Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRC Response Letter 12-17-25 December 17, 2025 Robert Farrell New Hanover County Planning & Land Use 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 RE: Hilton Bluffs Subdivision – Preliminary Plan TRC Review Dear Mr. Farrell, We are submitting a response to the 1st TRC comments for Hilton Bluffs. Please find the comments listed below with our response provided in bold. Planning, Robert Farrell 1. A previous version of this project was reviewed by the TRC for the May 7, 2025, TRC meeting. The current project is substantially different from the previous application due to the increased unit count from 647 to 1,800 dwelling units and changes to the layout of the project. As a substantial modification, this 1,800-unit version of the project is considered a new submittal which restarts the permitting process. a. Noted. 2. All parcels listed in the application are zoned RA, Rural Agricultural. a. Correct. 3. The preliminary plan indicates that while the parcels total 4,038.98 acres, the proposed project area is 1,809.78 acres. The remaining acreage outside the 1,809.78 acres is not under consideration for any development or other request authorized by the Unified Development Ordinance as part of this application. a. Correct. 4. While the application lists the unit type as detached single-family, Page C.2 of the preliminary plan lists information for multi-family apartments. Multi-family apartments are not permitted in the RA district. Please update the plans to reflect only detached single-family residential development. a. Note corrected from “multi-family apartments” to “single family.” 5. The project proposes a performance residential subdivision. Page C.2 lists setbacks for the RA district, however as a performance residential subdivision, the minimum building setbacks for zoning can be reduced or eliminated (except the 20-foot perimeter setback around the project). Will each residential lot be subject to the minimum setbacks of the RA district? a. This is proposed as a performance residential development with the allowable smaller setbacks to cluster lots with the setbacks indicated on sheet C-2.0. Therefore, the traditional RA district setbacks will not be used. After reviewing our plans again, we understand there may have been some confusing language in our dimension notes. We have updated that with this submittal. Let us know if any additional discussion or information is needed on this. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 6. Section 3.2.4 states the maximum density for performance residential development is 1 dwelling unit per acre in the RA district meeting the RA district standards. a. Correct. 7. While the maximum allowed density is 1 dwelling unit per acre, the site includes areas of Class IV soils and wetlands that might be marshes. a. Yes, as indicated on the SEGI exhibits provided. To further identify these areas, SEGI will provide additional information to clarify any outstanding questions. It is our understanding that the calculations provided on our plans align with SEGI’s site findings; however, if additional information is needed for staff to evaluate the plan’s calculations, please let us know. 8. The New Hanover County soils maps appear to correspond with the majority of the 984 acres of Class IV soils shown in the application. However, the application materials indicate approximately 75 acres are no longer Class IV soils. a. Correct, per SEGI’s exhibits and subsequent discussions, the team will provide additional clarification. In short summary SEGI’s findings are that 75 acres were identified as Class IV soils based on NHC’s County-wide septic suitability soils report but site specific investigation found that this area does not qualify as Class IV soils. 9. Additional information is required from the applicant verifying the soil type(s) for those 75 acres. a. Understood. Additional information will be submitted to NHC Planning Staff. 10. The applicant will need to conduct field verification of the boundaries and acreage of all the Class IV soils on site before a final determination or confirmation is given by staff about the location and extent of the Class IV soils. a. This work was performed by the environmental consultant team and will be further outlined in additional information for staff to consider. 11. The final confirmation of unit count cannot be made until after the location and extent of Class IV soils, lakes, ponds, and marshes are verified on site. a. Noted. The determinations provided are from SEGI’s site investigation, but as mentioned, additional information will be provided. 12. The preliminary plan shows the 20-foot building setback around the perimeter of the development meeting the requirement for performance residential subdivisions. a. Yes, this is the minimum single-family performance residential setback/ buffer. In nearly every area of the plan structures will be setback further than 20’ from the perimeter since rear lot lines are not closer than 20’ to the perimeter. 13. Please clarify the intention of Development Note 13 on page C.2. A conceptual master plan for the entire 4,000+ acres had been included in previous submittals. The statement “The entire development shall be vested under the land development regulations in effect at the time of approval of this initial phase…” Is that statement referring to phase 1 as shown in the phasing plan for this 1,800-unit project or is that referring to a larger development for the remaining acreage? a. The development proposed with these plans is ONLY for the 1800 unit, +/- 1810 ac portion of land provided within these plans. No other part of the 4000+ acres is included in this submittal other than to show a subdivision and associated proposed cross access easements to resulting parcels. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 14. The northern portion of the project borders along a creek. A CAMA permit may be required for development. Compliance with CAMA requirements under the Division of Coastal Management is regulated and enforced by the state. The local government of New Hanover County does not have jurisdiction to enforce or regulate those state requirements. However, the project will be required to show proof of compliance with Coastal Management CAMA requirements through an approved permit or evidence from Coastal Management that no permit is required before any authorization to construct may be granted. Determinations by Coastal Management could result in changes to the developable area of the site and may require recalculation of the maximum allowed density based on those findings. a. Noted. Project will submit necessary permits and be in compliance with CAMA requirements and will obtain any required permits prior to construction. At this time, there is no known CAMA requirement that will alter the density shown on plans; however, updated plans will be submitted to NHC planning for review if CAMA requirements do cause alteration to density calculations. 15. Stated previously, the project proposes subdividing approximately 1,800 acres from a larger approximately 4,000-acre site. The plans include future connections to the remaining acreage shown below. Please elaborate on: a. Whether that will be a paved right-of-way or an unimproved easement? i. Additional information is provided in this resubmittal set identifying the potential cross access / utility easements. The existing road through the wetlands is the intended area for the access to adjacent parcels. At this time, there are no plans for development, conservation, etc. determined for the resulting parcels outside of the development area proposed with these resubmitted plans. At this time, the access and utility easement will remain unimproved, but the purpose of the easement is to provide future access to the resulting parcels over the same general location as the current access roads. b. Whether the roadway area shown outside of wetlands is being counted towards the density of the project? i. The roadway area is in uplands and part of the overall acreage of the tract. The entire subdivision boundary factors into the density calculation. The roadway area is not included in the wetland acreage. Uplands for the site are used for calculating density; however, the open space/conservation/COD requirements are further broken out on these resubmitted plans. In these open space/ conservation calculations, you will see we are not counting anything in the cross access corridor, including the roadway, in the required/ provided conservation or open space areas. Let us know if further discussion is needed. c. And how the access will be facilitated given the conservation requirements for the surrounding area. i. Please see the Subdivision Exhibit for better defined cross access corridors. These will be unimproved at this time, but do follow 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 alignment of the existing roadway for access to the newly created parcels. d. The plans label the waterway along the northern property line as “Broadwater Branch” which is also known as Sanders Mill Creek. Please provide clarification on the naming of that waterway. i. The name Broadwater Branch is the name that was found on deed references and other survey related documents. As with many waterways in our area, there are often multiple names for the same body of water. e. Staff recommend including the location of traffic calming devices on the preliminary plans. Installation of traffic calming devices is not required, but including potential locations on the plan ensures the future HOA / owners will have the opportunity to install them without conducting additional internal study after construction. i. Understood. No traffic calming devices are included in the plans at this time. 16. Detached single-family homes require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit. If ultimately constructed, the parking for each lot will be verified during zoning compliance and building permit review as homes are constructed. a. Noted. All single-family residential lots will have on-lot parking for 2 or more cars. 17. The amenity center will need to be reviewed by TRC as a separate application. Parking for the amenity center will be reviewed as part of any future application request. a. Noted. When designed, the amenity will be a separate submittal. 18. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is currently under review by NCDOT and the WMPO. The plan may need to be updated to reflect the required improvements approved by NCDOT and the WMPO after the TIA is approved. a. Noted. All traffic improvements from TIA will be incorporated into the plans in the sequence determined by the final TIA approval. 19. Please note that no building permit for any structure shall be issued which requires NCDOT approval for a Driveway Permit until NCDOT has issued the permit approval. Evidence of approval shall accompany the application for building permit. a. Noted. 20. The project proposes access to Tall Oaks Drive which will require a bridge over the existing creek. Planning staff’s understanding is State, and possibly federal permits will be required for the construction of the bridge. Any future approval of the preliminary plan will be conditioned on the county receiving evidence the location of the bridge would be acceptable by other review and permitting agencies. a. Noted. All required permits will be obtained prior to construction. Bridge design is in progress and wetland impact is not anticipated with the bridge design. All wetland impacts will be reviewed and approved prior to construction. As part of that permit submittal, we will include the bridge to be certain no additional permits or requirements apply. Any needed permits will be obtained. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 21. The plan indicates some sections of the project might be gated. Is there a timeframe for when the locations of the gates will be identified so they can be reviewed as part of the project? a. Gate locations are shown on plan. All entrances will be gated. At this time, it is not known if any individual portions of the plan will be gated within the gate, so the notes referencing individual neighborhood gates have been removed from the plan. 22. A separate tree removal permit is required before any trees may be removed from the project area. Parcels R00900-001-001-000 and R00900-001-002-000 are subject to a Forest Management Plan. The Forest Management Plan and any supplemental information related to the location, species and size of trees may be used as evidence of existing trees on site for the purpose of a tree removal permit. While not a part of the subdivision under review, it is important to note a tree survey for the parcels labeled “Future Development This Parcel Area Not Included in Density Calculation” will be required before any trees are removed on those parcels. a. Noted. A tree removal permit for proposed development area within the +1810 ac parcel is included in this submittal. Tree removal permits will be obtained for all future development prior to tree removal. 23. While trees cannot be removed from conservation spaces, staff also recommend preserving existing trees in any non-conservation open space where possible such as around the amenity area in compliance with Section 6.3.1.5 Existing Flora. a. Understood and further identified in this resubmittal. The tree removal and mitigation plans are included with this resubmittal. We propose a vegetated buffer/ open space outside of the wetland & conservation resource.. These are trees in uplands preserved at the edge of the developable area. 24. Note: Land disturbance permits can be issued by county Engineering before a Tree Removal Permit is approved by Planning. However, any trees removed before the Tree Removal Permit is issued may result in enforcement action under Section 5.3.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance to include prohibiting any development of the site for 3 to 5 years. a. Noted. We understand that the forestry plan on the property is not all that is needed to remove trees at this time. Tree removal for the proposed development will not begin until a tree removal permit has been issued. 25. Page C.2 includes Landscaping & Buffering Notes stating the site is surrounded by water and wetlands on three sides. Similar to the other information requested related to gross and net site acreage, please clarify the description of the property. a. Note removed. Notes updated to further clarify intent. 26. The note also states selective clearing to remove dead /dying material will occur in the wetland areas. Please see the conservation requirements discussed for this project, additional information related to the clearing would be required to ensure the work meets the conservation standards. a. Note removed. Now that a tree removal permit is submitted, those documents should clarify the tree preservation and removal intent. 27. Landscaping and buffering for the amenity areas will be reviewed through a separate TRC review. a. Understood. When designed, the amenity will be a separate submittal. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 28. Please note under 5.5.2.A that a lighting plan is not required for single-family residential projects and the county does not require streetlights, however a lighting plan is required for any amenity area. a. Noted. We will have streetlights, but Duke will provide a full design. We do have some indicated at the front entrance and will provide a design for amenities when the designs are developed/ submitted. 29. Page C-2.1 indicates the general location of the subdivision monument sign. When the TIA is completed and approved by NCDOT and the WMPO, it will confirm the type of roadway improvements necessary at Castle Hayne Road. That will allow the preliminary plan to be updated showing the location of the sign and the DOT sight triangles. The final location of the sign will need to be outside the sight triangles for the intersection. a. Noted. Sign location will be updated when TIA has been completed / traffic improvements are designed to verify location is compliant with DOT requirements. 30. A separate sign permit must be submitted and reviewed by the county for compliance with Section 5.6 of the UDO for standards at or after the submittal of the separate zoning compliance and construction permits for the primary building or use. a. Noted. The community entrance sign will be permitted separately, and the appropriate easements will be designated at that time. 31. The New Hanover County Conservation Resources map indicates there are Swamp Forest and Pocosin conservation resources on site. a. Correct. 32. The application includes a map indicating there are approximately 1,219.84 acres of Swamp Forest and approximately 5.8 acres of Freshwater Marsh on site. Both sizes exceed the minimum distinct area listed in Table 5.7.2.A which triggers additional ordinance standards. Additional field verification will be required to verify the total acreage and boundaries of the conservation resources. a. Additional notes and calculations are provided with this submittal. SEGI’s exhibits identify the areas from their on-site fieldwork. If additional information is needed, let us know. 33. Permanent conservation space is required for certain kinds of conservation resources when a site contains the minimum acreage listed in Table 5.7.3.A.5. The following estimates are based on the information provided in the application and do not represent a final staff determination on the total acreage required for permanent conservation to meet Section 5.7. a. 1,219.84 acres of swamp forest x 0.5 conservation factor = approximately 609.92 acres of permanent conservation. This acreage may overlap with the Class IV soil conservation area if the resource is underlaid with Class IV soils. i. Understood. We are conserving far in excess of the minimum conservation of swamp forest. The wetland areas are class IV soils, but those are intended for conservation as further identified in the C2.0 site calculations. Let us know if we need to adjust any method of calculation or provide additional information. b. Page C.2 of the preliminary plan indicates 5.9 acres of freshwater marsh x 0.8 conservation factor = approximately 4.7 acres of permanent conservation. This 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 acreage may overlap with the Class IV soil conservation area if the resource is underlaid with Class IV soils. i. All 5.9 acres of freshwater marsh are being preserved. See plans for further details. c. Section 5.7.4 requires Group 4 Conservation Controls which include a 25-foot building setback from the edge of the conservation area. i. Yes, all CODs were provided on the plans with the last submittal, but we have further noted them and provided an additional exhibit to better show the location and COD areas. 34. The Conservation Resources map and the 2003 Natural Area Inventory of New Hanover County indicate that a portion of the dedicated open and conservation space could be considered an Animal and Plant (Natural) Area of Special Significance conservation resource. Information will need to be provided to the county indicating whether there are any animal or plant areas of special significance. If they are identified on site, that acreage will need to be identified and the 75-foot setback from the edge of the conservation resource space will need to be incorporated into the plans. a. Yes, SEGI evaluated the site and referenced the 2003 Natural Area Inventory. Their findings identify the Animal and Plant Area of Special Significance conservation resource to be contained within the large wetland area we propose for conservation; however, it is not in ALL wetlands on site. The 75’ COD setback off of this resource is better identified on this plan set. 35. The location, acreage, setback line, and method of conservation will need to be provided. Methods of conservation are outlined in Section 5.7.3.E of the UDO. The conservation method will require additional review by county staff before approval and may require additional information around how the conservation spaces will be maintained and guaranteed as conservation into the future. a. The HOA will take control of the conservation of the identified areas after the developer turns the community over to the HOA. 36. Section 5.8.2 states that the total amount of open space shall be calculated based on the gross site acreage of the project. Performance residential subdivisions require a minimum 20% open space. The proposed 1,809.78-acre project will require a minimum of 391.9 acres of open space to meet the requirement. a. Understood that the entire project area, 1809.78 ac requires 20% open space, but that does not equal 391.9 acres, that is 361.96 ac. please let us know if there are additional open space requirements that we have not included that require the additional 30 acres of open space. Regardless, the site plan far exceeds the minimum requirement. 37. Page C.2 indicates the minimum open space required was calculated based on the net site acreage. While the plans show 1,235.84 acres of open space provided meeting the requirement, the calculation will need to be updated using the gross site acreage. a. Please review updated calculations on C2.0 and let us know if further revision is needed. 38. It will also be important to note which areas of open space are being considered open space that is being permanently conserved to meet the conservation space 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 requirements, and which areas of open space will remain dedicated open space but do not count towards the conservation space. a. Calculations are further broken out on plans. Let us know if additional information is needed. 39. Section 6.3.3.J does not require sidewalks in the RA district. Plan indicates sidewalks on one side of the road and some pedestrian facilities both exceeding the requirements of the UDO. Approval from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required for those facilities proposed through wetlands. Evidence of approval from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required before future construction plans can be approved. a. Noted. A wetland impact application has been submitted for phase 1. 40. The block lengths appear to all be below 1,000 feet in length. a. Noted. 41. Staff has conducted a preliminary link to node ratio for the project. However, to ensure an accurate calculation, please update page C2.2 or another appropriate page, with the locations and number of links and nodes for the project. a. Ratio updated on C2.2 42. Portions of the property are in Special Flood Hazard Areas. The FEMA flood maps show the parcel is in more than one FIRM panel. Different FIRM panels were adopted at different times between 2018 and 2025. The FIRM maps listed on Page C.2 correctly reflect the panels that apply to this project. a. Noted. 43. Based on the proposed plan, no residential lots are proposed inside a Special Flood Hazard Area however pedestrian facilities are shown extending through the flood plain. A separate floodplain development permit will be required for any work in the floodplain. a. The existing roads through the upland areas are being used in the locations identified on the plan for pedestrian facilities. If any improvements to existing conditions are proposed, a floodplain development permit will be obtained prior to constructing any facilities in the floodplain. NHC Fire Services, David Stone 1. Fire Finals required. a. Understood 2. Add fire hydrant at both entrances to the development a. Fire Hydrants placed at both entrances, but CFPUA also has required us to stop short of the Tall Oaks Drive intersection. The last hydrant is located on the project side of the proposed bridge. 3. Any gates require Siren and KNOX Entry requirements a. All gated neighborhoods will be equipped with siren activated or KNOX Box/Lock equipment and will be approved by NHC Fire Staff prior to installation. 4. Second entrance shall be constructed and operable once 100 homes are built a. Noted. No more than 100 homes will be constructed prior to a secondary access road being installed. Developer will work with NHC Fire Marshal’s office to further identify timing and construction of entrance road. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 NHC Engineering, Galen Jamison 1. A County stormwater and land disturbing permit issued by the County is required for this project. Please digitally submit the permit applications documentation with requisite review fees to the COAST online permit portal (https://newhanovercountync- energovpub.tylerhost.net/apps/selfservice#/home). Applicable forms can be found at https://www.nhcgov.com/251/Stormwater-Permitting and https://www.nhcgov.com/249/Sediment-Erosion-Controlhowever. a. Noted. Full civil engineering plans will be submitted for review and approval. 2. Portions of this parcel qualifies for an exemption to the County’s pre and post storm attenuation requirements should it be design in accordance with the City and County’s Low Impact Design (LID) Manual (http://laserfiche.nhcgov.com/weblink/0/edoc/3273331/LID-Manual.pdf). Please provide requisite documentation for compliance with LID manual and a variance request in accordance with NHC UDO, Section 7.12 during the County stormwater permitting process. As park’s parcel’s are developed and impervious area added, each parcel will need submit for a County stormwater permit and meet the pre and post storm attenuation requirements unless LID measures are proposed. a. Noted. Detailed plans will be submitted for review and approval. 3. Any discharges made to Broadwater Branch would be subject to the County’s storm attenuation. a. Noted. 4. Please contact the State for the stormwater permit requirements. It is assumed a high density permit will be obtained. a. We will contact the State for any high density permits sought. NHC Environmental Health, Dustin Fenske 1. Site plan reflects connection to public water. Proposed infrastructure appear to meet setbacks to adjacent properties with wells. a. Noted 2. Site plan reflects connection to public sewer. Proposed infrastructure does not violate setbacks to surrounding properties septic systems. a. Noted NHC Sustainability Manager, Madelyn Wampler 1. A roadway crossing is proposed through wetland areas; impacts should be minimized where feasible, with coordination through applicable state and federal permitting processes. a. Understood. Wetland impacts will be permitted through the USACE. Part of the requirements for wetland impact permits is to prove avoidance of wetlands, so, yes, we will minimize and avoid to the extent possible. We have used existing road crossings and preserved nearly all “finger” wetlands within the upland development area. 2. Low-impact development (LID) strategies such as vegetated swales, filter strips, and pervious surfaces are recommended in parking and open space areas to reduce runoff and protect adjacent wetlands. These practices should be coordinated with NCDEQ 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 and stormwater standards to make sure they meet required design and performance criteria. a. Noted and we have and are still investigating LID measures we can employ on site. More will be shown during site specific design. 3. It is recommended to develop a comprehensive tree inventory and preservation plan for all upland areas, regardless of the presence of specimen trees. Maintaining existing canopy and integrating native tree and understory plantings where possible can provide habitat continuity, enhance stormwater management, and support overall site ecological function, even if individual trees do not meet specimen thresholds. a. The site already had a forestry plan for the timber operations over the last 70+ years on the site. We did perform a survey on the front +11 acres of the site and worked with a licensed forester on the plot sampling for the remaining development area proposed on the plans. Tree removal and mitigation plans are submitted. 4. Native, non-invasive plant species should be used for landscaping and buffers. a. Noted 5. The selective clearing near wetland edges should be minimized to maintain natural buffers that protect water quality, reduce erosion, support habitat, and help lower potential mitigation or stormwater management costs a. Please see tree preservation proposed outside of wetland edges. 6. Internal sidewalks are noted; pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and/or trail opportunities is encouraged to promote multi-modal transportation within and around the development area. a. Noted. NHC Addressing, McCabe Watson 1. Please contact me with street name proposals with alternatives prior to TRC approval. a. Noted. Street name proposals have now been reserved for the community. 2. Please contact me for address assignments following TRC approval. a. Will do. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Bernice Johnson 1. CFPUA TRC Comments provided are preliminary comments only. a. Noted. 2. Utility Plan review will be required by CFPUA. 3. CFPUA is moving toward becoming paperless. When ready to submit plan review package, upload all documents to https://www.cfpua.org/FormCenter/Engineering- 3/Engineering-Plan-Review-103 a. Noted. Plans, etc. will be submitted online. 4. CFPUA water and sewer available via mainline extensions; pump station will also be installed. a. Noted. 5. CFPUA staff is providing data to the engineers to determine capacity for phase build out. a. Noted. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 NCDOT, Nick Drees 1. NCDOT Driveway Permits, and Encroachments are submitted through the NCDOT Online Portal.https://connect.ncdot.gov/municipalities/Utilities/Pages/help.aspx You can coordinate with the District Office with any questions 910-398-9100. a. Noted. Driveway Permits and encroachment will be submitted through the online portal once when the TIA/ off-site design is completed. 2. An NCDOT Driveway Permit is required. Submit plans in accordance with pages 14 and 15 of the Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways to include access locations within 500’ of the proposed access on both sides of the State Road. Submit to the local NCDOT District Engineer’s Office. Refer to the NCDOT checklist (included) for required documents and site plan information. a. Noted. 3. An NCDOT Encroachment Agreement is required for any utility connections or installations within the NCDOT right-of-way (form 16.6). Refer to the NCDOT UAM Manual and the NCDOT encroachment checklist for required documents and site plan information. a. Noted. 4. An NCDOT Encroachment Agreement is required for any sidewalk or multi-use paths installed within the NCDOT right-of-way (form 16.6). a. Noted 5. Required Roadway Improvements: A TIA is under review, once it is approved additional comments will be provided by NCDOT. a. Noted. Required improvements from TIA will be incorporated into the plans once approved. 6. Right of Way and/or Easement Dedication: Additional right of way and/or easements may be necessary to construct any required roadway improvements. a. Noted 7. Drainage/Stormwater Conveyance: a. If the drainage does not naturally flow to the NCDOT right of way the historic drainage pattern should be maintained. i. Noted. b. Hydraulic calculations and associated plan sheets will need to be submitted for the site. This will be reviewed by the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit. i. Noted. 8. NCDOT Standard Drawings: Include/update the NCDOT Standard Drawings (2024) that are applicable to the development. a. Noted. Applicable drawings will be updated and included. 9. Show and label the 10’ X 70’ NCDOT sight triangles. No obstructions will be placed within the NCDOT sight triangles. a. Noted. Sight triangles added to plans and labeled. No obstructions shall be placed in sight triangles. 10. Show and label the stopping sight distance. No obstructions shall be placed within the stopping sight distance. a. AASTO sight distance included this submittal 11. Identification signing or landscape vegetation within the median and the sight distance triangle must not obstruct the driver’s line of sight. No landscaping or signing will be 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 allowed to exceed 42 inches in height, measured from the Edge of Pavement (EOP) within the median or sight triangle. a. Noted. Driver’s line of sight will not be obstructed. 12. All pylon signs in the median or sight distance triangle must provide a vertical clear sight zone between 3 feet-6 inches and 10 feet-0 inches measured from the EOP. Signing located within a clear recovery area shall be of a “breakaway design. a. Noted. No signs will be placed in sight triangles. 13. Only low growing shrubbery, consistent with the NCDOT’s landscaping policies, as contained in the publication “Guidelines for Planting Within Highway Right of Way,” will be allowed within a landscaped median and the sight distance triangle at the entranceway to a development, whether the street or driveway connection to the State Highway System is designated as a public facility or not. Landscaping within the right- of-way and sight distance triangles may require additional approval by the District Engineer. a. Noted. No large plantings proposed within the sight distance triangle. We will work with NCDOT through the design process to assure compliance. 14. Show and label any proposed gates with distances to the right of way line. a. Noted. Proposed gates shown and labeled in detail site plans. 15. A turnaround should be provided prior to the gate. a. Noted. Turnarounds are provided for gated entry locations. 16. Label the radii for the proposed driveway/driveway. a. Noted. Radii will be labeled when driveway permit applications are submitted. Entrance road radii are shown be between 30-45’ radius at corners. 17. A radius encroachment letter will be required if the radius of the proposed driveway crosses the adjoining property line. a. We will work with NCDOT on any necessary encroachments agreements 18. Make sure to accommodate the largest proposed vehicle. a. Noted. We are designing for WB-67 vehicles and Aerial Fire Trucks. 19. Provide auto turn templates for the largest proposed vehicles. a. Noted. Auto turn will be provided with completed design post TIA approval. 20. Label the internal protection stem length for the proposed driveway connection. Measured from the right-of-way line. a. This will be provided in detailed engineering plans for driveway design. WMPO, Caitlin Cerza 1. NCDOT Projects: N/A. WMPO 2045 MTP Projects: N/A. New Hanover County Projects: N/A. a. Noted. 2. A TIA for Hilton Bluffs is in the process of being approved by the WMPO and NCDOT. All improvements outlined in the approved TIA are required. Please reach out to Caitlin Cerza (Caitlin.Cerza@wilmingtonnc.gov), the WMPO’s Transportation Planning Engineer, if any questions arise related to the TIA. The TIA approval with conditions letter will be attached to these comments. a. Noted. Required improvements from TIA will be incorporated into the plans once available. 1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0 Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding any of this information or require additional material, please feel free to call. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Paramounte Engineering, Inc.