund Account No. 200.1101.700.020, Office Equipment, in the amount of $4,833 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1986. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 86-101 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE LOUDOUN COUNTY GOVERNMENT SUPPORT CENTER WITH COMMENTS On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the County of Loudoun is the owner of approximately 92 acres of land located adjacent to Sycolin Road and bounded by the present Leesburg corporate limits hereinafter referred to as "County Government Support Center" and more particularly shown on a map transmitted with a report to the Council on May 20, 1986; and 228 MTNUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING WHEREAS, the town desires to cooperate fully in assisting the county in the location of needed public facilities and supports the continued location and operation of important county government functions and facilities within and adjacent to Leesburg; and WHEREAS, the proposed facilities will not impair safe air. navigation around Leesburg Municipal Airport; and WHEREAS, the proposed support center does not conflict with the Annexation Area Development Policies or the town's goals for the Greater Leesburg Area: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Council generally endorses the proposed support center concept plan with the following qualifications: 1. Adequate right-of-way should be provided to allow for upgrading of Route 643 to a four-lane arterial as called for in the Leesburg Town Plan. 2, The final development plan for the facility should incorporate all appropriate precautions to minimize the impact of the facility on adjacent properties, including, but not limited to: (a) The provision of generous landscaping and buffering along the entire perimeter of the tract; (b) Use of walls, berms or natural vegetation as sound deadening devices around noise generating areas, specifically the vehicular rescue area; and (c) Careful consideration to the exterior architectural treatment of all buildings proposed along Route 643. 3. The County should make provisions on site for adequate water flows until the town's Hogback Mountain pumping station is completed. 4. The county should confer with the property owner on the tract's northern and eastern boundary for providing access to Route 643. SECTION II. The town manager is directed to forward this resolution to the Loudoun County Administrator for transmittal to the County Board of Supervisors. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 86-102 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICA- TION TO THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS FOR A DESIGN ADVANCEMENT MATCHING GRANT TO CONDUCT A DESIGN COMPETITION FOR A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CENTER/PARKING COMPLEX On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the adopted Town Plan and Capital Improvements Program call for the redevelopment of the downtown municipal parking lot into a muni- cipal government center and parking complex; and WHEREAS, a design competition will be a useful process to ensure a high-quality design that will be compatible with the historic district; and WHEREAS, the National Endowment for the Arts provides matching funds for conducting design competitions; and MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 2 27 WHEREAS, applying for matching funds does not reduce the Council's flexibility in the timing or method of implementing the proposal for constructing a municipal government center and parking complex: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: • The Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to submit an application to the National Endowment for the Arts for a Design Advancement matching grant for conducting a design competition for a municipal government center/parking complex. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert,' Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 86-103 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH BROTHERS SIGNAL AND T CONTROL COMPANY, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 0) TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF CATOCTIN N CIRCLE AND DRY MILL ROAD WOn a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: W WHEREAS, the engineering consulting firm of Kellerco, Inc., prepared construction plans and specifications for a traffic signal at the intersection of Catoctin Circle and Dry Mill Road; and WHEREAS, sealed bids for the installation of the traffic signal were opened on Tuesday, May 13, 1986, and Brothers Signal and Control Company, Inc. , is the low bidder with a bid of $29,831.50; and ' WHEREAS, Kellerco, Inc., has reviewed the bids and advised the Town of Leesburg that the Brothers Signal and Control Company, Inc. was the qualified low bidder and recommended award of contract to them; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. A contract award is made to Brothers Signal and Control Company, Inc. of Leesburg, Virginia for the installation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Catoctin Circle and Dry Mill Road on a lump sum basis in the amount of $29,831.50. SECTION II. The manager shall enter into a contract with Brothers Signal and Control Company for the installation of the traffic signal based on this award. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 86-104 - RESOLUTION - MAKING COUNCILMANIC APPOINTMENT TO CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY COMMISSION On a motion made by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Councilmember Marylou Hill submitted her resignation from the Leesburg Town Council on May 7, 1986, effective immediately; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Hill was the Councilmanic appointee to the Cable Television Advisory Commission; and WHEREAS, Jerry S. Pelkey was appointed to fill the vacancy on the Town Council: 228 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Jerry S. Pelkey is hereby appointed to fill the vacancy on the Cable • Television Advisory Commission, his term to expire June 30, 1986. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams • and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 86-105 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17 "TAXATION AND LICENSES" OF THE TOWN CODE On a motion by Mr. Tolbert and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: A notice of Public Hearing to amend Chapter 17 "Taxation and Licenses" of the Town Code regarding the imposition of a 2% tax on prepared meals and a 3% tax on transient room rental receipts shall be published in the June 5, 1986 Loudoun Times Mirror for public hearing on June 11, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 10 Loudoun Street, SW, Leesburg, Virginia. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None NEW BUSINESS 86-106 = RESOLUTION = MAKING A REDUCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION FOR EXETER HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTION IV On a motion by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Mr. Williams, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, a registered engineer has certified the public improvements installed to date in Exeter Hills Subdivision Section IV has a value of $149,755; and WHEREAS, a letter of credit from Providence Savings and Loan Association in the amount of $193,256 has been provided by the developer and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public improvements in Exeter Hills Subdivision Section IV. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Providence Savings and Loan Association letter of credit originally in the amount of $193,256 is reduced to $43,501. SECTION II. The manager shall notify the developer of Exeter Hills Subdivision Section IV that liability for letter of credit funds has been reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution, and that this reduction does not constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town ' or relieve the developer of responsibilities outlined in the contract for public improvements for the Exeter Hills Subdivision, Section IV. SECTION III. This reduction is contingent upon the Town's Director of Engineering and Public Works certifying the value of the completed improvements equals $149,755. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 229 86-107 - RESOLUTION - AGREEING TO A SETTLEMENT REGARDING THE XEROX REALTY CORPORATION REZONING On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, a dispute arose between the Town of Leesburg and County of Loudoun concerning the interpretation of the November 15, 1982 Annexation Agreement, Annexation Area Development Policies (AADPs) and Court Order with respect to their application to the Xerox Realty Corporation rezoning approved December 15, 1985, the Leesburg Area Management Plan amendments approved September 16 , 1985 and the timing and source of utility services to the development hereinafter referred to as "Potomac Park"; and WHEREAS, the town retained legal counsel to enforce the terms of the Annexation Agreement, Court Order and AADPs with respect to all aspects of the Potomac Park development ; and WHEREAS, both the County Board of Supervisors and the Town Council have attempted over the last weeks to negotiate a settlement acceptable to the county and town; and WHEREAS, by motion adopted May 22, 1986', the Board of Supervisors accepted the offer of the Town of Leesburg contained in its letter by counsel dated May 21, 1986, as amended by letter of counsel dated May 22, 1986 and subject to an amendment to the attached map (and subsequent letter of clarification) illustrating the service area of the existing Loudoun Sanitation Authority package sewage treatment plant in the Sycolin Watershed; and WHEREAS, this Council desires to reasonably accommodate the proposed Potomac Park development consistent with the Annexation Agreement, AADPs and Court Order; and WHEREAS, this Council is confident that the settlement agreement — serves the mutual objectives of the town and county and is in the best interest of the town' s and county' s citizens: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Subject to preparation and execution of a formal legal agreement, the Town of Leesburg agrees to the terms of a proposed agreement reflected in the following documents: 1. Letter dated May 21, 1986 from G. H. Gromel, Jr. to Edward J. Finnegan; 2. Letter dated May 22, 1986 from Deborah Welsh to Edward J. Finnegan; 3. Approved motion of Loudoun County Board of Si pervisors adopted May 22, 1986 regarding Settlement Proposal to the Pending and Threatening Lawsuit Initiated by the Town of Leesburg; and 4. Letter dated May 23, 1986 from Edward J. Finnegan to G. H. Gromel, Jr. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila Nay: None On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Bos, Council voted unanimously to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters pertaining to the Planning Commission appointment, and applicant review for the Airport Commission and Board of Architectural Review. Section 2. 1-344 (1) and 2. 1-344(3) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (Freedom of Information Act) permits the Council to discuss such matters in executive session. 230 • MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING -Only the Town Council is requested to attend this executive session. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. Council reconvened at approximately 10: 22 with no action taken. 86-108 - RESOLUTION - APPOINTING JAMES E. CLEM TO THE LEESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION On:notion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following reso- lution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, a vacancy exists on the Leesburg Planning Commission: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: • James E. Clem is appointed to the Leesburg Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 1988. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. Mr. Williams asked the indulgence of the Council to consider compensation issues for the Planning Commission and the Council. Mr. Bos did not support a raise for the Council but is in favor of a raise for the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelley does support a raise for the Planning Commission and is also in support of a raise for the Council. He feels the time spent by the Council jus- tifies an increase in pay. He proposed raising the Mayor' s salary from $6,000 to $7,200 and the Councilmembers' salaries from $4,500 to $6,000, effective July 1, 1986. Mr. Pelkey was also in support of the raise for Councilmembers. He felt some of the special meetings that require travel, along with a larger number of func- tions that need attendance, are well justified. Mr. Tolbert concurred that a raise is justified. Mr. Curry was also supportive of the raise for both the Planning Commission and the Council. Mr. Williams made further comment on the many meetings and functions that are required and how oftentimes the out-of-pocket expenses required do add up. The increase should more than offset these expenses. Mayor Sevila stated the last increase for Council was in the 1984/85 budget. He does not support pay increases for the Mayor and Council. No-one should have to serve in office and have to pay, but he felt the compensation more than covers any expenses. He suggested that maybe the reimbursement poli- cies be restructured. He does support the raise for the Planning Commission members. It was suggested that this matter be reconsidered at the next budget re- view meeting. On motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Pelkey, the meeting was adjourned. Mayor /— Clerk of/ouncil