Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
131 <br />Michael Harvey <br />From: Michael Harvey <br />Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:55 PM <br />To: Bonnie Hammersley; Travis Myren; Craig Benedict (cbenedict @orangecountync.gov); <br />Mark Dorosin; Penny Rich; Mia Burroughs; Barry Jacobs; Mark Marcoplos; Earl McKee; <br />Renee Price <br />Cc: John Roberts; James Bryan; Anne Marie Tosco; Patrick R. Mallett; Molly Boyle; Tyler <br />Sliger; Tom Altieri; Steve Brantley; Jim Parker Oimparkerl6 @gmail.com) <br />Subject: FW: Proposed Settlers Pointe- Revised Access Configuration and Revised Traffic <br />Analysis, <br />Attachments: Updated NCDOT comments.pdf <br />Please be advised at 2:12 p.m. today I received the following e -mail from NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) on <br />the Settlers Point project. <br />Apparently this e -mail is an update to communication received from NC DOT as it appears in the November 14, 2017 <br />Quarterly Public Hearing packet (page(s) 61 -65). <br />Hard copies will be provided this evening at your places. <br />Please note staff has not had time to review or digest at this time. <br />Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO <br />Current Planning Supervisor — Planner III <br />Orange County Planning Department <br />131 West Margaret Lane <br />PO Box 8181 <br />(919) 245 -2597 (phone) <br />(919) 644 -3002 (fax) <br />Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record <br />and may be disclosed to third parties. <br />Chuck Edwards Contact <br />Sent: ay, November 14, 2017 2:12 PM <br />To: Ed Sirga <br />Cc: Michael Harve nting, Clarence B; Sorrell, Charles V; Ishak, Doumit Y; Jones, DeAngelo J <br />Subject: Proposed Se Pointe- Revised Access Configuration and Revised Traffic Analysis, <br />Ed, <br />I'm writing in follow up to our recent meets etween you and District and Congestion Management staff to discuss <br />alternate access arrangements for the above pro . As you recall Congestion Management had previously reviewed <br />the original TIA and had included in their recommen ns, a new access road serving the industrial element with a <br />new intersection on Old NC 86 that would provide more a 0priate intersection spacing relative to the interstate <br />interchange and adjacent proposed accesses. This would requi at the Applicant obtain additional property which <br />may not be feasible or possible. During our meeting we identified a ate access configurations utilizing the frontage <br />currently controlled by the Applicant that would be expected to provide acceptable operation and intersection spacing <br />in accordance NCDOT requirements. District and Congestion Management sta a reviewed your analysis for the <br />revised scenario and, based on the information provided, we find the proposed alte a to be conceptually acceptable. <br />1 <br />