Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Boundary Street car‑wash site plan after commissioners flag parking and code conflicts
Summary
The commission continued a contested site plan for a proposed car wash at 2513 Boundary Street, citing a mismatch between T5 UC liner‑building requirements and car‑wash operational needs (vacuum stalls vs. dedicated retail/employee parking); the applicant agreed to revise plans and seek staff/TRC guidance.
The Beaufort Planning Commission continued review of a proposed car wash and site subdivision at 2513 Boundary Street after extended discussion about how the proposal fits the T5 UC form‑based district.
Staff explained T5 UC requirements (liner building, fenestration, material standards and frontage percentages) and noted that the applicant had submitted revised plans and a traffic letter. Commissioners focused on whether the required front 'liner' building could be a functional retail/office space, or whether it would become a nonfunctional facade built only to meet frontage rules. Key technical issues included how vacuum stalls (vacuum cleaning bays) count toward parking, the need for dedicated employee parking, stacking length and the potential for cars to back onto Boundary Street, and whether underground detention on the site’s right side could support parking above it to serve future liner uses.
Applicant representatives (architect and engineer) said they revised windows and created faux retail fronts and lighting to meet downtown standards while acknowledging no tenants are in place now. They said the proposed plan shows roughly 25 vacuum stalls and that the application meets a parking count staff calculated (19 required under staff interpretation); they also said the owner could allocate some spaces for employees. Commissioners remained skeptical that vacuum stalls should be counted as general retail parking and urged the applicant to create dedicated employee spaces and to reconsider site circulation (for example, routing customers through vacuum areas rather than allowing an immediate front exit). Public commenter Darren Farley criticized the completeness of the submittal and the timing of the commission review.
After extended exchange, the commission voted to continue the Boundary Street application to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to address the commissioners’ items, to work with staff and to schedule follow‑up TRC/staff meetings before resubmittal.
