Conditional Rezoning Request: 16.2 acres at Market Street and Porters Neck Road; Proposed Lowe’s Shopping Center Development
Rezoning Request: At its 7/9/07 meeting, the New Hanover County Commissioners heard a request for conditional rezoning of 16.2 acres located off Market Street at Porters Neck Road. The parcel is located north and west of the traffic light at Market Street/Porters Neck Rd., south of the US 17 bypass, and would be accessible from Porters Neck Rd. where it currently terminates at the left turn into Porters Neck Shopping Center. This property is in the “Transition and Wetland Resource Protection Land Classification” of New Hanover County’s zoning classifications. The requested rezoning from B-1 Neighborhood Business to CD(B-2) Conditional Highway District Highway Business to locate a 169,000 sq. ft. commercial building for up to “42 possible uses”. The stated use was for a Lowe’s home and garden/building supply store, but the developer specifically asked for the additional listed uses. A B-2 Highway Business District, according to NH County zoning classifications, is “a heavy commercial zoning. Its purpose is to provide for the proper grouping and development of business uses which best accommodate the needs of the motoring public with a regional orientation. It is the least restrictive of the ordinance.”
Ken Shanklin, a well-known real estate attorney in Wilmington, handled the developer’s presentation. The proposal is to build a Lowe’s; additional stores were alluded to but not specified. The developer owns or controls approximately 50 contiguous acres to enlarge the scale of the shopping center considerably. There was no discussion of these further plans because that property is already zoned B-1 (stated use “to provide convenient shopping facilities primarily of necessity goods and personal services required to serve a neighborhood.”) The developer’s comments included the following:
The Porters Neck Road entrance to the existing shopping center is proposed to be the only entrance/egress for the new development. A traffic survey shows the Lowe’s project by itself will generate an additional 4,600 vehicles per day at the Market Street/Porters Neck Rd. intersection. Fully developed to include contiguous acreage, the developer stated the additional traffic load on this intersection would be 20,000 vehicles per day. This traffic would be handled by increasing the Porters Neck Rd. stub to include 4 lanes – two left turn lanes for turning northbound on Market Street; one straight to continue on Porters Neck Rd.; one right turn lane for southbound on Market Street. The existing southbound Market St. turn lane into the shopping center will be extended 300’. The developer’s 547 parking spaces for the Lowe’s store alone (without considering further development on the contiguous acreage) is 1 ½ times the existing spaces for all of Porters Neck Shopping Center. Currently, traffic from approximately 350 spaces use three entrances to the PN Shopping Center. This project will added another 547 spaces using the one entrance at Porters Neck Rd. almost exclusively.
The developer also stated that NC Department of Transportation was requiring a 500’ median strip on Porters Neck Road running from Market Street back into the development. Unless this is changed, drivers will no longer be able to turn into the existing Porters Neck Shopping Center, First Citizens Bank branch, or Wendy’s from Porters Neck Road.
Concerning sewer hookup during a sewer moratorium, the developer said that, by the time they’re ready for sewer, they expect the Northeast Interceptor problems to be resolved. If not, they’ll “put in a drain field.” The county commissioners indicated they would not allow a septic system, even temporarily. Sewage capacity may be available by the time it is needed.
The developer’s presentation did not address storm water management. In response to questions, he stated that storm water management would be on contiguous land, not shown on the re-zoning area maps before the Commissioners. No further questions were asked regarding how storm water would be managed, wetlands in the contiguous parcel, etc.
Opposition to this proposal came from numerous residents of the Porters Neck area and the Porters Neck Homeowners Association, with every speaker objecting to increased traffic at an already-congested intersection unless the developer can create an additional entrance to the site. NC Department of Transportation will not permit an entrance into this parcel from the new US 17 bypass, because that road has been built to Interstate standards. There are long-term plans to hook Porters Neck Road into Plantation Road, connecting to Murreysville Road. However, these plans are not even considered for funding on DOT’s project horizon, so that connection might only become available “some time in the future”. Other problems with that route are a) wetlands in the area west of the developer’s site, and b) a connection going to Murreysville Road would not be a viable alternate for anyone traveling from north or south on Market Street. The developer proposed that traffic could drive through the existing Porters Neck Shopping Center, and that they may be able to use the delivery alley behind Food Lion and other stores for an additional “road”.
The developer also mentioned several times that “they could put in a Wal-Mart” without requesting a zoning change and without any additional entrances.
We responded that we believe most people would not strongly object to a Lowe’s just because it’s a big-box retailer. What we object to is large-scale development without proper infrastructure being required up-front. The critical infrastructure need for this project is multiple entrances. No project the size of what ultimately will be built on this site should be approved without a second entrance. It should be the developer’s responsibility to make this happen. For the developer to immediately threaten local residents with a Wal-Mart is an unwelcome scare tactic.
The Commissioners voted to continue this request for sixty days for the developer to investigate options for an additional entrance. It will come back to the County Commissioners at their September meeting unless rescheduled earlier.
Next Steps:
· Will you join us in demanding a second entrance before permitting an additional 4600 vehicles per day at the Porters Neck Rd./Market Street intersection?
· Will you write to the management of Lowe’s to point out the need for additional entrance/egress?
· Will you contact our County Commissioners with your concerns?
· Will you help us mobilize residents of the “greater Porters Neck area” – Marsh Oaks, Porters Neck Road developments, Edgewater Club Road subdivisions, Futch Creek Road developments?
If you would like to help, please respond to this blog with your name and e-mail address. We’ll be in touch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
David,
Thank you for keeping us uo-to-date on this most important issue. To have the intersection of Porters Neck Road and market street flooded with thousands of more cars would be a diaster.
I understand that drivers will no longer be able to turn into the existing Porters Neck Shopping Center, First Citizens Bank branch, or Wendy’s from Porters Neck Road with the installation of a 500’ median strip on Porters Neck Road running from Market Street back into the development.
Explain WHY is this a bad thing? You can enter these establishments from Market.
The bank and Wendy's get most of their traffic via the Porters Neck Road entrance. Anyone coming to the shopping center or these merchants will have to turn left off Market Street at entrances without traffic lights -- many do now, but that's a less safe alternative that will become even less safe as traffic increases.
Hello David. I found your notice in my mailbox recently with the information I did not know. I take it that the proposed Lowe's and other commercial development will be located in the low place to the right of the ramp exiting the bypass. Yes? I would not oppose such a location if the building is way back from the old tree which DOT saved by moving the new road some yars ago. I do however oppose the development begin construction before infrastructure is developed, reviewed, approved and installed. As someone else has written, we do NOT want another horrible situation like the long, long widening of Military Cut. Re: the comment about turning into the existing shopping strips and Post Ofice from the west,,, dangerous. Ther is no light, currently, and that needs to be looked at very carefully as to how to reduce the likelihood of car wrecks at that spot, which will happen. Additionally, another writer has said that drivers can already turn into the PN strip but with so many new cars doing the same, no good. At the present, in the morning going to work down Porters Neck Road and after work, the cars are backed up 10's and 10' and 10' deep.
Re: The comment about the morning commute “going to work down Porters Neck Road and after work, the cars are backed up 10's and 10' and 10' deep”.
I am a bit confused as to the comment “after work”, I can not see where this is a problem, because all traffic into the Porter’s Neck area comes in off Market from two directions, so I fail to see THAT problem. On the other hand, getting OUT of the Porter’s Neck area DOES have a problem.
The westbound (outgoing) traffic is backed up because the three lane configuration is WRONG. Currently there are two lanes turning left (south) and one lane turning right (north) AND STRAIGHT, in lies a problem. The lane that is “shared” right AND straight needs to be changed to right ONLY. The middle lane needs to be left AND straight, while the left lane will remain left only. With more and more cars wanting to use the bypass, the volume of cars wanting to turn right (north) is constipated by ONE car wanting to go straight! This needs to be addressed immediately, without concern or consideration to the Lowe’s development. This is a now problem.
Not to be overshadowed is the “timing” of the signals. This issue needs to be evaluated now, as well. If the sequence or timing of the signals are wrong, no lane reconfiguration or addition of lanes will make any difference at all.
Respectfully;
Mr. Confused
I appreciate the fact that you are working to ensure that adequate planning is completed prior to any rezoing approval. It makes no sense to have one access to the proposed center and no planning (specific) for the storm water runoff. After what DOT had to do with the by-pass for runoff. To not have a specific approvalble plan for the storm water is irresponsible.
I completely support the position taken by the PNHOA. tp8908@ec.rr.com
Informative story in Charlotte.com on lines news at
http://www.charlotte.com/local/v-print/story/238432.html
entitled "No Lowe's For Harrisburg", August 13, 2007.
David,
Thank you for staying on top of these developers.
The problem lies with both the county commissioners who approve large tract developments in this county along with the DOT. As you can see on Military Cutoff, without roads in place before large developments you get headaches for everyone but better yet add 11 stop lights on a 2 mile stretch of road when they are done traffic flow will be even worse. Stoplights are not the solution.
Having too much development is the problem. If the property was zone B-1 it should stay B-1. If Ken Shanklin can get this tract changed he will then get the other 50 acre tract changed and we might have a Walmart. Where there is a lowes you typically find a walmart close by. Is it too much for people to go north to the lowes in Surf City or South to the one in wilmington. With residential build out coming to an end in the porter's neck area the lowes will be getting most of it's business from the Sidbury Road Development that is going to add over 2000 homeowners in the near future coming south vs staying in Scott's Hill or going north to go to a lowes.
I would urge everyone to talk to the county commissioners and demand responsible development not just at this location but all through out the county.
Go to charleston or chapel hill and see what responsible development looks like. The buildings are pleasing to the eye and they build in stages and wait for infrastructure before they issue building permits and rezoning requests.
David,
First, a massive thank you for the time and effort you have thus far put into trying to prevent another debacle, a-la Military Cutoff. I only found the flyer about the planned Lowes this morning (8/16), and was truly astounded to read what might happen across Market street (from PN Road).
I agree with the writer who suggests that if the developer can get this 16 acre tract rezoned to B-2, then he is likely to eventually want to do the same with the remaining acreage that he owns. I am not against growth - I was glad when the Porters Neck Shopping Center went in, and even happier when the newer one across the street(with Harris Teeter) opened. But the thought of that intersection (Market St / PN Road) trying to handle an additional 4600 cars daily (probably a highly conservative finding), let alone 20,000, is depressing. I am more than satisfied with the current level of commercial development at that intersection, and would be perfectly happy if nothing more was built there. But if it cannot be prevented, at least it must be controlled to provide some decent level of traffic safety and ease of egress from our neighborhoods down PN Road, not to mention the difficulties of ingress and egress from the proposed development. The proposed single road access (the current PN Road stub) is a joke, beyond absurd. The plan to make it 4 lanes only addresses egress. And for the developer to suggest that traffic could drive through the Porters Neck Center parking lot or the delivery ally behind Food Lion, is to suggest that we are all flamming, brainless idiots who would buy into anything proposed, which, come to think of it, is probably what he hopes for.
I will do what I can to help to try to minimize what will probably become a monumental headache for all the residents of all the neighborhoods in the relative vicinity of the proposed development. I will write to the commisioners (via the planning dept). I will try to go to the Sept 4th meeting. (Where do they hold their meetings?) And I would be interested in seeing the .pdf file which details the developers' proposal.
Thanks for being on top of this.
Bill S
WSEGUR@ec.rr.com
Both Bill and the previous contributor use words like “urge”, “demand”, and “control”, but the bottom line is MONEY. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stand in the way of money. And that is what this issue (development) is about.
This town, commissioners included, is loaded with “boy’s-club” circles. And to think that these circles can be broken in to, is ludicrous.
Just look at the collusion that exists between the PNHOA and the PNCC and you will see one great example of a monopoly.
Now, that’s control!
So to think that any type of pressure will influence, any decision, forget it.
Welcome to Wilmington! It will not happen!
But thanks for trying.
I live in Plantation Landing development and received the flyer on my mailbox and it was quite informative. We do not need another Lowes or Walmart in this city of Wilmington. Also, how many restaurants can we support? I am grateful to David for keeping us abreast of this situation and hope we are successful in stopping unregulated developmnet.
Post a Comment