Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff reviews TWs expansion and conversion; board flags parking and signage concerns
Summary
Planning staff presented a sketch plan to convert a storage infill to retail and add a 6,750 sq ft detached building at the TWs site on Satterfield Landing. Members praised the architecture but raised unresolved questions about parking, signage allocations and pedestrian connectivity.
Kelly, a planning staff member, presented a sketch plan submitted by Albemarle and Associates on behalf of Coastal Blue Water Capital LLC to modify the TWs property on Satterfield Landing, converting a recently approved storage infill to retail and adding a new 6,750‑square‑foot detached building divided into two units.
"You can't just have stand alone storage," Kelly said, summarizing a zoning constraint that requires storage uses in this district to be accessory to a principal retail use. Staff noted the two lots were recombined by survey, the site lies in an X flood zone and must meet the town’s local elevation standard of 9 feet, and the design shows 53.4% lot coverage against a 55% maximum for the C2 district.
Applicant representative John DeLucia of Albemarle and Associates confirmed the conversion plan and described the project phasing, saying, "This building right here will become retail," and explaining that other new units would be held as storage accessory to retail or leased as small tenant spaces.
Board members focused most of their questions on operations and site logistics rather than aesthetics. One member warned, "There's a lot going on in this. I have concerns about parking," citing the scale of roughly 14,000 square feet across the site and uncertain parking implications for separated storage and retail elements. Staff replied that as long as the storage functions as accessory to retail, no separate storage parking standard applies; if storage operated as a standalone use, a different standard would be required.
Other technical matters flagged by staff included a town engineer request for a vehicle‑paving exhibit showing emergency vehicle access and a loading berth compliant with UDO section 10‑17; a required stormwater design to meet a 4.3‑inch rainfall event and a state stormwater permit; and buffering and interior landscaping requirements (including a 25‑foot commercial transitional protective yard where the site abuts residential zones). Staff also noted bicycle‑rack counts in the submittal need adjustment (the plan showed three where four had been referenced) and that lighting and signage will be reviewed at formal submittal.
Members generally praised the proposed architectural details, saying the design appears to meet the town’s commercial design objectives, but several asked staff and the applicant to resolve parking, pedestrian connectivity, and signage calculations during technical review. Kelly outlined the procedural path: the applicant will revise drawings, the project will go to the town’s technical review committee (TRC), return to the planning board for formal review and then proceed to the Board of Commissioners for a public hearing and required notifications.
The board did not take a formal vote on the sketch plan at this meeting; members provided feedback and acknowledged the applicant would return with revised plans for the next review stage.
