While the Level of Service may not decrease for the various reference points and times, along this section of Smithfield Road, the staff is still concerned that the roadway is already near, or over, its design capacity, and about the number of accidents reported in recent years (based upon the accident information discussed in the Traffic Issues section above). The petitioner’s TIA included a rough sketch to illustrate the location of two driveways for the site’s ingress and egress—one onto Poor Boy Farm Road and another one directly onto Smithfield Road further south on the subject property. [Please note that this sketch is not a part of the rezoning petition.] The TIA indicated that a left turn lane will be needed within Smithfield Road to accommodate southbound traffic turning from Smithfield Road onto Poor Boy Farm Road. The TIA indicates that this turn lane “will provide adequate storage so that thru traffic on Smithfield Road is not blocked”. Additionally the TIA indicated that the southern entrance into the subject property will be limited to right in and right out turning movements only (for northbound traffic). The TIA noted that this will “assure that thru traffic on Smithfield Road is not slowed down due to turns into the project”. These improvements are reflected in the petitioner’s proposed conditions # 5 and 6 of the rezoning petition. As noted above, many of the accidents that have been reported along this section of Smithfield Road are left turn and rear end collisions that are often associated with a roadway that is operating near, or above, its design capacity. The two new driveways that are noted in the TIA for the subject property will necessitate additional left turn vehicular movements. Figure 5 shows 60% of the site trips entering the subject property via a left turn from the southbound traffic on Smithfield Road (the remaining 40% would be right turns from northbound traffic). Additionally, 40% of the trips exiting the site are shown as turning left onto Smithfield Road to resume southbound travel. The TIA forecast a LOS of “B” in the morning and “A” in the afternoon for the left turns from southbound Smithfield Road. This would be due to the proposed designated left turn lane within Smithfield Road. The TIA forecast a LOS of “”E” in the morning and “F” in the afternoon for the left turns from Poor Boy Farm Road onto southbound Smithfield Road. Drive Time Analysis The petitioner has indicated that the rezoning is justified and in the public interest, in part, because there are no other convenience stores with gas sales within this area. They discounted the Corner Grocery at the intersection of Smithfield Road and Poole Road as insubstantial. In response, the staff conducted a field survey of existing facilities within the general area of the proposed rezoning. While facilities to the south (near Clayton) and to the east (in downtown Wendell) were somewhat distant to the subject property, there is a convenience store with gas sales that is located about four (4) miles to the east on Poole Road. This store, built in 1986, has been remodeled recently with new gas pumps that are set to become operational in mid-May. There are also a wide variety of commercial facilities (a Wal-mart, a grocery store, a Lowe’s Home Improvement, banks, restaurants, etc…) located along US 64 Business in Knightdale approximately four (4) miles to the north (up Smithfield Road). Staff plotted the location of those facilities, and the subject property, and conducted a drive-time analysis to determine the accessibility of those facilities to the residents of the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Poor Boy Farm Road site. This analysis demonstrated that all of the residents within the following subdivisions would be within a worst-case scenario of a seven (7) minute drive of one of the existing facilities noted above. Amber Acres North Amber Ridge Ashley Hills Baywood Forest Bishop Pointe Covington Cross Huntsboro McCuller’s Estates Moorefields Rockbridge Rutledge Landing Even discounting the Corner Grocery that is located at the intersection of Smithfield Road and Poole Road, all of the residents of these subdivisions would be within a worst-case scenario of a nine (9) minute drive of one of the existing facilities. It should be noted that in most cases a significant portion of the drive time would be related to getting out of their neighborhood onto one of the primary roads (e.g.—Smithfield Road, Poole Road). It should also be noted that the 6.73-acre property at the southwestern corner of Smithfield Road and Poole Road was rezoned in October 2008 to allow for development of a convenience store with gas sales (among other possible uses). Analysis Wake County’s East Raleigh/Knightdale Area Land Use Plan designates this site for residential development at less than 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning and commercial uses are not consistent with the residential land use designation, nor is the subject property located within the significantly over-sized parcel-based Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) that is located approximately one-tenth of a mile to the south of the subject property. The activity center concept allows for a transitional development pattern with higher-intensity uses confined to the core area of the activity center and the level of use intensity steadily declining as it moves further out from the core area. The subject property is not only outside of the core area, but also outside of the activity center itself, which is contradictory to the transitional development pattern concept. It should be noted that approximately 120 of the NAC’s 143 acres, or 84.5%, is either vacant land or is being used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, there is a significant amount of land available for commercial development within the designated activity center, which was established for that purpose. The requested rezoning is not consistent with the Town of Knightdale’s Land Use Plan, which designates this area for lower density residential uses, and since the subject property would not be located within one of their designated focus areas (i.e.—activity centers). The proposal cannot be served with public utilities at this time, which may make future annexation of the site difficult for the Town of Knightdale. Their planning staff has also expressed their concerns regarding the incompatibility of the allowable uses, the resulting traffic and the establishment of a precedent if the rezoning was granted.
The petitioner provided several statements indicating why they believe that the proposed rezoning and subsequent use is a public necessity, explaining its impact on the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent properties, and why it would be in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. The petitioner also provided a Statement of Justification, and statements of Compliance with the Land Use Plan, and Compliance with the Transitional Urban Development Policies. These statements were presented to the Planning Board. The petitioner has indicated that the rezoning is justified and in the public interest, in part, because there are no other convenience stores with gas sales within this area. Staff plotted the location of the closest existing facilities and conducted a drive-time analysis to determine the accessibility of those facilities to the residents of the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Poor Boy Farm Road site. This analysis demonstrated that all of the residents within the neighboring subdivisions would be within a worst-case scenario of a seven (7) minute drive of one of the existing facilities. The Land Use Plan’s Transitional Urban Development policies (TUDs) and the corresponding provisions in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would require that subsequent development on this property would be required to provide transportation improvements in accordance with the Wake County Thoroughfare Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, and/or NCDOT. Likewise, the TUDs policies define how current development should be designed in order to facilitate its future assimilation into an urbanized area served by urban facilities and services. Any future development on this site will be required to comply with the provisions of the Wake County UDO related to connection to the municipal (i.e.-Knightdale’s) water and/or sewer system and/or the provision of utility easements. The petitioner has indicated that the site will be accessed from Smithfield Road and Poor Boy Farm Road. The right-of-way of Smithfield Road, which is classified as a major thoroughfare in the Wake County Transportation Plan, is proposed to be widened from 60 feet to 120 feet. The proposed widening will require the dedication of an additional 30 feet of right-of-way on the subject property’s frontage along Smithfield Road. The Transportation Plan indicates that the roadway of Smithfield Road is proposed to be widened from a 24-foot two-lane cross section to a 70-foot four-lane cross section with a median. Poor Boy Farm Road is currently a private road and as such it does not appear on the Transportation Plan. Smithfield Road’s current two-lane cross-section has a design capacity of 12,000 Vehicle Trips per Day (VTD), and the proposed four-lane cross-section for the year 2025 has a design capacity of 31,500 VTD. According to the NCDOT District Engineer’s office, the most recently available average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts for this portion of Smithfield Road was 11,000 vehicles per day in 2007 (it was 7,500 VTDs in 2005). This figure is approaching the stated design capacity of the roadway, and is projected to reach 12,222 vehicles per day this year. It should be noted that the majority of this traffic is most likely associated with peak hour traffic flows in the morning and late afternoon as workers commute to and from employment centers within Wake County. Both the staff and the petitioner’s traffic engineer obtained three-year accident reports from NCDOT’s Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch. While the reports covered different geographical areas around the subject property, both data sets showed that roughly half of the accidents were related to left turn motions and stopped, or near stopped, conditions. These types of accidents are often associated with a roadway that is near, or over, its design capacity. NCDOT has indicated that the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) estimate for this segment of Smithfield Road was approximately 11,300 vehicles per day in 2008 and, as noted above, the stated design capacity is shown as 12,000 vehicles per day. Both data sets reflect peak accident rates during the morning and afternoon peak traffic flow hours. The petitioner has performed a partial Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the segment of Smithfield Road extending from its intersection with Poole Road, past the subject property at Poor Boy Farm Road, and continuing northward up to the intersection with the US 64 Bypass. The TIA was based upon the petitioner’s stated proposed uses of a convenience store with gas sales and a grill type restaurant, which would constitute the worst-case scenario. The TIA concludes that the additional traffic that would result from this rezoning and the subsequent development of the property would “not have an adverse affect on the Level of Service at the analyzed intersections”. The TIA goes on to say that the “Level of Service with the project remains the same as the Level of Service for the 2011 Background condition”. The TIA indicates that roadway/driveway improvements would be needed to assure that turning movements by vehicles into the subject property would not interfere with traffic flow on Smithfield Road. While the Level of Service may not decrease for the various reference points and times, along this section of Smithfield Road, the staff is still concerned that the roadway is already near, or over, its design capacity, and about the number of accidents reported in recent years. Please see the accident information discussed in the Traffic Issues section above. NCDOT may require subsequent development on the subject property to make roadway improvements, or other measures, to address traffic flow and safety concerns (e.g.—sight distances) in this area. Planning Staff Findings
2. The rezoning is not within an Activity Center.
3. There is an existing Neighborhood Activity Center nearby that is designed to allow neighborhood mixed-use development (small scale commercial, office, institutional, industrial, and residential uses having a neighborhood emphasis). Potential uses include neighborhood grocery store, pharmacy, video rental, dry cleaners, restaurant, service station, medical/dental practice, etc.
4. The southwest corner of the Activity Center (at Smithfield Road and Poole Road) was rezoned two years ago to accommodate a convenience store with gas sales among other uses.
Mr. Maloney presented two videos to the board showing the subject area along Smithfield Road. He then noted what is allowed on the property now: a variety of uses such as residential, religious assembly, school, public safety facility, and others via a General Use Permit, and uses such as an adult/child care center, group home, nursing home, and others via a Special Use Permit. Mr. Maloney described two other rezoning petitions for comparison. In August 2007, the Board of Commissioners approved ZP-862-06 to rezone 19.98 acres located on the northern side of Poole Road between Goldenfield Drive and Smithfield Road from Residential-30 (R-30) to Conditional Use-Heavy Commercial (CU-HC). Both staff and the Planning Board recommended denial of ZP-862-06 since the property was not located within an Activity Center and the Land Use Plan designated the area for residential. In October 2008, the Board of Commissioners approved ZP-868-08 to rezone 6.73 acres located at 9400 Poole Road from Residential-30 to Conditional Use-General Business. Staff and the Planning Board determined that the subject property was located within an Activity Center and recommended approval.
Mr. Swanstrom asked why the Board of Commissioners approved ZP-862-06. He questioned whether there was any factor that Planning staff or the Planning Board did not understand. Mr. Miller said there was not any factor. Mr. Smith said that there were 20 or more conditions to the rezoning, and there were some performance requirements on the Town of Knightdale to prevent further rezonings or further use of the property. He said that it was a messy, convoluted request, and that is why he voted against it.
Mr. Swanstrom asked what the rationale was behind enlarging the Activity Center to 143 acres. Mr. Miller said that the county had circle-based Activity Centers that began to be changed to parcel-based Activity Centers. With parcel-based Activity Centers, there was an opinion that if you have a parcel with part of it in the Activity Center, the entire parcel should be in the Activity Center. Mr. Lankford said that there are some large parcels, but they were trying to capture some of the existing uses within the Activity Center that were in place prior to 2000.
Mr. Maloney said that consideration should be given to the benefit and detriment to the community; the benefit and detriment must be real and substantial, and the benefit cannot merely be convenient. Mr. Maloney stated that the applicant attempted to demonstrate that the rezoning will provide a convenience to residents in the area that is not currently offered. Mr. Maloney said that if the petition was adopted based merely on convenience, these types of requests would be allowed all over rural Wake County without regard to the character of the surrounding area or the quality of life for its residents. He said that the applicant has contended that residents in the area currently have to drive too far for gas and other goods typically sold at a convenience store. Mr. Maloney presented two drive-time analysis maps developed by staff using software. The first map (See Exhibit A) shows the neighborhoods and streets in the area with a worst case scenario five minute drive from an existing convenience store. The second map (See Exhibit B) shows the neighborhoods and streets in the area with a worst case scenario nine minute drive from an existing convenience store (excluding the Corner Store). Mr. Maloney said that the two maps demonstrate that residents in the surrounding area have some level of access to existing neighborhood commercial uses.
Planning Staff Recommendation Mr. Maloney stated that the Planning staff recommends DENIAL of the requested zoning map amendment. Mr. Smith asked if the drive time analyses were one-way times. Mr. Maloney answered that the drive times are one-way. Mr. Martin asked what the existing uses are on King Farm Road. Mr. Lankford answered that there is a mini storage facility with a warehouse facility in the back off the road several hundred feet. He said that both appear to have been built prior to 2000. Mr. Smith asked why annexation by the Town of Knightdale would be harder if this rezoning was approved. Mr. Lankford answered that the land would be developed on well and septic, so there would not be a need for the town’s water and sewer lines. Mr. Tom Worth, Jr., Attorney on behalf of the applicant, Reuben Broadwell, came forward to address the board. Mr. Worth identified his client, Mr. Broadwell, and his colleagues in attendance: Mr. Billy Myrick, Mr. Carl Simmons, and Mr. John Phelps. Mr. Worth noted that they presented to the Land Use Committee twice since the February 3 Planning Board meeting when the case was first considered. He was gratified that the Land Use Committee at that time felt that this was a meritorious case. He called attention to conditions five (5) and six (6) as proposed by the petitioner in response to the feedback of the Land Use Committee. Mr. Worth distributed two photos (See Exhibits C and D) to the board of the Corner Grocery store at the southeast corner of Poole Road and Smithfield Road. He said that he has not received a clear answer as to why the Corner Grocery store was not included in the Activity Center. He said that it is a non-conforming use on R-30 property, and the building is in peril. It is the only provider of the types of services that Mr. Broadwell would like to provide on the subject site. Mr. Worth said that the 9 minute drive time map (Exhibit B) shows the need in the area for more convenience stores. He was informed that the Exxon station on Poole Road has had the gas pumps pulled. Mr. Worth said that the Town of Knightdale planners were present in the negative at the previous meetings when this case was considered. He said that it is his understanding that the Town of Knightdale mayor and board are neutral on this case. He said that there is inconsistency between the site and what the Land Use Plan and Knightdale’s countryside district call for. However, he believes that there is merit in Mr. Broadwell’s case. Mr. Worth stated that the statutory standard when there is inconsistency is one of reasonableness in the public interest, and this reasonableness exists in this case. He said that the Town of Knightdale had this area moved from its Long Range Urban Services Area to its Short Range Urban Services Area on September 9, 2009; this rezoning petition was filed on October 27, 2009. He believes that the reason that the mayor and town council of Knightdale did not take a position on this case is because they do not anticipate their municipal services being in that area anytime soon. Mr. Worth stated that Mr. Broadwell has indicated that he will not oppose annexation of this property. He said that the easements for laterals for water and sewer would be provided, and they will provide commitments on both of those in connection with the permit process. Mr. Worth provided background on Mr. Broadwell. His family has owned the property for several generations, and he is a retired farmer. Mr. Broadwell sold 90 acres of land near the subject property to Wake County for its future Lake Myra Park. He owns the surrounding property, and he lives in close proximity to where the proposed store would be. Mr. Worth said that he did not think it was appropriate to seek to stretch the Activity Center to include the adjacent property to the south and the subject property since the existing Neighborhood Activity Center is 143 acres, well over the 35 acre target for Neighborhood Activity Centers. He noted that 129 letters were sent to adjacent property owners in advance of February’s Planning Board meeting. There was one call from a citizen concerned about traffic concerns on Smithfield Road. He said that Mr. Simmons developed a partial Traffic Impact Analysis. Before the meeting on April 7, letters were sent again to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Worth said that there was one call from the second set of letters sent, and there has not been any citizen involved in the case. He said that Mr. Broadwell is highly thought of in his community. Mr. Worth distributed a map to the board (See Exhibit E) depicting the significant immediate neighbors that Mr. Broadwell had contacted in person to inform them of the petition with a graphic and the rezoning petition. Mr. Worth addressed condition 5 confirming that they would construct a left turn lane within Smithfield Road to accommodate southbound traffic turning from Smithfield Road onto Poor Boy Farm Road. He also noted condition 6 which stipulates that the southern entrance into the property will be a driveway limited to right in and right out turning movements only for northbound traffic on Smithfield Road. Mr. Worth addressed the staff findings in the staff report. He said that finding number 9 is dealt with in petitioner’s proposed conditions 5 and 6. He indicated that they do not intend to compromise safety. He added that staff deleted a finding from previous staff reports that said that there are no known significant environmental concerns on the subject property. He said that he and Mr. Broadwell hired a soil engineer to examine the site prior to submittal of the petition to make sure that it would function property in connection with septic service. Mr. Swanstrom asked about the intended use of the existing Activity Center. He suggested that uses such as a restaurant or convenience store that might be needed in the neighborhood would be located within in the Activity Center. Mr. Worth said that at some time in the future those uses may exist within the Activity Center, but there is nothing on the horizon that would indicate that it will happen anytime soon to serve the community. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Broadwell owns any land within the Activity Center. Mr. Worth answered that he does not own any land within the Activity Center. Mr. Pippin asked if Mr. Broadwell contacted any landowners within the Activity Center about buying land. Mr. Worth said that Mr. Broadwell made contact with landowners in the Activity Center about purchasing land, but the attempt did not bear fruit. Mr. Carl Simmons, traffic engineer, came forward to address the board. He said that they did a traffic study looking between the intersection of Poole Road and Smithfield Road and the intersection of Meadow Run and Smithfield Road. He said that the level of service remains the same if you add in the trips from the proposed use. He admitted that the side street traffic on Smithfield Road has a long wait time in the morning getting onto Smithfield Road. He said that there have been a lot of accidents in the northern end of the corridor that are primarily related to turning and slowing down. He said that there will be a left turn lane provided for the proposed use. Mr. Simmons added that NCDOT asked about the sight distance. He determined that the best place for the access would be Poor Boy Farm Road. Mr. Worth shared a series of emails with the board (See Exhibit F) from M. Bradley Kimbrell, NCDOT Assistant District Engineer for Wake County. Mr. Simmons summarized the emails for the board. Mr. Smith said that the accident rates for Smithfield Road do not seem inordinately high to him, although every accident is serious to the people involved in it. He asked Mr. Simmons if he thought the accident rates were high. Mr. Simmons said that he did not think that the accident rates were high. Mr. Reuben Broadwell came forward to address the board. He said that he needs a way to make a living. He farmed until 2004. He said that everyone in the neighborhood asks him how his store project is coming. He has not heard one negative comment about the possibility of the store. He would like to leave something that his family can depend on to make a living in the future. Mr. Pippin asked about the property behind the site. Mr. Broadwell said that 93 acres behind the site was sold to the county. Mr. Pippin asked if there is any property behind the site that belongs to anyone else. Mr. Broadwell said no; he owned all 93 acres behind the site to Lake Myra until he sold the land to the county. Mr. Billy Myrick came forward to address the board. He said that his father and step-mother own the property that adjoins the subject property. His step-mother has no problem with the proposed store. He said that the gas pumps have been removed from the Exxon station. He said that the gas pump at The Corner Grocery store is very close to the traffic of Poole Road. He said Mr. Broadwell is one of the most respected people in the community. Mr. Myrick said that this kind of business is needed in this community. He added that there is agricultural land along Smithfield Road. Sometimes farm equipment (tractors, combines, etc.) can block the road when it is on the road. If the store was there, there would be a place to pull off the road to get into a parking lot to relieve traffic. Mr. Myrick said he hoped the board would consider approval of the request. Mr. Worth concluded that the standards are reasonable in the public interest, and they consider the request imminently reasonable. They believe that the public will be served by this use at this location at this time. Mr. Lankford said that he asked the attendant at the Exxon station on Poole Road about the gas pumps. The attendant said that the gas pumps should be operational in mid-May at the Exxon station. Mr. Lankford said that when staff performs its inter-agency coordination and review comments, they coordinate with staffs of the other agencies. The position of the Town of Knightdale referenced in the staff report was the position of the Knightdale staff. He added that in the absence of a condition regarding easements or annexation, he feels duty bound to continue to make comments in staff reports regarding those issues. Mr. Miller reminded the board to make their recommendation based on the criteria that they have and not on what they think the commissioners will do. He added that the motion on this item should be phrased in a way that they are concurring or not concurring with the staff’s position and its findings as it relates to its reasonableness. Mr. Bouldin said that the Land Use Committee met on April 7, and the committee voted unanimously to recommend to the full Planning Board approval of the request. He said that at the time of the committee meeting he felt that this was a reasonable request for a project that was felt to be needed in the area. Mr. Pippin said that one justification for recommending approval of the request is the proximity of the property to the commercial property next to the adjoining property. He felt that the proximity of the county lands behind the property may prohibit future development of the land. Mr. Swanstrom asked what good reasons there are for putting commercial uses outside an Activity Center. Mr. Lankford said that there are a number of uses (churches, day care, schools, etc.) that are deemed to be so interwoven with the fabric of the residential area that they are part of it. Mr. Frank Cope, Planning Director, came forward to address the board. He said that one good reason for putting commercial uses outside an Activity Center is if the closest existing Activity Center was built out or at capacity and there is a need in the community for a particular service. He said that one concern that staff has with the request is that adding another commercial use next to the large Activity Center would essentially expand the Activity Center even further. Another concern that Mr. Cope noted is if this rezoning to commercial use is allowed near an existing Activity Center then it would be challenging to turn down other commercial uses in the future anywhere else. He suggested that approval of the request would undermine the theory behind having Activity Centers. Mr. Martin asked if the Land Use Committee considered the precedent that this request would set if approved. Mr. Bouldin and Mr. Pippin said that the committee did not discuss the precedent that this request would set. Mr. Cawthorne said that there was discussion on this being a transitional use. He said that this use is more appropriate at an intersection than in the center of a block. Mr. Cawthorne said that at the committee meeting he voted for approval of the request with reservations. One reason he voted for the request is because he felt it would be good for the community, but now he is leaning towards voting against the request because it would not be a good location for a convenience store or commercial use. Mr. Cawthorne said that he is not concerned about the traffic issues. Mr. Martin stated that the reservation he has with the case is that he finds it difficult to tell Mr. Broadwell that he cannot have his commercial use when there is another commercial use 100 yards down the street. Mr. Batton said that section 19-21-6 (C) of the UDO states: