Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600046 Correspondence 2006-03-08ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 March 8, 2006 David Pennock, Principal Planner 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Questions/ Points of Clarification for the Glen Oaks SUB 06 -46 Site Review Committee Dear David: Thank you for the complete set of County comments on the Glen Oaks Subdivision. I am providing you with a set of questions/ points of clarification that I will have for tomorrow's Site Review Committee meeting. Hopefully, by providing these in advance, we can have a productive meeting tomorrow that will sent us in the right direction. Current Development Comments General observation: Current Development's comments make no reference to need for the greenway trail called for in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Your division has no comment? 1. No questions. We understand that the Glenmore PRD will have to be amended when we move forward with the "second step ". We will remove the connection shown to Carroll Creek Road between the treatment plant and the first intersection with Road C to avoid any confusion. 2. No questions. As you know, we are not asking for private roads at this time, but understand that we will have to put that request in writing when we get to the next step. 3. We understand that the proposed public roads will have to meet the VDOT road standards, but WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED VDOT COMMENTS. For your information, Running Deer Drive has a 22 -foot paved cross section at its intersection with Route 250 and 20 -foot paved cross section on the end adjacent to Glen Oaks. According to the VDOT 2005 Subdivision Street Design Guidelines, a 20 -foot paved rural cross section can accommodate up to an average of 1,500 vehicle trips per day (ADT). Running Deer Drive currently serves 73 single family lots which generate 730 ADT. Our proposed 30 single family lots translates into 300 ADT. Together the projected ADT on Running Deer would be 1,030 ADT. This is well below the VDOT design limits. What other adequacy information might your office require? T: 434.979.9500 F: 434.979.8055 kgassociates.net 4. We apologize for the confusion resulting from duplicate lot numbering and will correct that on the next submittal. 5. Design standards for the shared driveways. This comment is seems potentially open - ended as it pertains to the design standards for the shared driveway serving Lots 9B and 1113. What specific design standards do we need to meet other than Section 14- 412.A.1? If that is the only one, then we will be able to accommodate your comment. 6. Authorization for a (private) shared driveway. As a point of clarification, this driveway can and will be authorized under section 14- 232.13.2, right? Your comment references 14- 234.B.ii and states that it must be "assessed" under this section. I assume that your office needs to make this assessment and not me as the applicant? What is your assessment? Today, there is a farm road that crosses the dam. The road served an old house site that was located in the area of lot 9B. Depending on how the design standards referenced in the comment above are applied, we believe that very little will need to be done to create the shared driveway where the current farm road exists. As part of your assessment, we believe that Scott Clark's comments back up our basic design premise which seeks to limit the number of lots on the eastern side of Limestone Creek for environmental reasons. If we are not allowed to use a private shared driveway to access these two lots, but instead need to up grade the shared driveway to a private (or even public) road, we will be forced to significantly increase the amount of disturbance to build this wider road. 7. We understand that the boundary line adjustment must be approved prior to this subdivision's approval/ recordation. 8. Mixing a PRD and By -right subdivision. We can move the lot lines for Lots 9A, 1B and 3B to accommodate your request. However, we were told in a Pre -Ap that this kind of minor lot line adjustment was acceptable because it is seen as a boundary adjustment (see comment 3d on the attached document). If the concern is that the acreages being "adjusted" between the two parcels, then we will keep the basic arrangement of the lots, but tweak the lines to create an exact exchange of acreages. Please clarify. 9. We understand your comment on minimum lot sizes and will correct it depending on the determination/ clarification on comment #8. 10. We are unclear on this comment and will seek clarification when we are both looking at the plat. 11. We are unclear on this comment and will seek clarification when we are both looking at the plat. 12. We are unclear on this comment and will seek clarification when we are both looking at the plat. 13. We can accommodate this comment. Fire and Rescue Comment We can accommodate Fire and Rescue's comments Ensineerin2 Comments 1. We will cover Engineering's comments in the meeting tomorrow. Planning Comments Scott Clark's comments seem supportive of the proposed plan. As far as the greenway trail. It is our understanding that we cannot "pull back" the PRD lot from the river to create room for the greenway trail because the residue will create a non - conforming lot. We are willing to "pull back" in order to accommodate the greenway trail, but staff must figure out how we can accommodate the 30 lots proposed with this plat and accommodate them in roughly the same layout. Water Resources Dept. We are working on a response. However, on the surface, they appear contrary to Planning Comments. Are we responsible for reconciling these two groups? Is that Current Planning's job? Sincerely, Michael Barnes, ATCP Project Manager