Lake Pointe TRC Comment Responses
430 Eastwood Road, Suite 100
Wilmington, NC 28403
P 910.746.1140
www.timmons.com
March 1, 2023
Robert Farrell
New Hanover County
203 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Lake Pointe Subdivision – Preliminary Plat – TRC Review
Dear Robert Farrell and all other reviewers,
Please see the following responses to your TRC Review comments for Lake Pointe issued on 11/23/2022
via Letter.
Planning, Robert Farrell 910-798-7164
1. Zoning: R-15
a. Use: Performance Residential. It appears that the proposal generally meets the
requirements specified in UDO Sections 3.2.8 and 3.1.3.D, requiring performance
residential dwellings in the R-15 districts to comply with the following standards specified
in UDO.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
2. General Comments:
a. As a recommendation please clearly show ADA accessible connections
and warning strips to the sidewalks in the required locations.
RESPONSE: Crosswalk striping has been added at intersections and ramps now show the
warning strips and ADA ramps.
b. Please show sight triangles for ingress/egress at the Dairy Farm Road access points.
RESPONSE: Sight distance easement lines are now shown and labelled in the C2 sheets
and are designed based on the AASHTO design criteria.
c. Please list setbacks that apply to R-15 Performance Residential, as noted in UDO Section
3.1.3.D.1.
RESPONSE: The setback requirements are now listed as note #22 in the General Site
Notes section on sheet C2.0.
d. Please show the location of your mail kiosk and the paved area with ingress/egress and
parking as required by UDO Section 6.2.2.A.15.A paved area with ingress/egress to allow
vehicles to pull off , park, and re-enter the roadway safely shall be required for each kiosk
area. Kiosks shall be located in areas that will best allow for vehicle parking, which shall be
designated so as not to create pedestrian or vehicle safety issues.
RESPONSE: The mail kiosk is proposed in the Amenity Area and is now shown with a
parking lot that will be used for the amenity and the mail kiosk. Proposed ADA compliant
parking spaces and curb ramps are proposed.
e. Include the total acreage of areas occupied by all structures including streets and parking
areas.
RESPONSE: The acreage and square footage of all areas is now provided under the
Impervious Area Data table on sheet C2.0.
f. An easement will be required with provisions to allow public access to the cemetery on the
property. These will need to be included in the covenants.
RESPONSE: A 20’ public access easement has been included starting at the entrance on
Avignon Ave (formerly Road A) and ending at the cul-de-sac on Avignon Ave. A note has
been added to sheet C2.0 laying out the details about this easement.
3. Open Space:
a. Please label and provide calculations for open space to comply with UDO Section
5.8.2.2.
RESPONSE: The Open Space percentages and other site data has now been supplied
on sheet C2.0.
4. Tree Retention:
a. Please apply for a Tree Removal Permit.
RESPONSE: A Tree Removal Permit application was submitted on November 1, 2022
and approved on January 17, 2023 under permit number TR-22-000060. A copy of the
signed permit is included in the submittal package for your reference.
b. Please be aware that a Tree Removal Permit is required prior to any land disturbance
activities. Please provide the specific species (Loblolly Pine, Long Leaf Pine, etc.) of the
trees to be removed or retained to determine required mitigation.
RESPONSE: Specific species of the trees to be removed or retained for the purpose of
mitigation were specified as such in the plan sheets submitted with the approved Tree
Removal Permit.
c. Existing trees must be inventoried by a cover type survey conducted by point sampling,
fixed plot sampling, field survey or other method approved by the Planning Director. Areas
that will not be disturbed shall be delineated as such and do not require inventorying
individual trees.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Existing trees were inventoried by a field survey by ESP
Associates dated February 7, 2022.
d. All specimen trees located within subject tract are required to be illustrated as well. UDO
Section 5.3.5.C The removal of any specimen tree is prohibited on any parcel unless
exempt according to Section 10.3.11, Variance Zoning and Subdivision. If a specimen tree
is removed without a permit, the penalty for this violation shall be twice the mitigation fee.
RESPONSE: Since there are no specimen trees within the project boundary, no specimen
trees are labeled in the plans and zero (0) aggregate inches of specimen trees are
proposed for removal.
e. Please be aware that there are optional incentives for retaining trees on
site, UDO Section 5.3.8.A.2.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
f. Please see the chart below indicating the documented, significant, and specimen trees
regulated by the Count.
RESPONSE: The provided table was used for the calculations in the approved Tree
Removal Permit.
g. Per UDO Section 5.3.4.C, of the UDO requires a minimum of 15 trees at least 2” DBH must
be retained or planted on the parcel where development occurs for each acre or
proportionate area disturbed. Please add a note to the Landscape Plan showing has this
requirement has been met.
Please note that required landscaping for the project can be credited to meet this
requirement, however, required landscaping does not count towards mitigation, if
applicable.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to sheet C5.0 with the landscape requirement and a
breakdown of how it will be fulfilled.
h. Per UDO Section 5.3.6.B, please be aware that prior to any construction activity protection
fencing is required around protected trees or tree stands. The fencing shall be a minimum
of four feet and shall remain in place through completion of construction activities.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The plans submitted with the approved tree permit included
tree protection details and notes.
i. Tree inventory plans are required to reflect the trees being retained and the trees being
removed clearly. Please see the example below, which illustrate the trees with the X’s
being removed and the trees and the trees being preserved showing the protection in the
correct placement.
RESPONSE: Trees to be removed were marked with X’s in the plans. After a second
review, the plans were deemed sufficient for a Tree Removal permit.
j. Please include the tree data within a table as shown below.
RESPONSE: Trees to be removed were shown as such in data tables on the plans. After
a second review, the plans were deemed sufficient for a Tree Removal permit.
5. Easements:
a. UDO Section 6.2.2, please ensure all Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Utility
Easements are clearly labeled.
RESPONSE: A storm access easement has been provided from the right-of-way on Jules
Drive (formerly Road B) to SCM 1 and down Renown Court (formerly Road F) to SCM 2.
A sanitary access easement has been added from the right-of-way on Jules Drive to the
pump station on Jules Drive. A 10’ general utility easement has been added outside of all
internal rights-of-way to be used for the water main and other utilities.
6. Lighting:
a. Please note that with the latest update to the UDO, a lighting plan is not required at time of
TRC Approval. See below excerpt from Section 5.5.3:
i. Information about the exterior lighting for the site that demonstrates compliance
with the standards in this section shall be submitted in conjunction with an
application for site plan approval (Section 10.3.6, Site Plan) or zoning compliance
approval (Section 10.3.8, Zoning Compliance Approval), whichever comes first,
approved no later than at time of construction plan approval.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, we will complete the lighting process prior to construction
plan approval.
b. The lighting plan should illustrate that street lighting, all exterior lighting, and indoor lighting
visible from outside shall be designed and located so that the maximum illumination
measured in foot candles at ground level at a residential lot line meet the UDO Section 5.5.
Please refer to Table 5.5.4.B of the UDO for additional standards.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, thank you for the information.
Fire Services – Raymond Griswold (910) 798-7448
1. Fire hydrant layout plan required.
RESPONSE: The fire hydrants are shown in the C2 series of sheets for your review. All hydrants
have been labelled to provide better visibility of their location.
2. Road widths should be identified on the plans.
RESPONSE: Road widths and right-of-way widths are labelled on the C2 sheets as well.
3. Cul-de-sac diameters should be identified as well.
RESPONSE: Cul-de-sac diameters are now labeled the C2 series of sheets.
County Engineering – Galen Jamison (910) 798-7072
1. A land disturbing and a stormwater permit issued by the County are required for this project in
addition to the State stormwater permit. Please submit for permits as the design is completed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. These will be submitted at a later time accordingly.
2. Please provide pedestrian access to the existing cemetery.
RESPONSE: A general access easement has been added from the right-of-way on Avignon Ave
(formerly Road A) all the way back to the cul-de-sac on Avignon Ave, then outside of the right-of-
way to the cemetery. This is a 20’ wide access easement. See the C2 series of sheets for the
easement and accompanying labels.
3. Please ensure via a lot grading plan or proposed contours all the impervious surfaces for the
perimeter lots are directed to the proposed stormwater control measures. The inlets located in the
back of the lot will likely need ditches to direct drainage to each inlet.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to sheet C3.0 that lists which lots will require roof drains to
be led to the front yard so that the impervious area can be treated by the SCM.
4. Please provide the requirements (worker safety, gas venting, etc) for cutting and trenching
proposed in the existing landfill. Please provide a copy of any permit requirements for
constructing in an existing landfill.
RESPONSE: We are in progress of putting together all requirements for working within a landfill
and will provide copies of permits required during the permitting phase of the project.
5. Please provide a copy of the no rise certification during the permitting phase of the project.
RESPONSE: We are in progress of floodplain analysis and will provide the necessary
certifications during the permitting phase of the project.
6. A permit revision will be required for ATC #699-03/09/17, Street Safe project located at 5000 Blue
Clay Road.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will work on the permit revision during the permitting process of
the project.
7. The proposed grading at lot 166 and 167 and proposed inlets appear to capture runoff from
adjacent land or may result in ponding on adjacent property. Please ensure these drainage areas
are incorporated into the permit calculations or flow is bypassed around the proposed stormwater
control measures.
RESPONSE: Those structures are in cut and therefore will not pond on the adjacent property.
They will be designed to minimize ponding on the proposed lots as well.
8. A public drainage easement sized in accordance with NHC Stormwater Manual will be required
for the floodway along the eastern portion of the development.
RESPONSE: The public drainage easement has been provided and can be see in the C2 series
of sheets.
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority – Bernice Johnson (910) 332-6620
1. CFPUA TRC Comments provided are preliminary comments only.
RESPONSE: Understood.
2. Utility Plan review required by CFPUA. 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
3. CFPUA water and sewer available through a mainline extension to serve the subdivision; a pump
station and forcemain will also be required.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
4. At this time capacity is available.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, thank you.
5. Capacity is also dependent on the analysis of the pipe collection system (gravity and force
mains).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
6. A capacity determination can be provided upon submittal of the NC DWQ FTA/FTSE Application
Form and a Preliminary Plan, this determination does not guarantee capacity.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
7. Capacity is issued to projects on a first come, first serve basis, when capacity is available, the
plans meet Authority requirements, and the NC DWQ FTA/FTSE forms are signed by the
Authority.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
8. Northern Watermains Cost Recovery Fee, Sidbury Forcemain Cost Recovery Fee and Sidbury
Water Cost Recovery Fee will apply.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
NCDOT, Nick Drees (910) 398-9100
1. These preliminary comments and are based on the plans as submitted for the proposed site and
are subject to further review upon receipt of any additional information. Subsequently, additional
comments and/or requirements may be necessary for this site.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
2. NCDOT Driveway Permits, and Encroachments are submitted through the NCDOT Online Portal.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
3. A NCDOT Driveway Permit is required. Submit a plan 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.
a. Show/label the 10’x70’ NCDOT Sight Triangles, no obstructions are to be placed in these
per the policy manual.
RESPONSE: Internal streets have all 10’ x 70’ sight triangles provided and they are
labelled on the C2 series of sheets.
b. Show/label sight distances for both driveway connections. Any sight distance issues will
need to be cleared and maintained by the applicant/HOA/POA in accordance to NCDOT
policy.
RESPONSE: Sight distance easement lines are now shown and labelled in the C2 sheets
and are designed based on the AASHTO design criteria.
c. Label the stem lengths for the driveway connections, these must meet the approved
WMPO approval letter.
RESPONSE: The stem lengths are now labelled on sheet C2.1.
d. Pavement markings will be reviewed during the NCDOT review process.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
4. An NCDOT Encroachment Agreement is required for any utility connections or installation within
NCDOT right-of-way.
a. The utilities will be reviewed once submitted in the NCDOT Encroachment Portal.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Environmental Health – Dustin Fenske (910) 798-7324
1. Site plan reflects the site will be on public water and sewer. Proposed infrastructure
improvements appear to meet all setbacks to surrounding well and septic systems.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, thank you.
WMPO – Jamar Johnson (910) 343-3910
Comments:
· The most accurate ITE Code for the townhomes part of the development is ITE Code 215
o Single Family Attached Housing. The TIA used ITE Code 220. The difference in peak
hour trips is negligible so no revision is needed to the TIA approval with conditions
letter dated October 3, 2022.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, thank you.
According to the approved TIA, the following improvements are required of the development:
SR 2181 (Old Dairy Farm Road) and SR 2180 (Blue Clay Road)/Site Access 1
· Construct Site Access 1 with an internal protected stem of 100 feet measured from the right-
of-way line and one ingress and one egress lane.
· Provide stop control for westbound approach.
· Construct a northbound right turn lane on SR 2181 (Old Dairy Farm Road) with 50 feet of
storage, 50 feet of full-width deceleration and appropriate taper.
RESPONSE: The stem length and proposed turn lanes meet or exceed the requirement and
are now labelled on sheet C2.1.
SR 2181 (Old Dairy Farm Road) and Site Access 2
· Construct Site Access 2 with an internal protected stem of 100 feet measured from the right-
of-way line and one ingress and one egress lane.
· Provide stop control for westbound approach.
· Construct a northbound right turn lane on SR 2181 (Old Dairy Farm Road) with 50 feet of
storage, 50 feet of full-width deceleration and appropriate taper.
RESPONSE: The stem length and proposed turn lanes meet or exceed the requirement and
are now labelled on sheet C2.1.
Addressing, Katherine May (910) 798-7443
1. 8 street names are required. Please submit 8 street names (without suffixes) with a few alternates
for approval.
RESPONSE: The approved street names are now shown in our plans.
2. Mark mail kiosk locations. New subdivisions do not get individual mailboxes.
RESPONSE: The proposed mail kiosk is now marked and located in the amenity site.
3. Contact me following TRC approval to start the addressing process.
RESPONSE: Will do, thank you.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Brad Shaver (910) 251-4611
1. The Corps approved the current delineation and it included both jurisdictional wetlands as well as
non-jurisdictional wetlands (regulated by the State). The federally regulated wetlands appear to
have been avoided.
RESPONSE: That is correct, thank you.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out by email
(john.wall@timmons.com) or phone (910.746.1174).
Thank you,
John Wall