Planning commission approves 16-space stand-alone EV charging site at 399 Canal Road amid traffic concerns

The Glynn County Planning Commission on a 7-0 vote approved a site plan for a 16-space electric vehicle parking lot with charging stations at 399 Canal Road, but commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about traffic impacts and potential changes if a larger restaurant is developed nearby.

Planning and zoning director Stephanie Leaf summarized the proposal, noting the site sits near the Canal Road–Sheepway intersection and includes a 10-foot Type E buffer along Canal Road. Leaf described staff’s recommendation that the county could require changes at the construction-plan phase if civil engineering review or subsequent nearby development indicates improvements are needed.

Wesley Franks of Robertson Engineering, representing the developer Iona, said the traffic study submitted for this application found no current roadway improvements were warranted for the charging station as proposed. “Their recommendations basically say that there's no improvements warranted, for the current plan that you see on the screen, inclusive of the other developments that are there,” Franks said. He added the study estimated about 50 one-way trips per day for the charging station and that the study’s executive summary was included in the packet.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns: several noted existing congestion near the Chipotle/Canal Road area and asked whether entrances could be configured as one-way to reduce queuing, and whether an already-approved restaurant site plan (discussed variously as Outback Steakhouse or a potential Texas Roadhouse) should have been included in traffic modeling. Leaf and staff acknowledged the existing study evaluated the charging station alone and that a separate traffic review would be required if a new restaurant or other major traffic generator submits a site plan.

One commissioner expressed strong opposition to a staff-recommended condition that could require the property owner to fund larger road improvements, saying, “I just I don't put anything past county, engineers. And I just I'm not voting for it. I tell you right now, I'm not voting for it if that bottom is on. Period.” The developer’s engineer asked the commission to approve the plan as presented without the condition.

The motion to approve SP-25-9399 as presented passed 7-0. Staff and commissioners noted that construction-plan review by county engineers could still require design tweaks — for example, moving or reconfiguring the primary entrance — and that any new development on adjacent parcels would trigger independent traffic reviews and required mitigation at that time.