1977-12-07N42'O
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on December 7, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County C~urthouse, Charlottesville,
Vir~ini~
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,County Executive; George R. St. gohn, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:Q1 P.M., by the
Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter of resignation from Mrs.
George (Sally) Thomas from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. He noted that
a new citizen member for the Commission womld be needed to fill the durationt~~ her term, due
to expire in June, 1978. Mr. Fisher requested that this matter be placed on~Sxt agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2. Dog Ordinance: Public Hearing to amend and reenact Section 4-19 of
the Albemarle County Code to include Country~'~reen Apartments as one of those areas where
dogs are not permitted to run at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 23 and
November 30, 1977.)
Mr. Agnor said a request was received from the Great Atlantic Management Company,
managers of the Country Green Apartment Complex, requesting the County's Leash Law be ex-
tended to this property. Mr. Agnor noted that not only was the public hearing advertised
in the local paper as required by law, but notices were posted in conspicuous places for view
by the tenants of the apartments.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. David Glover,
property Manager of the Country Green Apartments. Mr. Glover said numerous complaints had
been received from tenants about dogs running at large. He also submitted a letter from the
Sherwood Manor Townhouse Association as follows:
"December 6, 1977
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The board of directors of Sherwood Manor Homeowners' Association requests
your assistance in controlling dogs running un-attended through-out our
neighborhood and surrounding area. We have a strong leash law written in our
covenants and doing our best to keep the dogs contained.
Our development consists largely of young families with children varying
in ages from toddlers to 9-10 years of age. It is essenuial to us that our
children not be threatened by any stray dog. The mothers hare need peace of
mind, also, as it is impossible to watch their youngsters every second of the
day.
We have a fine working relationship started with Country Green of Sherwood
and need to work hand-in-hand with them to better our living conditions and
standards we seek. Therefore, we request your assistance in enforcing a
strong leash law in the surrounding areas of Sherwood Manor, especially
Country Green of Sherwood. We feel this is of great importance to us as our
properties are adjacent to one another.
We look optimistically towards positive action on your initiatives.
Thanking you in advance.
Sincerely,
(Gary Stearns)
Board of Directors
SHERWOOD MANOR HOMEOWNERS" ASSOC."
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and
~. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded
by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby amend and reenact Chapter Q, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of
the Albemarle County Code by the addition of the following area:
Division 2~ Running at large.
Section 4-19. In certain areas.
(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog
to run at large any time within the following designated areas of the county:
(16) Country Green Apartments as p~atted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court in Deed Book 453, page 553.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
471
Agenda Item No. 3. Waiver of Utility Requirements: Subdivision plat of James A.
Nunnally. Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
"Location:
Zoning:
South side of Penn Park Lane
R-2 Residential
Proposal:
Division of three lots, containing 1.113, 1.006, and .873 acres.
Lot 1 is vacant, Lot 2 contains a single-family residence
presently served by a well and septic system, Lot 3 contains
a duplex served by public water and sewer.
Zoning History:
Final Plat was conditionally approved by the Albemarle County
Planning Commission on November 22, 1977, subject to:
1. Lot 1 must be served by public sewer when buil% upon;
2. Lot 2 must be served by public sewer within six months~
3. Albemarle County Service Author%ty approval;
4. Maintenance agreement for joint easement.
Staff Comment:
Mr. Nunnally's intention is to connect Lot 2 to public sewer
when Lot ! is buil~ upon. The size of Lots 1 and 2 requires at
least one utility. Staff opinion is that a waiver is needed
on Lot 2 in order to approve the subdivision at this time, since
it will be served by individual well and septic in the interim
until Lot 1 is built upon."
Mr. Nunnally was present and stated that public water and sewer "trunk lines" are alread
on the property, and that Lot #2 must be connected to the water and sewer lines prior to a
building permit being issued for Lot #1. Mr. Tucker said he would recommend that no certifi-
cate of occupancy be issued until at least one public utility is connected for Lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Fisher azked how this could be assured from a legal standpoint. Mr. St. John said a
condition could be placed on the plat at the time it is recorded. He suggested the wording
as follows: "No building permit shall be issued on Lot #! until such time as Lot #2 is
connected to public utilities."
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to grant the requested
waiver provided that an appropriate restrictive covenant is recorded simultaneously with the
plat, and approved by the County Attorney's Office prior to the signing of the plat. The
covenant to s~ate that no building permit shall be issued on Lot #1 until such time as Lot #2
is connected to public utilities. Roll was then called, and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-77-61. Robert Sweeney. To make an existing non-conforming
public garage, with the sale of used cars, conforming under Section 2-1-25 (23). Property
contains 7.75 acres zoned A-1 and is located on the south side of Route 53. County Tax
Map 93, Parcel 47E, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 23
and November 30, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker noted that this petition was deferred by the Planning Commission until
January 10, 1978, and recommended that the Board of Supervisors defer hearing same until
February 1, 1978. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer
action on SP-77-6t until February 1, 1978. Roll was called, and motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Tucker noted that since Agenda Items 5, 6~ and 7 are all interrelated, that it would
be more easily understood if they were presented simultaneously.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-77-73. Rivanna Water &~Sewer Authority. To amend SP-373 (a
special use permit for an advanced wastewater treatment plant) in order to amend one of the
conditions of approval thereon. The 49.52 acres involved is zoned A-1 and located north of
Interstate 64 at the confluence of Moore's Creek and Rivanna River. County Tax Map 77,
Parcel 38B, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 23 and November
3O, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
"Request:
Amendment to SP-373, which was granted to Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority on July 24, 1974, for an advanced wastewater treatment
plant. Applicant is requesting that condition #1 be eliminated.
That condition reads: "That all facilities of the Treatment Plant
be located on or above the 330 foot contour, which represents one
foot above the state standard project floodplain as reported by
the U.S. Corps of Engineers study dated September, 1971."
Acreage: 63.43 acres
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural
Location: North side 1-64, north and south side Moore's Creek between the
Rivanna River and Route 20 Interchange. Vehicular access is by
way of Franklin Street in the City, through the existing Moores
Creek Treatment Plant.
Character of the Area: The site is presently an open knoll and floodplain with
evergreen and deciduous trees on the perimeter. Approximately 1/4-
1/3 of the site lies below the 330 foot contour.
472
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
as open space in the plan.
Zoning History: SP-373 for AWT plant approved with conditions on July 24, 1974.
Grading permit for bridge access approved October 24, 1975. Grading
permit to clear and grub property approved August 13, 1976.
Staff Comment:
A plot plan drawn by Paul B. Krebs, Consulting Engineers, was submitted with the
application for SP-373 in May, 1974. It showed all structures to be located above
the natural 330 foot contour, with no fill proposed in the floodplain, except in
conjunction with the construction of the new access bridge across Moore's Creek.
The final site plan, submitted on September 16, 1977, proposes considerable fill
in the floodplain, as well as several structures located below the 330 foot contour.
The plan, therefore, does not meet condition #1 of the special use permit.
Staff requested that the County Engineer review the plan to determine if any of the
structures or fill were located within the floodway, which could increase the
flood level significantly. There is presently no provision in the Flood Plain
ordinance which would allow such structures or fill within the floodway.
The County Engineer has determined by reviewing calculations prepared by Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority that the proposed plan will increase the flood level
approximately 3.68 feet, thereby possibly causing flooding of about nine dwellings
on Nassau and Franklin Streets which would otherwise possibly not be flooded.
The primary cause of this increase is the location of the holding ponda which
require a large amount of fill within the floodway. The holding ponds were
required by the State Health Department subsequent to approval of SP-373.
Other structures located below the 330 foot contour include the gas storage sphere,
chlorine,storage building and the future final c!arifier #4, all of which will be
relocated; the infiuent and effluent pumping s~ation-wh~ch~w~ll~nO~significantly
increase the flood level, and the holding pond pumping station, located in the
backwater.
The County Engineer has concluded the following:
Some of the AWT structures~are ~ocated within the floodway of Moore's Creek.
However, they are located as they are in order to fulfill their function
respective to the operation of the AWT plant. They should be permitted.
A landfill permit is required, particularly for the dikes which form the holding
ponds. This can be reviewed when application for a building permit is made.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should be required to obtain flood ease-
ments over those properties that are subject to additional flooding by reason
of the construction of the stilling basins, that is, over the area lying between
the intermediate flood line, as predicted by the U,S. Corps of Engineers and the
intermediate flood line above the stilling basins, as calculated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority.
The gas storage sphere,chlorine storage building and final clarifiers shall be
located above the 330vf~ot elevation, as required in the approved special permit.
Ail other structures shall be allowed ~o remain in their respective locations,
as~s~own'..:~n~e~:iP~a~-~h~ch~compan~e~h~Ri~a~na~at'e~?andiSewer Authority's
~ite plan application.
Based upon the report of the County Engineer, st~ff recommends approval of
this amendment to SP-373, to allow the holding ponds and pump stations to be
located below the natural 330 foot contour."
Mr. Tucker said on November 29, 1977, by a vote of 6/0/1, the Planning commission re-
commended approval with the following conditions:
"1. Site plan approval~ 2. Landfill permit;
3. Approval of proposed amendment to Flood Plain Ordinance and SP-77-77;
4. The tree line (the required 50 foot tree buffer) along Moore's ~reek may be
eliminated, if the engineering study dictates it is necessary to widen or deepen
the channel, in order to eliminate the additional 3.68 feet of flood elevation
caused by the holding ponds." ********
Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of intent to amend Section 9A-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow pump stations for water or wastewater with their power supply and control devices, hold-
ing ponds, and other appurtenances to water or wastewater systems within the floodway with a
special use permit in keeping with Article 11-13 and site plan approval. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 23 and November 30, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
"This resolution of intent to amend the Flood Plain Ordinance, Article 9A of the
Zoning Ordinance, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 9, 1977.
The need for this amendment became apparent during staff review of the proposed
AWT plant site plan, when it was determined that certain structures were proposed
within the Moore's Creek floodway.
However, approval of this amendment will not mean that approval is given to the
AWT plant site for the location of such structures. This amendment only makes
provisionain the ordinance for that use.
The County Engineer has stated that:
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting~t~
4'7 3
"The Engineer, in designing a sewage treatment system,
for obvious reasons employs the force of gravity to the
fullest extent practical. This inevitably leads to the
use of a site close to a river or creek. Treatment
facilities are set above flood levels but pumps and other
appurtenances frequently are Located within the floodway,
and are designed so that the structure is immune to
damage by flooding .... Similar situations can be expected
for the location of water pumps at some future time."
Staff recommends approval of this amendment:
S~ction 9A-4-4:
Pump stations for water or wastewater with their power supply
and control devices, holding ponds and other appurtenances to
water or wastewater systems."
Mr. Tucker said on November 29, by a vote of 6/0/1, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the ~taff's wording. ***********
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-77-77. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. To allow the Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plant pump station, holding ponds and other appurtenances within the
Moores Creek Floodway. The plant is to be located on 49.52 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture,
located north of Interstate 64 at the confluence of Moores Creek and Rivanna River. County
Tax Map 77, Parcel 38B, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 23
and November 30, 1977~)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report.
Request:
Advanced wastewater treatment plant pumping stations, holding ponds, and
other appurtenances to be located within the Moore's Creek floodway.
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
63.43 acres
A-1 Agricultural
North side 1-64, north and south side Moore's Creek between the Rivanna
River and Route 20 Interchange. Vehicular access is by way of Franklin
Street in the City, through the existing Moore's Creek Treatment Plant.
Character of the Area: The site is presently an open knoll and floodplain with
evergreen and deciduous trees on the perimeter.
Comprehensive Plan: The Plan recognizes this site as the location of the future treat-
ment plant. The Moore's Creek floodplain is proposed as open space in
the plan.
Zoning History: SP-373 for AWT plant approved with condition on July 24, 1974. Grading
permit for bridge access approved October 24, 1975. G~ading permit to clear
and grub property approved August 13,1976.
Staff Comment: As described in SP-77-73, the County Engineer has determined that the
holding ponds and possibly the pumping stations of the proposed AWT plant
are located within the floodway of Moore's Creek. It has also been
determined that the location of the holding ponds will cause the predicted
intermediate flood elevation to rise 3.68 feet immediately upstream, and
the corresponding backwater curve will extend approximately 2,680 feet
upstream.
This increase in the 100-year flood level will possibly cause flooding of
about nine dwellings on Nassau and Franklin Streets which would otherwise
possibly not be flooded.
The County Engineer has informed the staff that there is no way to relocate
the holding ponds on the site and have them function. He states, "The
holding ponds are a requirement of the State Healt~ Department. Their
purpose is to prevent the discharge of raw sewage into the receiving stream
in the event of a power failure or some other untoward happening. This
requires that they be placed at an elevation that allows flow by gravity
from the treatment plant."
The pump stations to be located on the north side of Moore's Creek are not
expected to have a measurable effect on flooding, according to the County
Engineer~ either to raise its level or increase the velocity of flow. He
states that the proposed AWT facility incorporates the existing Moore's
Creek plant and interceptor into its design, and that there is no practical
way to relocate a pumping station outside the floodway.
The influent pump station is located at the end of the Moore's Creek inter-
ceptor, the effluent ~ump station is located at the outfall line from the
Moore's Creek Plant. The second station makes possible the use of the exist-
ing plant as part of the new facility.
The County Engineer has recommended that Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority be
required to obtain flood easements over the properties in question. Another
alternative would be the widening of the Moore's Creek channel in the vicinit~
of the holding ponds.
Staff does not have any problem with the location of the pumping stations
within the floodway, since it is functionally necessary. The ext~sive
fill required for the holding ponds and the resulting impact on the 100-
year flood level is not desirable. However, there does not appear to be
any choice but to locate the ponds as shown.
4?4
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall make every attempt through proper
engineering methods to reduce the flooding impact of the proposed holding ponds;
2. If necessary, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall proce~ed forthwith to
obtain flood easements over those properties that are subject to additional
flooding by reason of the construction of the holding ponds."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on November 29, 1977, by a vote of 6/0/1, re-
commended approval with the following condition:
"1.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall widen or deepen the Moore's Creek
channel to eliminate the additional 3.68 feet of flood elevation caused by
the holding ponds."
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, reported that he had discussed the problem of
rising water due to the holding ponds with an hydrologic expert, and said that original
calculations may have been in error. He reported that additional analysis may prove that the
cause of additional flooding may be caused by the river below the treatment station, rather
than from the holding ponds. He recommended that the last condition as recommended by the
Planning Commission be changed to allow for the possible revision in flood figures. Mr.
Bailey said that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was anxious to have this project bid.
Mr. Harry Marshall, Attorney for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, suggested that
the Board approve the three reques~ with the condition that the Rivanna conduct an engineer-
ing study to determine if indeed a channel change is required. If so, they will be obligated
to make the necessary change; if no change is found necessary they could proceed with the
permission of the County Engineer.
Mr. George Williams, of the Rivanna Authority, reported that their consultant, Mr.
Krebbs, was scheduled to complete his study of the project some time in early January, 1978,
and at that time, bids for the project would be taken.
Mr. Roudabush suggested the rewording of condition number four to state: "The Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority shall widen, deepen, or rechannel Moore'S Creek to eliminate any
additional flooding which may be caused by the holding ponds", stating that any exact figures
should be left out. Dr. Iachetta stated his concern for the nine families who would be
affected by the backing up of Moore's Creek if the situation is not handled correctly. Mr.
Marshall said the Rivanna Authority would be more than cautious in protecting property of
residents and businesses in the area, because damage suits would be far more costly than the
initial study to correct the problem.
No one else wished to speak either for or against these three petitions, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed, but stated that if this matter is deferred, the public
hearing may be reopened at a future date.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-77-73 with the first three conditions re-
commended by the Planning Commission; changing condition #?ifour to read: "The tree line (the
required 50 foot tree buffer) along Moore's Creek may be eliminated if the engineering study
to be performed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority dictates that it is necessary to take
steps to widen, deepen or rechannel Moore's Creek". Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to amend Section 9A-4
of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 9A~4-4 under uses by special permit. (Wording
set out above.) Roll was called, and motion carried by the following ~recorded vote:
AYES:i~ Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David to approve SP-77-77 but
rewording the recommended condition to read as follows: "The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authorit
shall take whatever steps are necessary, including, but not limited to, widening, deepening or
rechanneling of Moores Creek to eliminate any additional flooding which may be caused by con-
struction of the holding ponds". Roll was called, and motion carried by the following re-
corded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Runoff Control Ordinance as related to proposed Reservoir Protective
District. M~. Agnor noted memorandum dated December 1, 1977, from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey,
County Engineer and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Planner, which follows:
SUBJECT:
Runoff Control Ordinance and Proposed
Reservoir Protective District
The Engineering and Planning staffs have prepared the following report in
order to give you and the Board of SuperviSors an overview of the Runoff Control
Ordinance since its adoption in September, 1977, and a comparison of this ordinance
with the proposed Reservoir Protective~District followed by our recommendations.
Runoff Control Ordinance
Subsequent to the adoption of the Runoff Control Ordinance,the Runoff Control
Official has reviewed a number of applications which involve single lots and one
application of a high density development. In every case, some level of treatment
of the runoff has been required,~nd in the case of the high density development, it
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
4 75
well within the limits allowed by zoning. The physical characteristics of the
site indicate that approximately 20 units can be built.
Loss of soil from a development site is determined by use of the U~iversal
Soil Loss equation. Loss of phosphorus is determined as a percentage of the
soil loss, as explained in the Runoff Control Guidelines. The soil loss
equation is:
It shows that there are six major variables which influence the total sediment
loss (A). For the purpose of the Runoff Control Ordinance,the variables are
described as follows. A is the average annual predicted soil loss in tons/acre/year.
K is the soil erodibility factor. The factor is obtained from Appendix I or V of
the Soil Conservation Service-~manual. The 'K' factor is determined by the type of
soil in question. At this time,the SCS has classified and mapped certain parts of
the County into soil types. The determination will be acceptable to the Runoff
Control Official, however, in the event a project site is not within an area that
has been mapped, the applicant must have the soil type investigated. R is the
rainfall factor. For all of - Albemarle County it is 175. L is the slope-length
factor; S is the slope-gradient factor. (LS). (LS) is defined as the topographic
factor and is determined from the table on pages 3 and 4 in the SCS manual. C is the
cropping management factor on cropland and other land uses. It is determined from
tables 2a, b, c, or d in the SCS manual. P is the erosion control practice factor.
On those sites where there are two or more soil types or two or more land uses, the
applicant must figure the soil loss for each separately.
The equation is also used by the applicant as a guide to determine sediment
losses from project sites after development. However, for post-development con-
ditions the 'C' and 'P' factors are determined from charts that reflect the intensity
of development.
Six factors are utilized in the soil loss equation. Of these, 'K' is constant
through the entire county. Readings for the length and steepness of the slope, L and~
S, are combined as the LS factor in the tables provided. C introduces the crop or
cover factor and P reflects agricultural practices. There is~widespread of values
given for most of these factors, depending on field conditions. For instance, the
LS factor varies from 0.04 for a 0.2% slope, 10' long, to 18.24 for a 20% slope,
2000' long. Values for C vary from 0.001 for well stocked, managed woodland to
0.45 for bare ground. Attached is a tabulation of computations which show the
effect of slopes on soil loss using the best factors for pasture and forest on
slopes of 200' and 400',respectively,and a typical value for K.
The g~idelines set a maximum of 135#/acre/year as the limit for soil loss pre-
dicted by use of the Universal Soil. Loss equation. This loss is equaled on~a 400-foot,
5°5% slope or a 200-foot, 7% slope, when covered with the best turf; or a 400',
11% or a 200', 13% slope, where covered with the best forest cover.
The South Rivanna watershed encompasses approximately 243 square miles or
155,000 acres. Betz Environmental Engineers, in their report, state that approximately
41% is in 20% or steeper slopes. The report classes 61% of the area as undeveloped,
27% pasture, 8% crop and 4% developed. The undeveloped land is forested. Crozet is
cited as the only high density development in the watershed, although the report
also states that the area surrounding the reservoir has the highest percentage of
developed land (12%). This area is shown as 10% of the total watershed and there,
fore 1.2% of the total 4% which is classed as developed. This leaves 2.8% for
Crozet. The highest percentage of crop land is also accredited to the immediate
area and is shown as 24%. This is 2.4% of the total shown for the watershed.
Based on the review of applications to date and the tabulated calculations shown
above, the Runoff Control Official concludes the following:
(1) High ~ensity development on land with slopes of 12% or greater will be
severely limited by the application of the Runoff Control Ordinance. On slopes
above l~%,it is doubtful that any development can comply with the ordinance.
(2) Development within the watershed will be further limited by the pro-
vision of the ordinance which requires any sewerage treatment system to be
located a minimum of 200 feet from the margin of the reservoir or from any stream,
perennial or intermittent, within the watershed.
(3) The 41% of the watershed which is on slopes 20% or greater is in its
present use experiencing greater s°il loss than is prescribed by the Runoff Control
Ordinance as the maximum allowable for land after its development.
(4) The application of the Runoff Control Ordinance will provide the desired
protection to the reservoirs, insofar as development is concerned.
Proposed Reservoir Protective District (RPD)
The. Reservoir Protective District was prepared at the direction of the Board
of Supervisors and its purpose is twofold. First, it was prepared as a device to
ai~ in the implementation of our newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Second, the
RPD was established to provide protection and minimization of pollution and
eutrophication of the county's public drinking water supply impoundments. By
comparing the Runo&f Control Ordinance with the RPD, we found that the existing
Runoff Contro~ Ordinance (ROCO) and the Soil Erosion Ordinance appear to be
providing the protection we sought in the proposed RPD. For example:
476
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Setbacks - The RPD would require structures to be setback 200 feet from any
impoundment or stream. The ROCO requires a 200 foot setback from these areas for
sewerage disposal systems. While the Soil Erosion Ordinance has no specific setback
regulations, it i~ conceivable that setbacks could be established on an individual
site basis as a result of the~review process and committee requirements.
Slopes - The RPD would prohibit location of structures on slopes of 25% or
greater. Where applicable, Appendix A of the Soil Erosion Ordinance prohibits
building, grading and excavative activity except such as necessary for roads and
utilities on slopes of 25% or greater. While the ROCO does not directly speak to
slope limitations, slope is a major factor in the runoff calculations.
Uses - The RPD proposes certain uses by special use permit and certain uses
with a runoff control permit. Neither the Soil Erosion Ordinance nor the ROCO
speak directly to uses, however, depending on the character of the given site,
some uses may not be able to conform to the provisions of these existing ordinances.
Impoundments- Bothaexisting ordinances' provisions cover all of the drinking
water impoundments within the ~ounty (Soil Erosion Ordinance does not include Totier
Impoundment). The proposed RPD also recommended that all impoundments be covered
by this overlay district.
Density - The proposed RPD established density according to the slopeof the
given site. Again, while the ROCO does not speak directly to slopes or densities,
the slope characteristics of a parcel do in fact play an important part in the
runoff calculations and does in turn affect the density and intensity of development
within the watersheds of drinking water impoundments.
Recommendation - Based upon the existing experience of the Runoff Control
Ordinance, the Soil Erosion Ordinance, and the similiari2ies between these ordinances
and the proposed Reservoir Protective District, it is our concerted opinion that the
existing ordinances are and will effectively implement the Betz Report recommendations
and the Comprehensive Plan. We, therefore, recommend that-the Board of Supervisors
withdraw their resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance with a conservation
district."
Dr. Iachetta suggested using common sense, and the Comprehensive Plan, which suggests go-
lng for low density where the land bearing power is not present to accommodate a lot of build-
ings, roads, etc. He said this would eliminate the need for the ordinance, the control
officers and the red tape. Mr. Dorrier said the County should follow the entire water manage-
ment plan suggested by the Betz Study, and not just one small portion. He questioned whether
"conservation" zoning should be applied just to the reservoir, or should it be applied to all
the tributaries leading into the reservoir. Mrs. David said she felt the entire watershed
must be protected in order to obtain the results anticipated in the Betz Report.
At 9:25 P. M., Mr. Fisher declared a two minute recess. Meeting was reconvened at 9:35
P.M. Mr. Fisher then requested that further discussion and vote on this matter be deferred
until Wednesday, December 14, 1977, so that members of the Charlottesville City Council could
be present to observe and participate in the discussion before adoption of an ordinance. He
requested copies of all pertinent staff reports be sent to City Council members for their
information.
Agenda Item No. 9. To consider a proposed amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance and
County Zoning Map to establish a RESERVOIR PROTECTIVE DISTRICT as an overlay zone. The-area
under consideration is that land within the Wate'~she'd of the South Fork Rivanna River Res
ervoirbounded ~y an arc of five-mile radiUs from the water treatment ~lant intake pipe.
Advertised in the Daily Progress on Novle.mber 23 and November 30, ~977. ~.
Mr. Tucker reported that the Planning Commission had not yet acted on this amendment.
Mr. FiSher requested a motion to defer this item until the meeting of December 14, 1977.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Zoning Ordinance Revisinn: Contract from Kamstra, Dickerson &
Associates. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum:
!
Memo to: Board of Supervisors
From: Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Re: Consultant Proposal for Zoning Revision Project
Please find attached a proposal from Kamstra, Dickerson, and Associates, Inc. (KDA)
to engage their services as consultant for the Zoning Ordinance Revision project. It
provides for their involvement in (1) revision of the ordinance and map, (2) prepara-
tion of Crozet and Hollymead Community Plans, and (3) preparation of four (4) village
plans (section of villages to be determined by the County). It estimates a time of
180 calendar days to complete the pro~iect, and divides the cost as follows:
Revision of Ordinance and Map - Phase One -
evaluation of current ordinance and zoning MaP
versus Comprehensive Plan, development of
conceptual approach to revisions, preparation
of work program and refinement of cost estimate
for balance of project. (See Attached D,
paragraph C for more details.)
$4,000
December 7, 1977 (Regular'Night Meeting)
477
PreParation of Crozet and Hollymead Community
Plans. (See D-3, paragraph E for more details.)
$ 6,000
Preparation of Four Village Plans.
paragraph D for more details.)
(See D-2,
Sub-Total
Estimate of Organization and Coordination
Duties
7~,0,00
$17,000
450 - $ 650
Estimate of zoning text and map revision
(work program developed in Phase One)
Possible Total Costs
10,100 - 15,500
$30,800 - $36,400
The Planning Staff would be expected ~to complete the urban neighborhood
plans, the area plan surrounding Scottsville, participate in the text and m~p
amendment tasks, and complete as many village plans as time will allow.
It is recomm~ended that consideration be given at this time to employing
KDA for Phase One of the revision project, and preparation of the 8ommunity
and village plans with a budget adjustment downward to a range of $16,000 in
lieu of $20,250. The details of the adjustment will be explained to the
Board when this matter is discussed at Wednesday's meeting."
Mr. Bruce Drenning was present representing Kamstra, Dickerson & Associates, Inc. Mr.
Tucker noted some changes which were made during final negotiations with Mr. Drenning. Mr.
St. John said he had reviewed the contract and found nothing wrong with the language or
terms as presented.
After a brief discussion by Board members, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush (also a
member of the Steering COmmittee) to accept the contract as amended and authorize the County
Executive, Mr. Agnor, to sign the contrac~ on behalf of the County. Motion was seconded by
Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~-~and Roudabush.
None.
ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION,
VILLAGE PLANS AND COMMUNITY PLANS
CONTRACT ADDENDUM
BETWEEN KAMSTRA, DICKERSON, AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
This AGREEMENT made and entered into this 7th day of December, 1977, by and
between Kamstra, Dickerson & Associates, Inc., a Virginia Professional Corporation
with principal offices at 1608 Washington Plaza, Reston, Virginia, 22090, here%nafter
referred to as the "CONSULTANT", and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "CLIENT";
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires to engage the services of the CONSULTANT to
furnish technical and professional assistance, and the CONSULTANT has signified
his willingness to furnish technical and professional services to the client;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
A. Scope of Consultant's Services
The CONSULTANT agrees to perform in a good and professional manner
those services outlined in Attachment D, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated in this AGREEMENT.
B. Services to be Provided by the Client
In the event that any information, data, reports, records and maps are
existing and available and are useful for carrying out the work on this
Project, this information shall be promptly furnished to the CONSULTANT.
Specific services and materials to be provided to the CONSULTANT by the
CLIENT ara outlined in Attachment E, a copy of which is attached hereto
and %ncorporated in this AGREEMENT. The CLIENT will assist the CONSULTANT
by assembling and promptly making available this material to the CONSULTANT.
The completion of the services to be performed by the CONSULTANT under the
AGREEMENT is contingent upon the timely receipt from the CLIENT, at no cost
to the-CONSULTANT, of this material. If for any reason, materials or
services to be provided by the CLIENT are not made available to the CON-
SULTANT in a proper and timely manner, the CONSULTANT may, at its option,
and by giving written notice 7 days in advance, suspend work on the Project
until such materials or services are provided or exercise the provisions of
Paragraph H below (Termination). If the CONSULTANT elects to suspend work
due to delay or failure to supply materials or services on the part of the
CLIENT, the CONSULTANT'S time to perform services under this AGREEMENT shall
be extended by the time reasonably necessary to compensate for such delay.
C. Time of Performance
The services of the CONSULTANT are to commence as soo~ as practical after
the execution of this AGREEMENT and shall be undertaken and completed in
such sequence as to assure their expenditious completion. A%l of the
services required by Attachment D shall, absent causes beyond the control
of the CONSULTANT, be completed within 180 calendar days thereafter.
478
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
De
Meetings and Reports
It is estimated that the CONSULTANT will attend approximately 37 meetings
during the performance of this Contract, of which 21 meetings are identified
within the Scope of Services and Consultant's~Compensation Estimates contained
in the Contract Addendum dated 7 December 1977. Meetings not included in
said Scope or Compensation Provisions, including as may be hereafter amended,
will be billed at a rate of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00), per
principal per meeting plus direct expenses at 1.15 multiplier for transportation,
lodging., and meals. In the event that more than one meeting is conducted on
the same trip to Charlottesville under these provisions, the CONSULTANT will
bill his direct hourly charges involved with attending such additional aggregated
meetings. Attachments E and F present the total estimated ~umber of meetings
by purpose and a schedule of normal hourly billing rates as referenced above.
Ail meetings shall be arranged by the CLIENT and Shall be mutually satisfactory
to the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT.
The CONSULTANT Will provide the number of reports, memoranda, maps, and
zoning ordinance drafts as requested by.the County on the basis of direct costs
for reproduction times 1.15 multiplier plus production costs at normal hourly
billing rates of K.D.A. personnel involved. The CLIENT shall have the option
of receiving reproduction/ready copy from the CONSULTANTS for use in repro-
duction using its own facilities.
Consultant's Compensation~
The CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed for services rendered under this AGREEMENT
on the basis of normal hourly rates plus expenses with an estimated cost
specified for major work elements as itemized below. The CONSULTANT shall
only bill for work performed under the Scope of SerVices (Attachment D) and
will not exceed the estimate of said major work elements without further
authorization of the CLIENT.
Zoning Ordinance Revision Phase One: The estimated cost of proViding
services as described in Attachment D is Four Thousand D6~!~...~$~,000.00).
Village Plans: It is estimated that the preparation of Plans for
three villages as described under the Sco~e in Attachment D is Six
Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) Ivy, Earlysville & Keswick.
Community Plans: The estimated cost for preparing Community Plans
for the communities of Hoilymeade and Crozet as described in Scope
of Services Attachment D is Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00).
Organization and Coordination: Organizational efforts and coordination
with County planning, zoning, legal, health personnel is estimated
within the range of Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) to Six
Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($650.00).
F. Method of Payment
The CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices to ~the CLIENT, for services
rendered. The amount of each monthly invoice will be determined by multi-
plying the CONSULTANT'S normal rates times hours plus expenses.
Invoices. are due and payable no later than thirty~(30) days of invoice date.
If payments are not made in accordance with the provisions of this
AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT may give written notice 5 days in advance that
he intends tO stop work~ without penalty, until such payments are received.
Following receipt of such payments and prior to reinitiating work, the CLIENT
and the CONSULTANT will mutually agree on the schedule and costs for com-
.~pleting the terms of this AGREEMENT.
Changes and Extra Work
If changes or extra work are requested and authorized in writing by the
CLIENT, and CONSULTANT will be available to furnish, or obtain from others,
the following types of services:
1)
Extra work due to changes in the general scope of the study including,
but not limited to, changes in size, complexity, or character of
the work items.
2)
Additional or extended services including study administration due
to: (a) the proIongation of the AGREEMENT time through no fault
of the CONSULTANT, (b) the acceleration of the work schedule in-
volving services beyond normal working hours, or (c) nondelivery of
any materials, data, or other information to be furnished by the
CLIENT or others not within the control of the CONSULTANT.
AdditiOnal services and costs necessitated by travel required of
the CONSULTANT other than the visits to the Project as specified
in Attachment D, Scope of Services.
Other additional services requested and authorized by the CLIENT
which are not otherwise provided for under this AGREEMENT.
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)~
479
Such changes, including any appropriate increase or decrease in the amount
of compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CLIENT
and the CONSULTANT, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this
AGREEMENT.
H. Termination of Work
Te
The cLIENT and the CONSULTANT shall ~have the right to terminate the AGREEMENT
by written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the specified
effective date of such termination. In such event., all finished and
unfinished documents and work papers prepared by the CONSULTANT under the
AGREEMENT shall, at the option of the CLIENT, become its--property, and the
CONSULTANT shall receive compensation for the work actually completed prior
to the termination date.
If payments are not made in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT,
the CONSULTANT may give written notice 5 days in advance that he intends to
stop work, without penalty, until such payments are received. Following
receipt of such payments and prior to reinitiating work, the CLIENT and the
CONSULTANT will mutually agree on the schedule and costs for completing the
terms of this AGREEMENT.
Authorized Representative
The Albemarle County Director of Planning is hereby designated the represen-
tative of the CLIENT with respect to thel work to be performed under this AGREE-
MENT and such person shall have authorit~ to transmit instructions, receive !
information, interpret and define the CLiIENT'S policies and provide decisions
in a timely manner pertinent to the work! covered by this AGREEMENT until a
CONSULTANT shall haYe been advised by the CLIENT that such authority has ·
been revoked.
J. Approvals and Consents
Me
The CLIENT shall be responsible for obtaining necessary approvals and
consents from governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the PROJECT
and such approvals and consents from other individuals or bodies as may be
necessary for the completion of the PROJECT.
Coordination
The CLIENT will assume the primary responsibility for the coordination
of all participating agencies (including the services of the CONSULTANT)
and will be responsible for providing timely directives to the iCONSULTANT
during the execution of this PROJECT.
Office Space
The CLIENT agrees to furnish office space required for the performance of
the services agreed to herein, within buildings owned or otherwise under the
control of the CLIENT, without charge to the ~ONSULTANT, consistent with
the CLIENT'S oc-cupancy of such buildings.
Progress Reviews
The CONSULTANT shall, together with his monthly invoice, submit a statement
of progress to the CLIENT. Such Statement of Progress shall include work
completed during said billing period, cumulative status of items under Scope
of Work, problems encountered during the applicable billing period, and a
statement of work objectives for the forthcoming billing period. If ii is
determined that during the course of the project events have caused deviation
from the terms of the AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT together with the CLIENT shall
agree upon a procedure to allow completion of the Project within the terms
of the AGREEMENT or shall agree to negotiate modifications to the AGREEMENT
to provide for completion of the Project.
N. Nondiscrimination
The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate by reason of age, race, religion,
color, sex, national origin, or handicap unrelated to the duties of a
position, of applicants for employment or employees as to terms of employ-
ment, promotion, demotion, or transfer, recruitment, layoff or termination,
compensation, selection for training, or participation in recreational'a~d
with the Equal Opportunity clause as set forth in Section 202 of the
ExecutiVe Order 11246.
O. Cost of Living Council
The coNSULTANT agrees to comply with applicable regulations and standards of
the Cost of Living Council in establishing wages and prices. Submission of
bids or ofgers or the submittal of invoices o~ vouchers for property, goods,
or services furnished under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed maximum allowable
levels authorized by the Cost of Living Council regulations or standards.
P. Audit, Access
The C~NSULTANT shall maintain records on a generally accepted accounting
basis which shall be accessible to the CLIENT. The ~ONSULTANT shall pro-
vide access during regular business hours to the representatives of the
CLIENT to such records, and the right to inspect and audit records of the
CONSULTANT relating to its performance under this AGREEMENT shall be main-
tained for a period of one (1) year from the date of completion of services
under this AGREEMENT.
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)-
Q. Contract Not Effective Until Approval by Board of Supervisors
Re
A)
This AGREEMENT will not become effective until the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County Virginia has approved the appropriate resolution author-
izing the proper County official to execute and award the Said AGREEMENT
to the CONSULTANT.
~Review/Approval of Materials
The CLIENT will examine all studies, reports, sketches, estimates, speci-
fications, drawings, proposals, correspondence and other documents presented
by the CONSULTANT and shall notify the CONSULTANT in writing of decisions
pertaining thereto within three (3) Weeks from the submittal date. In
the event that such notification is not provided to the CONSULTANT, it shall
be assumed that the materials are acceptable as submitted.:-:
ATTACHMENT D
CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES
For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, the Study Area is defined as the unincor-
porated area of Albemarle County, Virginia.
B) Work Elements
The Scope of Services for this AGREEMENT shall include three major elements:
1) Revision of Zoning Ordinance Regulations
2) Preparation of Village Plans
3) Preparation of Community Plans
It is intended that work on these tasks would be performed in parallel, ie.
work on detail plans would proceed at the same time as work on zoning ordinance
revisions.
C) Revision of Zoning Ordinance Regulations
Phase One: Evaluation, Conceptual Approach, and Work Program Approval
Task 1 - Evaluation of current regulations and zoning map, ie. Compre-
hensive Plan vs. existing zoning. This task would involve
e~amination of particular zoning districts with respect to both
their locations and bulk regulations in light of the adopted plan;
the County's experience with respect to application of these
various districts would also be examined.
Task 2 - A memorandum wo~ld be prepared containing reco=~endations for
changes to the existing ordinance and map. This memorandum
would cover the changes recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Task 3 - A memorandum would be prepared which will present alternative
conceptual approaches, combinations of approaches, and consultant
recommendations. Included in this memorandum will be a
presentation of eXisting zoning va. new zoning tec'~ques
including those specified in working memorandum #12, performance
zoning, building block zoning, and other approaches which the
County would like to see considered at this time. Special
emphasis would be given to consideration of controls related
to protection of the Rivanna Reservoir.
Task 4 - At this point, the consultant would be prepared to meet with
the Steering Committee for the zoning ordinance revision.
The memorandums outlined previously would be forwarded to the
County for distribution to the Steering Committee prior to
this meeting. A work flow chart would be presented at this
meeting to illustrate methodology for accomplishing all three
work elements of this scope.
Task 5 - Immediately following this meeting, a meeting can be held with
the Citizens' Committee selected by the County. The agenda
for the meeting would involve the two memorandums outlined
above as well as working memorandum #12.
Task 6 - Following the Citizens~' Committee meeting, the consultant would
meet again with the Steering Committee to review citizens'
comments and subsequently to make decisions on the conceptual
approach to be followed for revising the zoning ordinance
regulations and map.
Task 7 - Following this meeting, with the instructions of the Steering
Committee, the consultant would develop a work program and
refine associated cost estimates for the zoning ordinance
revision project.
Task 8 - The consultant would obtain approval of the work program to be
followed in performance of phases two through six.
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
The following five phases are presented as a general guide to the remaining
conduct of the work, but without further detail inasmuch as this will be
developed as part of the work program at the end of Phase One.
Phase Two: Preparation of'Revised Zoning Text
Phase Three: Review/critique and Preliminary Refinement of proposed text
changes with both the Steering Committee and the Citizens' Committee.
Preparation of Map Changes
Refinement and re-review of Zoning Ordinance and text changes
Phase Four:
Phase Five:
proposed.
Phase Six:
PRODUCTS:
Public Hearing and Adoption process for revised zoning ordinance.
Products from Phase One will include 10 copies each of the memoranda
outlined under Tasks 2 and 3, a work flow chart, and a work program for
Phases Two through Six.
Preparation of three Village Plans
Step One: Determination of Village Plans to be prepared, priorities,
organization of Village Planning Committees, and development/approval
of standard village plan.
Step Two: Preparation of Standard Graphics to be presented at all introductory
village meetings:
a. Explanation of County and Village planning process and relationship
to z~ning revisions.
b. List of points concerning villages from the Comprehensive Plan
including planning criteria as well as appropriate goals, objectives,
and standards.
c. Standard questions - for example: expansion area, amount of growth,
expansion directions, lot sizes, housing types, etc. (Discussion aide)
The following eight steps would be repeated for each village:
Step Three: Village reconnaissance by consultant
Step Four: Preparation of individual village graphics:
a. Base map of village (This will include coordination of aerial
photography for villages, communities, and neighborhoods)
b.Base map of village with land use and village "ground rules" from
the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Village base map with development factors (such as slope soils, road
conditions, etc.)
Blank base map of village to sketch ideas on.
Village facts board: population, zoning, facilities, land use summary, etc.
Introductory meeting and determination of appropriate policies.
Preparation of preliminary village plan.
Review and discussion of preliminary plan with Village Planning
Step Five:
Step Six:
Step Seven:
Committee.
Step Eight:
Step Nine:
Step Ten:
PRODUCTS:
Refinement, and preparation of final village plan.
Review of final plan with Village Planning Committee.
Review of Village plans with County Steering Committee.
- Graphics (see above)
- Synopsis of Meetings
- Physical Plan - mapped
- Text Plan - focus on problems addressed, rationale for decisions, local
goals and objective, zoning recommendations, and other special issues
of local concern.
E) Preparation of (2) Community. Plans
It is envisioned that the same basic process will be followed for communities
as for villages. Added complexities in the detailed community planning
process will include review of specific Comprehensive Plan proposals, more
complex land use, utility, and transportation considerations, as well as
additional meetings.
482
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Step One: Organization of Community Planning Committees, and development/ approval of standard community plan format.
Step Two: Preparation of Standard Graphics to be presented at all introductory
community meetings:
a. Explanation of County and Community planning process and relationship
to zoning revisions.
b. List of points concerning communities from the Comprehensive Plan
including planning criteria as well as appropriate goals, objectives,
and standards.
c. Standard questions - for example: expansion area, amount of growth,
expansion directions, lot sizes, housing types, etc. (Discussion aide)
The following eight steps would be repeated for the two communities:
Step Three: Community reconnaissance by consultant
Step Four: Preparation of individual community graphics:
a. Base map of community (This will include coordination of aerial
photography for ~illages, communities~ and neighborhoods)
b. Base map of community with land use and community "ground ruins" from
the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Community base map with development factors ( such as slow soils, road
conditions, etc.)
d. Blank base map of communities to sketch ideas on.
e. Community facts board: population, zoning, facilities, land use summary, etc.
Step Five: Introductory meeting and determination of appropriate policies.
Step Six: Preparation of preliminary community plan.
Step Seven: Review~and discussion of preliminary plan with Community ~?lanning Committee.
Refinement, and preparation of final community plan.
Review of final plan with Community Planning Committe~.
Review of Community plans with County Steering Committee
Step Eight:
Step Nine:
Step Ten:
PRODUCTS:
- Graphics (see above)
- Synopsis of Meetings
- Physical Plan - mapped
- Text Plan - focus on problems addressed, rationale for decisions, local
goals and objective, zoning recommendations, and other special issue~
of local concern."
ATTACHMENT E
SERVICES AND MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CONSULTANT
Specific services to be. rendered by the CLIENT or designated agents to the
CONSULTANT shall include the following:
1) COmpile all existing plans, reports, maps and information related to the
Study Area and furnish same to CONSULTANT.
2) Furnish suitable base maps of the County and its sUbareas.
3) Provide access to other public agencies and departments.
4) Arrange working meetings and technical review sessions as required.
Provide plans and land use regulations for the incorporated areas within
Albemarle County and for the jurisdictions adjoining the County.
Provide secretarial services to record and transcribe important points and
comments made during policy and public meetings.
MEETINGS "BUDGET"
Villages 9
Communities 6
Phase 1, Zoning Ordinance 3
Steering Committee Review Villages 1
Comp. Plan Amendment Hearings 2
Zoning Ordinance Public Hearings 4
Zoning Ordinance Development
Steering Committee 4
C.A.P. 3
County Staff 5
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
483
ATTACHMENT F
NORMAL HOURLY RATES - K.D.A. - 1977
The rates quoted below are for the fiscal yaar 1977-1978, and are subject
to a yearly change on July 1, 1978.
PRINCIPAL OR CORPORATE OFFICER
ASSOCIATE
PROGRAMMER
ARCHITECT
PLANNER
INTERIOR DESIGNER
ECONOMIST
AR~iHITECTURAL DESIGNER
ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTSMAN~
DRAFTSMAN
PLANNING TECHNICIAN
JUNIOR DRAFTSMAN
SECRETARY
CLERK
$45/Hour
$35/Hour
$30/Hour
$30/Hour
$30/Hour
$30/Hour
$25/Hour
$25/Hour
$25/Hour
$15/Hour
$15/Hour
$10/Hour
$15/Hour
$10/Hour
Consultants reimburseable costs are billed at 1.15 times their cost to us for
handling, taxes, and secretarial work on each bill.
Agenda Item No. 11. Zoning Ordinance Revision: Steering Committee. Mr. R~udabush
reported on progress of the Steering Committee for development of the ~oning ordinance re-
visions. He said that most members have been selected, and that only a few still need to
be notified. He said the next meeting of the Committee will be after the beginning of the
new year. Mr. Roudabush then suggested that the Charlottesville City Council be allowed
to select a council member to sit in on the Steering Committee meetings as an ex-officio
member as a matter of courtesy. Mrs. David requested that the same courtesy be extended
to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mrs. David offered motion to invite both the Charlottesville City Council and the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to appoint an ex-officio member to sit in
on Steering Committee meetings. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None. ~
Agenda I~m No. 12. Appointment: Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush recommended
the name of Mr. Layton R. McCann, Route'l, Box 12J~ Keswick, Virginia to ~ill the un-
expired term of Mr. Paul Peatross~ said term expiring on Dec~embe~ 3I, 1979. Mr. Roudabush
then offered motion to make this app~_ihtment. Motion was seconded bY'Dr. Iachetta and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher,. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Criminal Justice Advisory Council; request for resolution,
Fisher presented the following resolution for the Board's consideratinn:
WHEREAS funds are allocated to Planning Districts by the Council on
Criminal Justice for the use of localities in the improvement of local
criminal justice system components and agencies, in the form of target
allocations, based upon the population size and crime rates within the
Planning Districts; and
WHEREAS such funds are not in every case expended within the
budgetary period for which theY were allocated, and therefore become
accrued funds in the care and control of the Division of Justice and
Crime Prevention; and
WHEREAS the Division of Justice and Crime Prevention and the Council
on Criminal Justice reallocate these accrued funds in a manner which dis-
regards the original funding distribution formula for target allocations; and
WHEREAS this is a matter of increasing concern to the jurisdictions of
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District;
Mr.
484
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby recommends that the Council on Criminal Justice revise
their policies on accrued funds to insure that such accrued funds remain under
the control of the Planning Districts to which they were originally assigned by
a fair and equitable formula to be used for programs offered to the Council on
Criminal Justice as overage proposals in annual action grant programs.
Motion to adopt the resolution as presented was offered, by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs
David, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Presentation- Agency Agreement: Jordan Development Corporation.
Mr. Agnor said this agreement would app$~.~t the Jordan Development Corporation as the County's
agent for the Crozet Housing Project for the'Elderly. He noted that the agreement was drawn
up at a meeting between the Development Corporation and the Charlottesville Housing Authority,
the County Attorney's office and ~imself. Mr. Agnor said he took the document to Richmond
for approval by HUD Officials, and finally for adoption by the Board. Mr. Agnor said the
final document was actually written by Mr. St. John'S ~ffice, and that all financial matters
involved with this document have been reviewed by Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance. Mr.
Agnor noted that the Jordan Development Corporation would be required to use the bookkeeping
system designed by Mr. Jones for the project, and that Mr. Jones will handle the actual
distribution of the HUD funds. Mrs. Jane Saunier said the Jordan Development Corporation had
not yet acted to approve the agreement, but suggested that the Board be the first to act on
its acceptance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to enter
into the following agreement upon approval of the Jordan Development Corporation and to
authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors t'o sign same:
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 7th day of December, 1977, by and between
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and JORDAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (~Jordan"), a Virginia nonprofit charitable corporation,
WI TNE S SETH :
Por and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth below, the
County of Albemarle and Jordan Development Corporation agree as follows:
1. The County hereby appoints Jordan as the County's agent for the
site development and construction of a community center on 27.893 acres of
land, near Crozet, Virginia, pursuant to the terms of a HUD Community Develop-
ment Grant in the amount of $228,280.00, Grant Application Number B-77-DN-51-0037;
State Application Identifier Number 77-10-004 (the "HUD Grant"). This project is
part of a larger project to be undertaken by Jordan for the development of The
Meadows, a residential complex for the eIderly and elderly deaf and related
community center.
2. Jordan shall designate an architect, who shall develop a final site
plan and appropriate engineering studies relative to the construction of an
entrance and roadway which meet Virginia State Department of Highways require-
ments, and location and design of water and sewer lines to serve both a community
center and seven residential units containing 27 one bedroom rental apartments.
The architect also shall develop schematics and working drawings for a 3,000
square foot community center, which shall be situated in clos:e proximitY to the
residential units, be provided with appropriate parking as required by the
Albemarle County Plan~ing Department, and be related in character and materials
to the residential units. Jordan then shall let contracts for the actual site
development and construction of a community center. The architect shall serve as
the project coordinator for supervision of the construction.
3. Jordan shall invoice the County monthly for the services that are de-
signated below and that relate Only to expenditures appropriate to the HUD Grant:
(a) Cost of site plan development and preparatinn;
(b) Cost of site development engineering studies;
(c) Site development construction costs;
(d)
Cost of schematic and working architectual drawings for the
community center;
(e) Construction costs of the community center;
(f) Administrative costs for project management and record keeping.
4. The County, after receiving invoices from JOrdan, shall be responsible
for the disbursal of HUD grant funds directly to the architect and the cong~actors
involved in the site development and construction of the community center.
5. Jordan agrees that all construction work Will be awarded through bidding
procedures that meet all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations.
Jordan shall let separate bids for site preparation and construction of the senior
center. Ail contracts for services and construction of The Meadows, except for the
residential component, shall be reviewed by the County Executive and County Attorney
prior to award.
December 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
8 5
AYES:
NAYS:
6. Jordan~ as the County's agent for site development and construction
of the community center pursuant to the terms of the HUD grant, shall comply
with the requirements of 24 CFR Section 570.303 (e), (7), (8), (9), and (11)
and Assurances (7), ~8), (9), and (11) regarding F~deral Management Circulars
74-4 and 74-7, the labor standards set forth in 24 CFR Section 570.605,
Executive Order 11246 and Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
Of 1968, as amended. Jordan shall further comply with all applicable
record-keeping requirements regarding ~rant administration and HUD audit re-
quirements as set forth generally in 24 CFR Section 570.500 et seq. (Subpart
F-Grant Administration), and more particularly in 24 CFR Sections 570.909 and
570.910, as amended in 42 Federal Register No. 124, page 33018 (Tuesday, June 28,
1977), in Federal Management Circular 74-7, and in HUD Handbook IG 6505.2, Audit
Guide and Standards for Community Development Block Grant Recipients (May 20,
1976). The County's auditors shall assist Jordan in complying with HUD grant
record-keeping requirements. Jordan shall further comply with any other
applicable state and federal laws and regulations in serving as the County's
agent.
7. Jordan shall let a separate bid and proceed with the co~struction of
the residential units, simultaneously with the site preparation and construction
of the community center. Further, Jordan intends to acquire interim financing
from a local conventional source for the construction of the residential units,
based on a guarantee from the United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers
Home Administration~ to assure permanent financing of the residential units.
The accounting and administration of funds used for the construction of the
residential units shall be kept entirely separate from the HUD grant funds and
shall be the sole responsibility of Jordan.
8. The County will retain ownership of the community center and the land
upon whic~ the~-~community center is c~nstructed. The County further will retain
an easement to the community center, unless the roadway to the co~unity center
is accepted into the State Highway System by the Virginia State Department of
Highways.
9. As soon as Jordan shall have had prepared a new survey reflecting
the County's ownership of the community center, the County shall transfer
to Jordan, by appropriate deed in the manner prescribed by law the remainder
of the 27.893 acres of land. This transfer shall in no way relieve Jordan of
its agency duties as set forth in this agreement. These agency duties sha!l
continue until such time as the site development and construction of the
community center have been completed and all terms of the HUD Grant have been
met.
10. Upon completion of the site development and construction of the
co~unity center, the County shall lease the community center to the Jefferson
Area Board for ~ging or other appropriate agency, under a separate agreement.
This lease agreement will detail the length of the lease, and the responsi-
bilities of each party under the lease. Upon completion of the residential
units, Jordan shall assume sole responsibility for the management of the
Meadows.
11. The County of Albemarle shall appoint two members to the Board of
Directors of Jordan. The Albemarle County housing coordinator shall serve
as an ex-offico member of the Board of Directors of Jordan, without vote.
The Jordan Corporation shall designate the project manager.
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjournment. At 10:30 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded b~.Mrs. David. to adjourn the meeting. Ro~l was called, and motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
~ - ~/Chai~man -