Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900011 Review Comments 2006-10-17COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE Preston Bryant 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg Virginia 22801 David K. Paylor Secretary of Natural Resources 540) 574 -7800 Fax (540) 574 -7878 Director www.deq.virginia_gov R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. October 17, 2006 Regional Director Evergreen Land Company c/o Mr. Kyle Springs Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23225 RE: VWP General Permit Authorization Number WP3 -06 -2007 Mosby Mountain Development Access Road, Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Mr. Springs: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reviewed your application received on August 17, 2006 and deemed complete on October 4, 2006. Based on DEQ's review, the proposed project qualifies for the VWP General Permit Number WP3. The enclosed copy of the VWP general permit authorization contains the applicable limits, reporting requirements, and other conditions for authorization. This authorization expires seven years from the Authorization Effective Date. Please note that this authorization may be continued at the State Water Control Board's discretion, as per the VWP permit regulations. If the authorized activity has not been completed and you wish to obtain a Continuation of Coverage authorization, the permittee must request this continuation no less than 60 days prior to the Authorization Expiration Date of the original VWP general permit authorization, or the authorization will expire on the original Authorization Expiration Date. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Millard at (540) 574 -7813. Sincerely, B. Keith Fowler Regional Water Permits Manager Enclosures: VWP General Permit Authorization, Summary Sheet cc: Nora Iseli, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Madden, Virginia Marine Resources Commission File des s a. 41 tv COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VWP General Permit No. WP3 VWP General Permit Authorization No. WP3 -06 -2007 Authorization Effective Date: October 17, 2006 Authorization Expiration Date: October 16, 2013 VWP GENERAL PERMIT FOR LINEAR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS UNDER THE VIRGINIA WATER PROTECTION PERMIT AND THE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL LAW Based upon an examination of the information submitted by the applicant and in compliance with § 401 of the Clean Water Act as amended (33 USC 1341) and the State Water Control Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the board has determined that there is a reasonable assurance that the activity authorized by this VWP general permit, if conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth herein, will protect instream beneficial uses and will not violate applicable water quality standards. The board finds that the effect of the impact, together with other existing or proposed impacts to wetlands, will not cause or contribute to a significant impairment of state waters or fish and wildlife resources. Subject to the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and pursuant to the State Water Control Law and regulations adopted pursuant to it, the permittee is authorized to permanently or temporarily impact up to two acres of nontidal wetlands or open water and up to 1,500 linear feet of nontidal stream bed. Permittee:Evergreen Land Development Address:800 East Jefferson Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project Name:Mosby Mountain Development Access Road Activity Location:Adjacent to S.R. 631 south of Charlottesville, Albemarle County Activity Description: The permittee proposes to install a 10 foot x 10 foot box culvert for an access road serving Mosby Mountain development at a location that was originally going to be spanned, but VDOT has required a change resulting permanent impacts. The proposed activity results in the permanent impact of 264 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Biscuit Run. The proposed activity also results in the temporary impact of 50 linear feet of stream channel due to diversion channel installation. The authorized impact areas are as denoted in the Joint Permit Application. No compensation is required for projects that permanently impact less than 300 linear feet of stream channel. Authorization Note(s): The work authorized by this permit satisfies the terms and conditions contained in the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers' State Program General Permit (SPGP -01), and no additional authorization from the Corps is required. The permittee is responsible for following all special conditions contained within the SPGP -01 that are pertinent to your project. The SPGP -01 can be downloaded from http: / /www.nao.usace.army.mil /Regulatory /spg 2005 /SPGP- 05..df or obtained from any Corps office. The authorized activity shall be in accordance with this cover page, Part I-- Special Conditions, and Part III -- Conditions Applicable to All VWP Permits, as set forth herein. 1,-i 4. DateB. Keith Fo er ate Regional Water Permits Manager Virginia Department of Environmental Quality General Permit Project Summary Sheet Permit No:WP3 -06 -2007 Project Name:Mosby Mountain Development Access Road County:Albemarle County Applicant Contact Information: Mr. Justin Beights Evergreen Land Company 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 434) 245 -0100 Project Information: Waterbody:Unnamed tributaries to Biscuit Run Basin:James River (Middle) Section:10 Class:III Special Standards:NEW -3 HUC:02080204 Latitude & Longitude:N 37° 59' 59" W 78° 31' 48" U.S.G.S. Quadrangle:Alberene Compensation Information: None Dates See attached Tracking Sheet. Comments /Issues/Delays: Results of Threatened and Endangered Species Searches: The review of the DCR Natural Heritage Map of Albemarle County did not identify any natural heritage resources within 2 miles of the subject site boundaries. Therefore, no coordination with DCR was necessary. The search of the DGIF Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service did not identify any state or federal listed or proposed listed threatened or endangered species, state native trout, or state anadromous fish within 2 miles of the site. Therefore, no coordination with DGIF was necessary fp /0 40 n VWP Permit Writer Date of ,\Lf31. 1 rT r1. it", _ r :'.` 7 r- imii,1\N COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Flo; (434) 972 -4126 December 29. 2006 Kyle Springs Christopher Dodson 1'1mmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond_ NIA 23225 RE: WPO 2006 -90 Mosby Mountain Stream Crossing Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan Dear Messrs. Springs and Dodson: Thank you for submitting the revised stream buffer mitigation plan for the Mosby Mountain stream crossing serving Ambrose Commons Drive comprised of the December 1 , 2006 letter, the October 3 ] , 2006 impacts map, the October 4. 2006 restoration map, and the December I, 2006 restoration plan. My previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed and the mitigation plan is approved. Once the mitigation planting is underway please contact me so that I can perform an inspection to close out the file. In the meanwhile. if You have questions or need additional information please telephone me at 296 -5823 ext. 3264 or send me an email at tamblena albemarle.orrr. Sincerely. i Qitl. /71 , ( L Tamara Jo Ambler, CPES.Q. Natural Resources Manager Cc: Kane Williams, Beights Development Corporation Scott Collins, Collins Engineering File Page 1 of 5 Amy Pflaum From: Summer Frederick Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:41 AM To:Glenn Brooks; Amy Pflaum; Bill Fritz Cc:kirsten @collins - engineering.com Subject: RE: Summary of Items - Mosby Mountain All - As the reviewing planner of this project, please note the following actions are acceptable: 1. removal of asphalt paths outside the Development Area, 2. removal of street trees from density bonus chart, 3. alterations in nature trail system. Please feel free to contact me if there is any further discussion necessary. Summer Frederick Senior Planner, Current Development Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 434.296.5832 x3565 sfrederick@albemarle.org From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:51 PM To: Amy Pflaum; Bill Fritz Cc: Summer Frederick Subject: RE: Summary of Items - Mosby Mountain The trouble with moving trees and walks to the as -built road plans. is that the are only road plates. The are not as -built trail plans. or as -built plantinm plans. in tact. these as -built plans were not even reviewed h\ the Cottt . 0111, VL)t. fl Currently. 1 an the onl one checking as -built road plans. 1 don't need these changes. Please cancel. Since these items are not engineering requirements. and were supposedly approved with the subdivision talthough perhaps as "tentative approvals"' and not directs) on the final plat document although 1 don't see v,h thai distinction matter,}. a memo from the responsiblc planner indicating tlte can he removed will be line with me. This I can sho\\ to the homeowners. 1f there are ant trees or traik that must remain. please highlight them. If not. this leaves the on)) issue of consequence: the «'k't_) amendment. From: Amy Pflaum Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:46 AM To: Bill Fritz; Glenn Brooks Cc: Summer Frederick Subject: RE: Summary of Items - Mosby Mountain Bill & Glenn, 3/31/2009 Page 2 of 5 After meeting with Scott Collins last week and discussing this further with Summer, I have outlined a course of action that I think is appropriate to get the Mosby Mountain "amendments" on file. The applicant should withdraw the Site Plan amendment. List of Revisions (per SDP200900011) 1 - Elimination of asphalt paths outside the growth area (SUB- 2005- 010approved 8/16/05 established Turnstone Drive Subdivision & SUB - 2007 -382 granted waiver of sidewalks within Development Area) Action required by applicant: Submit to County As -Built Road Plans showing no paths along with a copy of the approved waivers allowing the elimination of asphalt paths. 2 - Revisions to nature trail system Although trails were shown along with Pedestrian Easements on the Grading Plan, no trails or easements are shown on the Final Plat SUB200200312. Action required by applicant: Submit plan showing new system as supplement to As -Built Road Plans since these trails take the place of the asphalt paths. 3 - Remove stream buffer mitigation Action required by applicant. Submit to County an amendment to WPO (WPO -05 -04 or WPO- 06 -90) showing changes in mitigation plan along with correspondence from DEQ regarding location of mitigation. Current Development Engineers will review the Amendment to determine compliance with the WPO. 4 - Remove street trees Street Trees are not required in Development Area Residential unless densityis equal to or greater than 4 units /acre. [18-32.7.9.6.a] Mosby Mountain Final Plat SUB200200312 approved 1/29/04, shows no Street Trees, however, Notes on Sheet 12 regarding BONUS FACTOR CALCULATIONS [18-13.4.1] refer to Street Trees to get another 5% density increase. With Street Trees, Mosby Mountain qualified for a 25% density increase, gaining the other 20% from Tree Cover Conservation and Internal Road System. Actual density increase as platted was less than 20 %, so if the other two criteria were met, Street Trees are not necessary. But, does a new plat need to be recorded to revise the density increase calculation in the Note on Sheet 12? (this is a non - Engineering decision, does Zoning need to make the call since it deals the with Zoning Ordinance ?) Street cross sections do not show street trees. If street trees were shown on Road Plans, this can be revised with As- Builts. Action required by applicant: Submit to County As -Built Road Plans showing no Street Trees and VDOT's approval of no Trees. If I am off - base, and you think this needs to be handled differently, please let me know. - Amy From: Justin Beights Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:18 PM To: Lubinsky, Ellen R *HS Cc: Pbclark2000 @aol.com; brian @chapmanroy.com; Justin Beights; Gaylon Beights Subject: RE: Summary of Items 3/31/2009 Page 3 of Ellen — Per our conversation last week, Evergreen Land Company will be submitting a plan amendment to address the issues I outline below. The residents of Mosby Mountain will receive a notice of this plan amendment in the mail. I am happy to discuss this with anyone that has any further questions. The plan amendment will do the following: 1) Remove the asphalt paths shown throughout the community. This was put in motion several months ago with the BOS action permitting the removal of the paths on Hatcher and Turnstone. The BOS action was necessary because this portion of the community lies within the county growth area. They can be eliminated administratively in the balance of the community because it is not in the growth area. 2) Revise the nature trail system shown on the plan to reflect the revised alignment which was designed with the input of members of the community and installed per that design. The improvements to the originally planned nature trail system were developed as part of the elimination of the asphalt path system. 3) Remove the planned stream buffer mitigation plantings that were shown on the Mosby Mountain property. During the DEQ permitting process for the impacts associated with Mountain Valley Farm, it was determined by our consultants and the DEQ representative that the combination of the required plantings for both Mosby and MVF on the MVF property would be more desirable and manageable. 4) Remove the street trees shown on the plan. Through conversations with the Mosby HOA, it was determined that a series of higher impact landscaping along Ambrose Commons Drive would be preferable to the neighborhood than the trees currently shown on the plan. Evergreen Land Company is prepared to install these trees if required by the county, but will pursue this revision at the request of the HOA. Regarding the remaining E &S work, I believe that most has been completed and accepted by the county inspector with the exception of the issue on Hatcher Court. Discussions are ongoing as to who is responsible for this work and the county maintains that it remains the responsibility of the developer. If this is the case, I will address it, but I am not convinced of this just yet. The work to be completed at the Zoll's residence has been authorized (many weeks ago), but I do not know if it has been completed. I believe that is everything on our list. Please let me know if I have missed something. Please thank everyone at the meeting tonight for their continued patience. I feel that progress is being made and that we are on the road to completion. Thanks again, Justin From: Lubinsky, Ellen R *HS [mailto:ERL3C©hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 9:51 AM To: Justin Beights Cc: Pbclark2000 @aol.com; brian©chapmanroy.com Subject: Summary of Items Importance: High Justin and Paul, Would you please update this list. I can pass this back to the Board for the meeting as this is probably the best summary as to where you stand. In bold are your comments and the red are the County's comments. (Please amend if I have omitted anything). 3/31/2009 Page 4 of 5 1. Install 4' paved walking trail throughout the subdivision. This path was not a requirement in the portion of the property outside of the growth area and eliminated by the developer. The elimination of the paths that were shown on the plans for Turnstone and Hatcher Court, which are in the development area, was approved by the Board of Supervisors. It is on the approved plan. and so is required. We are not aware of any revisions or other approvals. Do you have a copy of the BOS action? 2. Install pedestrian trail from end of Ridgetop Drive to Singleton Lane and from Mosby Mountain Drive to area behind lot 28 on Gillen Court. The trail system was modified and improved through a series of meetings with the Mosby Mountain HOA. No further trail construction is planned. It is on the approved plan. and so is required. We are not aware of any revisions other approvals. 3. Install stream buffer impact mitigation plan. The stream buffer impact mitigation plan was revised and installed on the Mountain Valley property. It is on the approved plan. and so is required. We are not aware of any revisions other approvals. 4. Install street tree plan. Per ordinance section 32.7.9.6, street trees are not required in a development with density less than 4 units per acre, so these trees will not be installed. We are working with the HOA board on a joint landscape improvement plan that will be installed along Ambrose Commons Drive. It is on the approved plan. and so is required. We are not aware of and revisions other approvals. 5. Install BMP access roadway to Stormwater Basins M, K,& L, using VDOT #1 coarse aggregate. This will be installed by the contractor shortly. 6. Install planting plan for Turnstone Drive. This will be installed shortly. 7. Glenn Brooks and I will make a decision about some washout of the bio- filter soil mix and what can be done to prevent it additional soil mix may be required. You will need to verify that all planting requirements of the BMP basins have been met and replace any dead plants. The Department will then recheck each basin for planting. Please advise on this. We are ready to mobilize. Please ensure all bio - filter media is to the correct depth. and armored against erosion from inlets. All plantings must be alive and per the plan. Let us know when it is ready for inspection. 8. Repair and stabilize slope adjoining inlet end of (2) 48" pipes under Singleton Lane at Station 25 +00. The contractor will address this shortly. 9. Corner of Mosby Mountain Drive and Singleton Lane, Lot 80 - Remove existing small rip -rap channel and replace with large Class I rip -rap. This channel shall also be dug out to a depth of 24" before the new rip -rap is installed. The contractor will address this shortly. 10. Corner of Hatcher Court and Turnstone Drive, stormwater runoff appears to be flowing over the curb (because of a low spot) and draining onto lot 14, water then flows across the front yard and down the hill between lot 13 & 14 causing the rear slope to wash out. This area will need to be repaired to prevent future problems. This problem is the result of a lack of slope maintenance by the homeowner and needs to be 3/31/2009 Page 5 of 5 addressed by the homeowner if it is a concern. This Is a violation o slat:: minimum staI uarLi You have an active plan E)l. tnlS. Pr()tl l°i`. Mild are tll: responsible parl from tnc County' 11. A section of the ditchline on Ridgetop Drive in front of one of the homes has washed out covering the drainage inlet structure. The debris on top and inside the drainage structure will need to be removed and the ditchline repaired. We are working with the homeowner to address this item. Thank you, Ellen Lubinsky UVA Health Services Foundation 500 Ray C Hunt Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 434 - 980 -6191 voice /fax erl3c @virginia.edu 3/.31/2009 if COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Mosby Mountain & Mountain Valley Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan preparer:Scott Collins, Collins Engineering scott @collins - engineering.com] Owner or rep.:Justin Beights Plan received date: 9 April 2009 Date of comments: 19 May 2009 Reviewer:Amy Pflaum, Current Development Engineering The recent documentation submitted regarding the stream buffer mitigation within the Mosby Mountain and Mountain Valley Farm subdivision has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: On July 2, 2003, Stormwater Management Plans (prepared by The Cox Company) for Mosby Mountain Residential Subdivision were approved, AC File #2300. These plans included stream buffer mitigation to address the impacts to the buffer caused by construction of the Mosby Mountain Drive bridge. It is noted in these plans that 2.22 acres of Mitigation Area is provided and either 533 bare root stock, 777 container seedlings, or 2,687 bare root seedlings will be planted within this area. All Mitigation Area is within the limits of the Mosby Mountain Subdivision. On August 5, 2005, construction plans (prepared by Timmons Group) for Mountain Valley Residential Subdivision were approved, AC File #2291. These plans included stream buffer mitigation (Sheet 38) to address the impacts to the buffer caused by the construction of Ambrose Commons Drive. It is noted in these plans that planting for Riparian Buffer and Wetland Enhancement Areas is based on an area of 3.28 acres. At 400 plants per acre, 1312 plants are required, with tree tubes and brush mats as noted on the plan. The Riparian Buffer Enhancement Areas are shown on Sheet 38 and are within the limits of the Mountain Valley Subdivision. Due to a change in the type of stream crossing constructed on Ambrose Commons Drive, a new Water Protection Ordinance application (AC File # WP0200600090) for Stream Buffer Mitigation was submitted, it was approved on December 29, 2006. This application approved the disturbance of 0.77 acres of buffer within the Mosby Mountain Subdivision, with mitigation in the amount of 320 trees as shown on Schedule #1 of the Stream Buffer Restoration Plan (by Timmons Group). The Restoration Map also by Timmons Group) included with this application shows the Riparian Buffer Enhancement Area is in the neighboring Mountain Valley Subdivision. This application does not state that it was to serve as an amendment to either of the previously approved plans mentioned above. It was not approved as an amendment, and there is no record in any of the three files noting an amendment. The developer of these two subdivisions has requested a plan amendment to do the following: From 12/3/08 email: Reniove the planned stream buffer mitigation plantings that were shown on the Mosby Mountain property. During the DEQ permitting process . for the impacts' associated til'ith Mountain Valley Farm, it was determined by our consultants and the DEQ representative that the combination of the required plantings for both Mosby and MVF orr the MVF property would be more desirable and manageable. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 On February 12, 2009, a Site Plan Amendment (SDP200900011) was submitted to address this and other revisions. There is no approved site plan for the Mosby Mountain development, therefore, one can not be amended. Current Development Engineering responded to this application stating that the applicant needed to submit an amendment to the previously approved Water Protection Ordinance Application which contained the stream buffer mitigation. This amendment, which was to contain the changes in the mitigation plan along with correspondence from DEQ regarding the location of mitigation, would be reviewed for compliance with the WPO. In April, Current Development Engineering received from the applicant documents already on file under WPO200600090, as mentioned above, and an approved DEQ permit dated 10/17/06. The Stream Buffer Restoration Plan, submitted with the November 1, 2006 letter, is not the most current, this letter and plan was revised prior to being approved in December and the planting amount was doubled to 320 plants. The documentation from DEQ makes no mention of the amount of or location required for the mitigation. No WPO amendment application or the required $180 fee were received with this submittal. Current Development Engineering can not find in favor of such an amendment. It has not been clearly demonstrated that the area available for planting, as shown on the 2003 plan, is no longer a viable option on the Mosby Mountain property. No correspondence from DEQ stating that such unfavorable site conditions exist has been provided. It has also not been demonstrated that the area of mitigation in Mountain Valley Farm is equal to or greater than the combined mitigation requirement of the two subdivisions. The Design Standards Manual and Section 17- 320(D)(5) of the WPO require that vegetation shall be established and maintained within the stream buffer but outside of the stream crossing. Off -site mitigation must be authorized by the Program Authority. Section 17- 322(D)(3) requires a mitigation plan to be evaluated on whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions. In order to meet this requirement of the ordinance, the buffer that has been disturbed is to be replanted to the extent possible. Since allowing all mitigation for both subdivisions to be placed in Mountain Valley Farm does not satisfy this criteria, the proposed amendment is being denied as provided in 17- 322(B). The County will continue to require that riparian plantings are installed per the approved mitigation plans for both the Mountain Valley and Mosby Mountain Residential Subdivisions.