HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201200083 Approval - County WPO VSMP 2012-02-22 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
Mountain Valley WPO exception February 22, 2012
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ACTION: X INFORMATION:
Exception to the WPO to allow a stream crossing on
TM89-73G5 in Mountain Valley Subdivision. CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Glenn Brooks ATTACHMENTS: Yes
PRESENTER(S): REVIEWED BY:
Glenn Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW:
"[Filled in by Legal reviewer-Yes/No]"
BACKGROUND:
Mountain Valley Subdivision was approved in 2005. A mitigation plan (file 2391) was approved which
promised to access four lots from Ridgetop Drive, in order to avoid more stream buffer disturbances within
the proposed subdivision. This is noted on the approved plan and on the subsequent plat which created
the subdivision. Selected sheets from the approved plan are provided in Attachment B, which shows the
referenced note. Attachment A provides a basic map of the property from the County GIS system, and the
location of the existing and proposed driveways.
Another mitigation plan was submitted on September 25th, 2012 proposing a stream crossing for parcel 89-
73G5, one of the lots in Mountain Valley Subdivision noted above. This plan is provided in Attachment C.
On October 1st, 2013, Collins Engineering was notified in correspondence that this plan could not be
approved, because this lot had access on Ridgetop Drive (in existence, and provided on previously
approved plans). The new plan was effectively denied. Collins Engineering submitted the same plan again
on January 4th, 2013 (3 months later). On January 10th, 2013, Collins Engineering was again notified that
this plan could not be approved. On January 24th, 2013, a formal letter was sent to Jessco LLC and
Piedmont Realty & Constr., LLC, the listed owners of the property. This letter is provided in Attachment D.
On February 4th, 2013, a letter was received requesting a WPO exception to allow the stream crossing and
driveway. This letter is back-dated January 30th, and is included in Attachment E.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
DISCUSSION:
The applicant's exception request letter cites ordinance sections 17-308 and 17-321.
Section 17-308 lists criteria in paragraph C;
Sec. 17-308 Exceptions.
Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer made pursuant to section 17-321,a request for an exception
to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted as provided herein:[...]
C.A request for exception may be granted provided that:
1.A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority for review in
accordance with this article;the plan demonstrates that reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and
determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the provisions of this article use of non-structural measures as
provided in section 17-313,the use of a mitigation plan as provided in section 17-322,or by other means;
2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief;
3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that the purposes of this
article are satisfied;and
4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship,which shall be deemed an insufficient reason to
grant an exception.
The plan does not demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives under item (1). There is an
existing approved alternative. The plan is not the minimum necessary to afford relief under item (2). The
plan disturbs buffer which would not otherwise be disturbed.
Section 17-321 cited by the applicant has the following condition;
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority.
Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described
below,provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to,and approved,by the program authority pursuant to section 17-
322: [...]
3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a
road,street or driveway that would not satisfy the requirements of section 17-320(D)and the program authority
determines that the stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for the lot to be used and developed as
permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of the subdivision ordinance,or to
establish more than one stream crossing;
The stream buffer does not prohibit access to the lot. There is existing access. It is approved, platted and
built.
Section 17-320D3 was cited in the letter to the owners;
Sec. 17-320 Types of development authorized in stream buffer.
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance,the following types of
development shall be allowed in a stream buffer,provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: [...]
D. Stream crossings of perennial and intermittent streams for roads, streets or driveways,provided the following
requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of the program authority: [...]
3. The stream buffer disturbance shall be the minimum necessary for the lot(s)to be used and
developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of the subdivision
ordinance. Stream crossings shall not disturb more than thirty(30)linear feet of stream for driveways and sixty(60)
linear feet for roads or streets,provided that the program authority may allow additional length of stream disturbance
where fill slopes or special conditions necessitate additional length;
The proposed stream crossing would not be the minimum necessary for the lots to be used and developed.
The existing driveway(s) from Ridgetop Lane have eliminated the necessity for stream crossings and buffer
disturbance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
none
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request for exception.
Should the Board wish to approve the exception, and allow the stream crossing and buffer disturbance, the following
condition is recommended;
1. The mitigation plan shall be revised to include mitigation for the prior disturbances of graded access
from Ambrose Commons Drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A—map of property
Attachment B—approved plans from 2005
Attachment C— proposed plan
Attachment D—letter to the owners "or.' wow
Attachment E—letter requesting exception
a )
A W - ' x
,fi ..• °
o "'Mt CO, f
s 1,
4Mi .ti
,-
O r.25 ,- ♦ �At - s *'fes } '
°'' c. i '�a. /C^) �
5Mz
., „L 'art
Itoir
-
: • R _,..-•
Y
'';.‘''::",;.,'. , :',t,, ' '. t'.; ,-'1 '.4103 ,:-.‘*''‘ °-;',. ,.. . S . _ ..5tt-.. •LL''' ,,,,,..„,,,. ...;,.;.. ,;--, - ,....,1 t'.'W*It-fYi:1 , ,,,A ,
,,,,,(47-.... ., ai v d,7 ,t:
.. 1"
' 9i,
A i
p
,5R «r`� p
fmrC.d o. T x� 4;
� ` Uo. - �" CO
o
• 4e741/t, ,„
O\0171/O.w._ N� _
',V- •14,-: a 4-.0 Tr/0-, OFN, ':�y„i
r i` 47�N �` �; (pit �. , !
,... _„.
. •..,„..... ..,,:-.....
-..,,,,,,,,,,,,,_, ro'_. • ''A‘.7. . „ ..:. -.i..; : -.- ,.:,..., ,, i'4, 0
CD Q.”. o m
Vn ,\�` 'N
'IT u-. m�,o o`- - oo
. SS}mi m.. ri
-1'.
' •\
'+ •
fm ojoFvf,wo tlD. w- oo � N wtc '.,, vrnmAW _ ooW .N - nvrn , , iom/ <wrcpi 71,24.41.t,
1` o $ - - � arn/w,/ `V � ' (na \d fD on NW . 0 : _ •r)
?y` ,t � - ' 0Dos a•
.
fi
_ , -1ipgyA04._ S Fp1 QY-.7:i,- 5
•
a� 3
w £ 4�
a ,
m3 0�
o m +,
`'.' a m OF1�W
w
Fq
4
ri 1 -2 ... ''•",LT,',
lj 10;1 .,2 ".•_,'
R
C o 2 '12 '486 i - Dilly II
fr
•F \'4Nj-M; /�,r ^ n#,
: T
:
�
� 42
°,s
�r
!,tip f 0ip„.‘,.., ,,, ..,k...
. - W Ws . m M ".._'.1
..to _� W/W
)
kirsliiiii
,'�'.,I M .- o\� � r Mr_ M, rA *....2f �
cy,
in!
.,, , .... • :.; 7 44a)(4) '41r)
-
ti�' �Wo�pa,tio)�s 7,1::.
�� •7 . o r
n .rn � 0 0`�•\1 'u> :` w o
Wmoo as„ •�rnti; �a
q �. . -
'- co '!w'~d01 S
op
_. ... ,
c., c„,,_ ,
„Li
, , ..,.
,... ...
' �$ � ., •
i� r• ,t � ” r C , �L �M o /.. 0.,,,,,
4 `� • N14te- 4� ! • d� ,
Csj
•
�
` co ,T C
Z � r.
y
`. ¢ i _
-
Y
01
,z'��Sxg' .. r .. -
tia.
.a
r
' t
7.---------:*•• - t
t
Ike'
E
w' S i
: , .r:.
t
Y • # ice.
$
r
SFS '*4111110#
110.110.7)1.1.101.30 91.11013.1 3
.".'.it\ ......v.= i NOISM104111S1VIIN3C115321 A371YA mvaimovi ;IA
:,.,,,,i, , ........_,1•01,101!IN,00, ,,,,,,,,,,,11,
' . '''.'' ..'........s' +...t...' dflOWO SNOWW i
i, T,
1
.• 5. 1, t o,
f o
't 11: 1,;.,..'
1- iir!
gr..,
6 2,
-,
g3
ot
2'2
Z
>- o
w —.
....1 in
.---. ti <
—I > T: > ______------- _ _--1
4 6 !,-,; I .-',.,, - i
.....&. s
a) °
Z z E
—, LU ro —I _, 6
0 (7)
X Lf-i
1 1
i 1 1i
(11111111
t il , il 11
li : :Hills
1 11:111111111111" a 111111111
i iiiii11111111111111 mli
::1:im
NNW' _
..,; ••-, ''.:\ i r,::„-- ' k C)t...)
sf =
�FFy o N
65 r ., • e'•--i ',..,.'. .',./ /^�''
♦ '� A W
Y,
.
e niy
CD
rl
��d �bb` c 6y6� •i M , ,fia
9 •
: 6F,d
e. ,
i ♦ O� M t�`6`.
.}A.
-6
of1
' 4-%
` i < - vy
ti
, ffAi, ir --_, - :,,,...!.:.."4- i .,,, ___ '--, • 14\4 .
aye'+ .i
55ti '• H
'L-''l
p a ;82',19;\'''''' a
e
....... . ., .a,...
c.
,Y<
k: , , .:,
,,
.._..... - ,_ __.., ,,..,
♦ fl . if �
,..„,„,„, \
MO.Development 1 NWC.MYI I Infreeireclera 1 T.m.aon ,:!3
" OVERALL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ; °` ""`"°""__
W I a¢ MOUNTAINfVALLEYE.A.,,,,a,,• MAPLE �� e� ,aim
COUNTY,VIRGIN.
v 5e.
ERALL LAYOUT PLAN E.
M'''"'
,.df OUO S onrIa Ja Du.
,,uua7Jl.�
,.//1pa
J an 9 to10//IWW Duo odµW
,. ,.v3NWO7 LOCA ONY ALNIIO7 dad 035L13a v0/07/S 1
1--
...0.14 IA I/Nie,3,4'"W AawuSno�a3da35u3a eosiE m S� E i—
A" SZN3Mh'07100A OW ALNIO7 Mad O35!A3M 60/R r Q O F/./ �,, e tlINl92lLl'A1N(10J
e SU03NWO7.O0AONY ALNfO7 aid 0351A3d EO/ o '�?o p I N O I S IAI a 9 f 1 S it
NOLLaM7530 NOISIA3a uva
F g- I' A6o�outpai I ampnJase4ui 1 leiauapIsaa i ;uawdoianaa ells
,pg :uoYaoWWp'�x6E9L'16L'M9 kV!OOSf'66L'bD13i
?4'
t" dnoi
660N1/-9EZEZ AA'TnwW
' la N 11,A0D N tIL • •
3JLL lV/TM/EMI9NIMW0 SIR/. Saf10 1,91101141 O3A3IH3V NOI5[A 1/1110A -.-1.4110.1110.
•••.•
YIN191MA ISM 1 VNI7oWY]miaow I YINI9NIA
// /J. 1
f
\\ — —
1 � r
/no 73a 33S
I
}
„
�, , ., r 1 '
I �I1r, ;,i �.., /,
' �;' I _____ti,ig I ��' / 1
i ` � �2 ,
' <o 1, t
F
ho I 1 I'
I Q 1I;
O ( /�I nIop 1.1.
1 �3� II I
C) I I
N 1 _ 1
O
1 ,
OO ,FIs _i. ___--- r. � ,
O
i( _- �� Gig
ct
' CO \� i' Iti c
y/// i/j 1 k "C 0
, f /= Ill',
II C t} VJ Q
.
„,_
I
ca \ Amo
. ' opo
y� �1I
`. Irl i, I1 �/�' \\
W 11
l
\-CD 3 1 I 1.
f
' 0
L.. I g.
Q) I
Q A 1
1
1 " i- \\I