Loading...
1973-08-088-8-73 The' next item under discussion was consideration of establishment of Flood Plain LimitS as delineated in reports prepared by the United States Corps. of Engineers and as advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18 and July 25, 1973. The purpose of the establishment of the intermediate flood plain lines is that of providing safety from property damage and loss as a result of floods and all o~her related dangers; and of promoting the health and general welfare by regulating and restricting areas in flood plains of all rivers and water bodies. The flood plains under discussion were as follows: ~(Descriptions listed on Page 183). 1 Moore's Creek. 2 South Fork Rivanna River. 3 North Fork Rivanna River. 4 Rivanna River. 5 Meadow Creek. 6 Mechums River. Mr. Humphrey stated that approximately four years ago the staff had been asked to pursue such an ordinance. Approximately a year and one-half ago, the County started to receive the first of the six studies which are under discussion tonight. On December 13, 1972 the Board adopted a flood plain ordinance which was incorporated into the zoning ordinance and the County has qualified for emergency flood insurance. However, the amounts of this insurance will double under a regular flood program. The Planning staff sent letters to approximately 293 landowners involved in these six studies and the Planning Commission had about 60 people in attendance. The flood limits as delineated were received well. These reports establish the flood plain lines and not flood ways. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lines as delineated and referred to in the Corps. of Engineer report with special emphasis being given to the profile sections. At this time the Chairman opened the floor for comments from the public. Mr. Purcell Tomlin said he lived near Mechums River at Miller School and he was not opposed to the flood plain ordinance, however, he asked if it would not be better to clean out the channel. Mr. Humphrey replied that most of the questions raised at the Planning Commission meeting were questions about debris. Mr. Philpot said that following the Camille and Agnes hurricanes and floods that certain streams had been cleared by the Corps. of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service with the help of emergency funds from OEP. However, the time limit on these funds had long ago run out. He said there are regular programs under the Corps and Soil.~.Conse~v~tionService~that~ would permit the work to be done, but, there has to be shown that some benefit would result to offset the cost of this. The Corps has been unable to justify costs in rural areas. Mr. Frank Pierce said he owned a farm on the Rivanna River and he had several questions about how t. he elevation or boundary lines of the flood plain are determined. He also asked if this flood insurance covered crops and if this flood plain ordinance and lines would effect the tax base on the land. No one else from the public rising to speak, motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to accept the Corps. of Engineers flood plain profiles for the six streams for which 8-8-'73 i80 the Board had been provided copies. These studies delineating the flood plain areas for purposes of that portion of the zoning ordinance constituting the flood plain section. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES- NAYS- Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Humphrey said that there were a couple of reports that were still to be received, mainly for the James River and Mechunk Creek. Mr. Philpot said he understood the Board also wanted to include Stockton Creek and Ivy Creek, and these could be included without another resolution of the Board however, it may be two years before these reports are finished. At this time the Board continued their discussion of a special appropriation for resurfacing of the airport runway. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present and read the following letter: "August 6, 1973 Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler Chairman of the Board 908 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re' Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Improvements to Runway Dear Mr. Wheeler' Pursuant to your instruction, we have consulted with Dewberry, Nealon and Davis on Their recommendations relative to the rehabilitation and strengthening of the Charlottesville-Albemarle runway. Copies of our letter and their reply are attached. We conclude from Dewberry, Nealon, Davis's reply to our inquiries that we should adopt alternate 3, as originally recommended by them and add the seal cost which they now recommend in item 3 of their letter of August 1, 1973. Subsequent to our meeting with you, we attended a meeting of the Airport Committee. It seemed timely to that body and to us that the paving of the turnaround at the south end of the runway be considered in conjunction with the runway paving. By combining the two, the cost of paving the turnaround should be considerably reduced from what it would be if done separately. Also, the FAA is now absorbing 75% of paving costs on eligible projects. This paving of the turnarund was considered in 1972 and a sum of $11,325 was authorized by the Board on the basis of our cost estimate. Plans and a change order were prepared and prices were obtained from the Central Contracting Company, Inc., the site preparation contractor. Contral's price was so far above our estimate that the thought of paving the turnaround was discarded until it could be done in conjunction with other paving work. We have taken The liberty of enclosing the latest summary of the current project along with a summary of the proposed project costs with this report. Very truly yours, J. Harvey Bailey" 8-8-73 181 Mr. Bailey then read the following letter from Dewberry, Nealon & Davis' "August 1, 1973 Mr. J. Harvey Bailey County Engineer County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Bailey' Reference is made to your letter of July 26, 1973, regarding the proposed rehabilitation and strengthening of Runway 3-21 at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The questions you have raised have been discussed with the FAA and the following guidance is suggested' 1. The overlay of the entire runway within two or three years is not a requirement of FAA. 2. It is practical to delay the-strengthening of the outer 37½ feet of runway until more visible signs of structural deterioration is evident except in those areas where taxi access to the taxiways occur. 3. Since oxidation and resulting cracking is occuring in the top outer 37½ foot wide pavement areas, consideration should be given to a slurry seal coating being applied to protect from the infiltration of water. The cost for this is reasonable, $35,000 to $40,000, and it has the added advantages of giving the pavement a more uniform appearance edge to edge and, if properly applied, gives a good tractive surface. While there is no guarantee, we would expect Alternate 3 to serve for five or more years with minimal maintenance. If there are any other questions regarding this matter, please contact my office. Sincerely, Vernon R. Gingell, Partner" Mr. Bailey then presented quite a lengthy report giving the history Of the ILS project at the Airport. He ended by saying that he recommended the use of alternate #3 with slurry seal and paving of turnaround as the most logical construction step to take. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to accept the recommendations of the County Engineer and to adopt the following resolution' BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $45,237 be, ~nd the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the Capital Outlay Fund to be used for the surfacing of the runway at the Airport. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS' None. 'Mr. Fisher offered motion to adopt~ the following resolution as requested by the County Planner' BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows' (1) by revising the definition of a parking space; (2) by revising the definition of mobile homes; and (3) by refinement of of~-street parking requirements for all uses within the present zoning ordinance. 8 -8 -73 .I..82 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board requests the Planning~ Commission to hold public hearing on said proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest date possible. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr.. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS' None. Mr. Wood stated that he had received a letter from James G. Cosby concerning site plan review for Charlottesville Shopping World. There were two questions which .Mr. Cosby felt had not been resolved at the Planning Commission hearing. The first was a question on parking space requirements and the second was that there are 40,000 square ft. in the corner of this parcel which were not considered in the site plan and no controls were placed on this segment. There was also a question about the two entrances to this property, one on Route 29 and the other on Dominion drive, which is now a residential entrance. Mr. Wood then requested that the Board review the site plan and take some action on the questions not resolved at the Planning Commission hearing. He asked that the Board notify the developer that serious objections had been raised. Mr. St. John said · ~Tr~-t~-that site plan review was a function of the Planning Commission and unless the Board wished to change this procedure in the zoning ordinance he did not know if the Board could review this petition. He mentioned Code of V~rginia Section 15.1-475. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board could hold an informal review of the matter and if in reviewing the matter, the Board reached, the concensus that a grave error had been made if they could instigate action to correct this error. Mr. St. John replied that they could institute a proceeding styled against the Planning Commission and the applicant. It would then be left to the Court to overthrow the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Batchelor said that he would suggest the Board have an informal review of the matter and if the Board feels there are items which need to be changed, the developer would probably agree to these changes. Mrs. Joan Graves said that Mr. Humphrey had already asked for a change in the zoning ordinance to accommodate the parking spaces for this facility, and the residents of Berkeley are uncertain as to how they will be able to get in and out of Berkeley with the traffic that is already generated by this subdivision. Mr. Wood then offered motion to initiate an informal review of the site plan with the developer, and residents of Berkeley, Mr. James Cosby, the Planning staff, and a member of the Highway Department staff. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS' None. 8-8-73 183 Mr. St. John said he would study this matter and have a firm opinion ready by the time the Board reviewSthe site plan. Motion was effered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Henley to adjourn this meeting until August 15, 1973. Motion carried by the following recerded vote' AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS' None. Chairman *left out on page 179 o o o Moore's Creek - From "Sherwood Farm Subdivision" to the intersectiOn of Moore's Creek with the Rivanna River Biscuit Run report dated September, 1971. South Fork Rivanna River - From the intersection of Moormans and Mechum River to the intersection of the South and North Fork of Rivanna River with the Rivanna River. Report dated March, 1973. North Fork Rivanna River - From the intersection of Routes 641 and 743 at Advance Mills to the intersection of the North and South Forks of the Rivanna River. Report dated March, 1973. Rivanna River - From the intersection of the North and South Forks of the Rivanna River to the Fluvanna County Line. Report dated June, 1971. Meadow Creek - From the intersection of Meadow Creek with Route 29 North to the intersection of Meadow Creek with the'Rivanna River. Report dated January, 1972. Mechums River - From the intersection of Route 601, North of "~Owensville" to the intersection of Dollins Creek with Mechums River, North of Batesville. Report dated February, 1973.