Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call the March 4th uh city of Wilmington Planning Commission meeting to order and ask that you all join me in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Thank you. I'd like to note that um Commissioners Woodruff, Jones, and Kofheer are absent. U all would all all spoke to me and are excused. Um Mr. Attorney, do we have a quorum? And just to be clear for the Mr. Chairman, just for the applicants in the room, a tie vote is a no vote. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Just want to make sure. Okay. Um the planning commission advises city council on applications for resoning, land development code amendments, street closures, and long range plans and policies. Commission holds legislative hearings, meaning that anyone wishing to speak on a request may do so. Commission issues a recommendation based on consistency of the request with the intent and purpose of the land development code and consistency of a request with the create Wilmington comprehensive plan and other relevant adopted plans and policies. All matters requiring commission action shall be presented to the planning commission by the planning staff and the applicant. In situations where the planning staff is the applicant, there will only be one presentation. City staff will make the first presentation. and the applicant will make the second presentation. To maintain an orderly meeting, all presentations shall proceed without interruption until the commission desires to intervene with questions or comments. For the public hearings, the chair will open the public hearing for those physically present wishing to speak about an item. Those in favor of an item shall be heard first, followed by those opposed to an item. A 10-minute time limit will be allowed for public comment in favor of an item and a 10-minute time limit will be allowed for public comment in opposition to an item. A staff member will track the 10-minute time periods and will notify the speaker at the five minute, one minute mark, five and one minute mark, and verbally call time when time expires. Who's our timekeeper tonight? Thank you, Miss Painter. The chair and their discretion may extend these time periods. All groups, organizations, neighborhoods, or similar associations desiring to comment are asked to appoint one spokesperson to present their concerns or point of view to the commission on each agenda item. The public has been encouraged to submit their comments in writing via a web-based form located on the city of Wilmington's website. All comments received prior to 3M were today, but

prior to 3M today were forwarded unedited to the planning commission. And just for the record, we did receive one from Miss Bradshaw. Are there any others? No, just the one.

Thank you. All comments received will be delivered to city council when the item advances. All comments received will also be made available to the public if requested. All votes will be roll call votes after proper motions are made and consistency statements read into the record, and the chair will state the outcome of the vote and the action. Reszoning requests that receive an unfavorable recommendation from the planning commission may be appealed by the applicant to the Wilmington City Council. Appeal should be in the form of a letter submitted to the city clerk within 10 days of this hearing. Any item that is appealed will tenatively be heard by city council at the April 21st, 2026 meeting. A first u item of business is approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Are there any comments, corrections to the minutes? If not, do I hear a motion to accept?

Make a motion to accept the minutes from last month. I second. And I second. Thank you. All in favor? I.

Very good. Um, just as a uh point of order, and I believe I've spoken to everybody, but without objection, um, it the order of the items tonight. Um, I'd like to swap them and have item two be first on the agenda. Um, any anybody everybody good with that? Do we need to vote on that? Okay. Very good. Then we'll start with um item number two which is a general resoning property containing.125 acres located at 910 South 8th Street from R5 medium density mixed residential district to UMX urban mixed use and Mr. Rodermaker is the planner to present.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the board, as mentioned, uh the site is located at the intersection of Dawson Street and South 8th. The site is.125 acres in size and currently is the site of a uh single family home. Here you'll have a map that shows the general vicinity surrounding the request as well as uh photos of the subject's site, both the front and the rear of the site. Uh here are photos of the existing conditions surrounding the site to the east, west, north, south. And here you have uh development of the adjacent properties and their various land uses. Uh property to the north is currently under construction for the developed of a previously approved uh mixeduse project. The southern property is vacant. Property to the west is single family and property to the east across South A Street uh is an existing town home project. The site is currently zoned R5 medium density mixed residential district. The sites are the site is bordered by UMX to the north, UMX to the east, R5 to the south, and again UMX to the west. The subject property is located within a neighborhood scale infill development area of opportunity on the comprehensive plan growth strategies map. Uh the subject property is also located near an urban neighborhood mode node uh mixeduse center and you can see that all labeled there on the map. Uh in reviewing the application, staff has found that uh growth should be accommodated through mixeduse sites, highdensity mixeduse development patterns should be encouraged around transit routes, and staff believes this

proposal is consistent with the create Wilmington comprehensive plan and is recommending approval of the application. Thank you all. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Any questions from the commission? Commissioner Adams, can can you go and tell us just a little bit about the project under construction on the adjacent lot? What what was approved or what's in it? Sure.

This is the 9006 lots that was uh approved in September of 2023. Uh it consists of 18 dwelling units uh as well as about 215 square ft of commercial space. Uh it's three stories and 37 feet in height sitting right there at the corner. Um as and if you looked at the pictures here, you can see on the top left uh that it is well under construction pulled up front to uh Dawson Street.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Pollock Todd. Yes. This is a general resoning request, right? Yes, sir. So, there's not a lot of detail as to what they're going to do. Correct. Okay. Um, and I know everybody sitting up here knows I'm not a big general resoning fan, but you have to take them one by one. So, my question is in your discussions with the applicant and and if you defer to her, that's fine. um by right I mean what what does the general resoning request give the applicant versus what the current zoning is?

Well, the current zoning right now, like I said, is R5. Um you've got basic single family uh uses in that district. It's roughly a little over 5,000 square feet in size for a lot. So, uh you know, you're limited to your minor single family use there on a site like that off the top of my head. Pat, correct me if there's anything else I'm missing there. Uh, the UMX obviously is going to allow you to do additional development. Um, I think we in the traffic uh analysis looked at roughly 6,000 square feet of potential development that could be done because your setbacks are eliminated. Um, do some coverage in that three-story building um, in that case. So there's, you know, and that was based off a comparable project that we're currently uh reviewing uh in another area of town on a similar size lot and similar scale uh construction. Um so you get a more intense uh more dense use uh in your uh mixeduse centers and these neighborhood nodes that are asking for that type of development.

So So we we don't know if the existing building is going to come down. We don't know. We don't know any of that because of at this point of this of the game so to speak or this stage of the development process. I can't really get into that or you know it's it's not gerine to what we're it's almost an irrelevant question given the general reasonzoning request. Yeah. You just have to look at the uses and the area of town and the other items that have been identified. Okay, that's correct. All right. Thanks, Todd. Yes, sir.

Commissioner Collier. Todd, do we have uh in your uh estimated trip generations, you've only got retail uses and plaza, no single family, no residential at all in there? Is there did you do that just to get the maximum number that you felt could be on the site? We looked to get something, like I said, comparable to a development that we already have under review and try to go for a potential potential maximum that could be done on the property that was, you know, reasonable for the size lot that we had, right? try to compare apples to apples.

What would, if you can, what would be the number of residential uses that could be on this property similar to what's on the corner? Is it I know it could not be the same. I think that was 18. I would not be able to actually estimate that. I'm not sure what the size of the individual residential uses are. I could only assume, but it could be multi. It could be anywhere from three units depending on the size of the square footage up to more just because you could put a 300 foot unit. True. And and add them into the building themselves that way. So, it's hard to say,

but it would be li that this lot would be limited on parking. So, the odds of it having more more than two or three is would be a stretch. It's it's limited on parking for UMX doesn't have parking standards. I know. So, you would be limited to the availability of the uh surrounding neighborhood, right? The street. So, yes, I I I agree. There would be some limitations that would naturally occur. And 8th Street does not have on street parking except on one side. Is that right?

I believe that is correct. And I know Dawson does. And I know Dawson's going to have some improvements, but I don't think that adds parking. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Adams, as a standalone lot, does it meet all the dimensional minimum requirements for a UMX compliant lot? Yes. Okay.

Todd, one more. The uh UMX says it could be residential. It could be does it have to mix or could it be residential or commercial or does it by definition have to mix the usages? I mean that's the that's the term used a lot in the you can you you could go one direction or the other. Okay. So it could you don't have to mix them. Okay. So you I mean theoretically you could tear the house down and put up a Dunkin Donuts or something like that, right? Or or you could do something similar to the lot next door where they have 18 units and 215 square ft of commercial space. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir.

I just have um two two things. One, can you speak a little bit about the history of UMX when how it came about and on the major major thorough affairs and I wasn't here for that history. I'd probably refer you to Pat or Mr. Mr. Chambers for the history on the on the I'll cut to the chase, Mr. Chambers. I'm I'm going for kind of what we talked about in the agenda review.

Yeah. The um this area was part of an initial reasoning that occurred back in I believe 2013 when the UMX district was originally um developed and it was developed to allow for the redevelopment of um more suburban style commercial districts um in the 45 corporate limits. Um those districts have large setbacks, large parking requirements. Um really not appropriate for the urban areas within the within the city. Um the UMX obviously provides zero setbacks, no parking requirements, allows for rich mix of uses, allows for a mix of residential and commercial. Um so you're looking along this corridor, you would have a a commercial services or O and I or community business district, which is really a suburban commercial type development pattern. Um we we put the UMX in place to to allow the redevelopment in a more appropriate manner.

And that overlay wasn't done necessarily with a a straight line on either side of the street. Yeah. During during that process, we only looked at the the properties that were zoned commercially and then those properties that had frontage along the the corridor. Um we we drew the line along the property lines. So you'll you'll see instances along the corridor where property lines have changed and the zoning line didn't change. So it might not match up exactly um as it was in 2013. Um but in this case, this corner lot was had frontage on Dawson and it was commercial. So we it was reszoned as part of that initiative.

Okay. Thank you. Actually, I'll save my other thing for for later. It's more of a procedural question. Any other questions from the commission?

Very well. Thank you. Thank you. Ask the applicant to come up. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Cindy Wolf and I'm here on behalf of the owners. The difference in coming before this board or any time in resonings with a general resoning seems to make a big difference at least in my mind has always been because the UMX in the code has very specific prescribed conditions. It has controls that are intended to promote quality design and the sensibility of whatever you're doing. In this particular case, as Todd or as Brian pointed out, only the properties that had direct frontage along Dawson Street were included in the initial sweeping reszoning. And you can see that adding this lot to it would really just straighten a line over to 8th Street um closer to what the parallels to Dawson Street would be. So that being said, yes, it is a general resoning, but certainly for context only. I intended to show the owners of this track that I'm representing also own the under construction project that is going on. So the full intent is to recombine there's two lots right now that are in the construction project and one of the conditions of their certificate of occupancy is to recombine those two lots. This lot would be recombined with the other two one total project boundary and frankly this the purpose of this is for parking. Um, as 33 feet wide, it really doesn't lend itself to its own development by itself. Uh, so again, for context only, of course, that's what the building's going to look like next to it. Um, so there's not really a lot else I can say except that we appreciate the staff's, you

know, thorough review of this and their recommendation that includes these reasons why this resoning would be reasonable and in the public interest. and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have. Thank you, Miss Wolf. Any questions from the commission? Commissioner Pollock, Cindy, um something you just said and you use the word parking and you know, parking traffic. We all, you know, have to deal with that this, you know, up here. Um run the potential with a general resoning as as I understand it. So, if I have it wrong, please correct me. Um that building could come down. It could become a parking lot. It could become a building.

You're talking about the house that's already there. That's correct. Yes. Correct. I'm sorry. Yes. Um, so my first question is, are the lots next to it, the vacant lots next to it in any way tied to this owner at all or tied? No. So, it would have nothing to do they're actually overflow parking for a church on the other street. Yeah. Okay. But my point being is the potential by doing the UMX resoning is again you could tear the building down. You could make it a retail space, but you could reduce home ownership by some piece. That is a potential here. Am I do I have it correct?

I suppose. I mean, if that house comes down, that is

okay. That and and I'm looking at some concerns that that one person, you know, wrote in and I thought they were fairly valid. Um, so I I think that is probably the thing that jumps out at me is, you know, we could, again, it's one house, but you could reduce home ownership. You could you could have a a asphalt parking lot and that'd be the end of it. And, you know, my question is given those possibilities without seeing anything that that kind of concerns me a little bit. The other question I have and I I think I always ask you this is you're doing the UMX. Is that just to be consistent with his other project or is there is if would you be restricted by keeping it at at R5? That's you know what what was your thought process?

Okay. Certainly at R5 the house is there. There's no way. I guess you could park in front of it, but there's no way to get around the back of it. You could add an accessory dwelling. So, that would actually be increasing home ownership if you would, but again, um there is no requirement for parking in a single family situation. So, we have no parking there. We have no parking for the X. However, I guess we feel that the tradeoff of providing 18 new homes on the corner is justified as far as you know what we're trying to do to improve the downtown area and the strip along the the corridor. But realistically, even though there is no parking requirement, we all know that there is generally the parking need. And so it's sort of a trade-off in this. Um, you know, they obviously felt that they could make things work with what they had and then this lot came up for sale and it was pretty much a boon. I mean, I think in that respect, not because it was a necessity, but just to make it a better project.

Commissioner Collier. Sorry, Miss Wolf. Um, so 33 foot wide lot realistically if you extend it over parking over your 10 spaces is probably about what you're going to get, right? Well, but now we have the whole drive aisle. It this part won't have to be one way. So, we probably will get you'll pick up Yeah, you'll get about 10 to 12 parking spaces, but you're not going to get that's going to be a 20 foot deep 20ome foot deep in there. So, the property is going to be virtually used. My question is going to be does if if that occurs, are you going to screen it very well against the residential zoning on on both ends?

I don't know that there's requirements for buffer yards between the UMX and the residential. So, this being a general resoning, obviously, I mean, but yeah, there would be no reason. That's a vacant lot and as I said, it is an overflow parking lot. I agree. I agree. It's, you know, but we're looking in I mean they obviously they've shown their landscaping on the plan that they had at this point. So shifting it over 33 ft is certainly viable.

Okay. Um I guess any thoughts? It may be nice and I know we can't with the straight reszoning can't do anything. It would be nice if that were pvious material. The the soils out there are pretty good. So I mean the odds of it being able to be pvious rather than impervious is is well I'm sure that there is some type of a storm water permit for the project that's underway. So that will come into play when the TRC is reviewing it. Great. But if we even still if we had some again we can only ask for things. We can't you don't have to do it with the general reasonzoning. Um no but I think they'll have to do it for the technical standards. Yeah. Correct. Correct. I agree with that.

It'd be more than 10,000 square feet. Right. Right. Well, it wouldn't be more than 10,000. The lot's only 5,400, but they're adding it. They would have to bring it into the other project. So, um

Okay. Um, you know, I'm I'm not a big fan of taking down an existing residence um for for parking, but on the other side of the coin, I see 18 residential units and 10 basically 10 parking spaces uh on site today. Granted, I know there's some street parking and other things, but that still seems a little bit light. So, I agree your site needs parking or their site needs parking. Um, it's just a matter if this is the right way to do it or not. I like the layout of the building. I like where it's at. I've been watching them build it. I think it's going to be a really nice addition into the area. Um, so I don't know. We'll see. Thank you,

Commissioner Adams. I think you hit on my kind of two questions, which was how many spaces were you looking to add, and would that trigger a different impervious kind of approach to the site? And again, I I think Richard, you have to do that type A buffer between a UMX and an R. I'm not exactly an expert on that, but I think there are requirements for those buffer yards and those kind of mixes. Commissioner Adams, yes, that's correct. That's a type A buffer along any residential zone property adjacent. Sorry. Hi. Over here. Okay, that's

and I apologize. I try to, you know, I pretty much stay out of the downtown. The UMX is a specialty. It really truly is with the code, uh, you know, prescribed conditions and the quality design that it seeks. So, that was my lack of knowledge on the buffer situation. Did you have another, Commissioner Collier? Um, I think this one's going to be for u for Pat. The Z reszoning would include to the center line of the road. Correct. So, we're going to clean up that whole piece and Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. We will open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to speak in favor of the project to step forward. State your name, address, and your question or comment. Anyone to speak in favor? How about anyone to speak in opposition? Just for the record, we did receive um one comment online that was distributed to the planning commission um this afternoon from a Mr. Sunberg of 23 Forest Hills Drive. Um and it will be introduced into the record um and presented to council for their review. Anyone else wishing to speak in objection? If not, we'll close the public hearing and ask the planning commission for their thoughts. Commissioner Collier, you want to start?

Sure. Uh again, I think I've always said that general resonings have a place. Um they're not for every piece of property, but they do have a place. Uh and sometimes they work out and it works out to everyone's favor. Um I understand uh the gentleman that that sent in the the opposition to it and his and the need for a loss of one home. I do not like that at all. However, in this case, I think a re a general re or UMX resoning, it's not that they can build a huge commercial project on there. You can't really build much at all on there because it's 5,400 square feet. Um, parking is very limited around. Even though UMX has a no parking requirement, you still have to park it in some manner and prove that it's it's able to be parked. um as a as a general reasonzoning to UMX that could then if if in fact it is um uh recombined in with the project at at the corner becomes a parking lot. I would I would hope for the record that that parking lot is screened and would be made of pvious materials. Um, so I think from a standpoint of a general reasonzoning, apparently the people that own the house are not looking for um, uh, historical wealth or whatever the the the phrase is because they are accepting the sale of it. So um, I am I would say at this case I'm probably in favor of it because I think it it adds to the public good in this case.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams. I think given the the spirit and the intent of how and where the UMX lines were drawn, this seems to be aligned with that. Um, I mean, I also appreciate just the the transparency that this is really intended to be combined with the property next to it and and how um that property, you know, I drive by it every day and see it under construction. And I I think it's indicative of this missing middle housing that we're also always trying to find in the city. So, if it is a way that it can help that succeed and be a little more functional, I think as a general reasonzoning, this project does that. Thank you, Commissioner Pollock.

Yeah, the the um it was brought up an earlier conversation about the buffer and and I would just, you know, like to explore with with my peers here, you know, it are we in favor of or can we like make it one of the conditions that said, you know, some type of a buffer? I may just thinking of a six seven foot fence or something. It's just what I think about or tree line or something that just separates the, you know, the uh current lot that we're talking about from the other two. And I don't know if we can make that a condition of approval or not, you know, with the general, but I I think I'm I'm like, you know, uh Richard and Danny. I mean, I I read this package. I read the the objection to it coming in now and I do appreciate the transparency as well as to really what you're trying to accomplish here and it does make a lot of sense but I just I asked the question of my my peers about the you know should we say anything about the buffer if we approve this or should we just

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind you this is a general, not a condition. And that's why I'm asking the question, Mike, is is that even a legitimate ask with a general resoning? I do not believe it is. Boy, now I look over at the table, I'm getting this resounding. Boy, you dummy. You asked the wrong question. Um, I got it. That that does answer my question, though. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Adams, did you have something else? I was going to ask Pat if he has handy any verbiage or any of the specifics of what that buffer is required to be that I mean yeah there are two options uh for a type A buffer one being a 10-ft option one being a 5ft option the five foot wide option would include a six foot tall fence um there are plantings associated I don't have those off the top of my head I apologize but but the [clears throat] excuse me the the smaller option the five foot wide would require them to install a fence, an opaque fence along that property line.

So, as I tend to do, I'm going to dumb this down a lot. There is existing code requiring some form of buffer between UMX and Rzzoning. That's correct. And those are the two types that you just described. Correct. So when they take this to TRC after recombination, they're going to have to put some kind of buffer because it will be UMX. That's correct. And as you this is the approved site plan for the the project to the north. You see that buffer that was installed there, the type A buffer just to the plan north of that red line that would essentially have to shift to the south for the new new parcel that zoned if it were to be approved the the UMX parcel between the residential zoning.

Okay. So, it will be a TRC matter, correct? When the time comes. Absolutely. Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in on that, but um I for me um I think it makes perfect sense. Um I one of the comments in the in the online comment referred to neighborhood stability and uh and also the value of home ownership versus the 18 units. To me, a home is a home. Um, and I think this is going to ensure the success of the project. It makes sense from the fact that as uh Mr. Chambers has described previously, UMX was was overlaid. Um, I I think it's a I think it's a good idea. So, that being said, what are the wishes of the commission?

Mr. Chairman, I would uh make the request to approve agenda item number two, case Z-3-326. And this approval is consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans, the create Wilmington comprehensive plan. And the planning commission finds that uh planning commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because uh the UMX district can extend in uh into this area seamlessly. And this proposal allows for compatible redevelopment and is consistent with the surrounding areas. So my my motion is for approval. I second.

Thank you. It's been uh motioned by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Pollock. Commissioner Collier. How you vote? I. Commissioner Adams. Yes. Commissioner Pollock I.

The chair votes I. It's unanimous. Good luck. Second item on the agenda is a conditional reszone. Um, it's actually the first item, but second one we'll talk about tonight. Conditional resoning for property containing 1.26 acres located at 4118 Market Street from RB Regional Business to MD17 conditional district highdensity multiple dwelling residential. conditional district for a 76 unit multiple dwelling development. And Zach Smith will be our planner presenting. Good evening, chair, members of the commission. This is a resoning request for 4118 Market Street. The site is currently located along Market Street and contains approximately 1.26 acres. The site is currently developed as a hotel use with 76 total rooms. Uh this map shows the general vicinity surrounding the request as well as the existing conditions on the subject property. These are also photos of the existing site conditions.

[snorts]

The map in front of you highlights the distance from the subject property to nearby services such as grocery stores, restaurants, a park, and transit access. These are photos of the existing conditions surrounding the subject property. These are photos of the adjacent properties and land uses. Commercial uses are located to the north, south, east, and west of the subject property. The site is currently zoned RB and is boarded by OI to the north and RB to the south, east, and west. [snorts] The applicant proposes a reszone subject property to MD7 for a 76 unit multiple dwelling development. The project includes a the conversion of an existing hotel with 76 rooms into 76 studio style apartments. The project also includes 20 workforce housing units which will be designated for a period of 15 years. Um shown here is the site plan together with a table summarizing the approved variances granted for this project. Uh the maximum density permitted uh within the proposed MD7 zoning district is 17 units per acre which would allow for up to 21 units on site. Uh with the proposed workforce housing component, the density may be increased to 36 units per acre for a total of 45 units. On October 16th, 2025, the applicant was granted a variance by the board of adjustment to exceed the allowable density of the zoning district to allow for 60 units per acre. The minimum required open space for MD7 is 20% of the total lot area. On October 16th, 2025, the applicant was granted a variance by the board of adjustment uh to reduce the open space requirement to 5.1% and the applicant is providing 5.9%. Uh per the residential parking requirements, the applicant is required to provide 80 off- streetet parking spaces. Um the required off- streetet parking ratio includes a reduced uh

parking ratio for the 20 designated workforce housing units. The applicant is providing a total of 68 spaces as part of this project with five of those spaces being designated for ADA compliant parking. On February 19th, 2026, the applicant was granted a variance by the board of adjustment from the minimum residential parking standards to allow for 68 off streetet parking spaces. Uh in front of you are the elevations of the proposed development. This site is located in a highdensity transition designated area of opportunity on the growth strategies map. The site is also located within an urban mixuse center on the growth strategies map. The proposed reszoning request does not include any changes to the current site. While it does include work for a workforce housing component, the proposal fails to offer any amenities or any site enhancements for future residents. Open space and amenities are essential to enhancing residents quality of life. They extend living areas beyond the doors of individual apartments. They create opportunities for recreation for residents. future residents will live here permanently and staff believes it's important that this project provide amenities comparable to those and other developments throughout the city. The CDMU option permitted under the existing zoning is more appropriate as it would allow for the proposed density while also providing potential on-site commercial component that could provide services to residents. Staff believes the proposed zoning amendment is inconsistent with the create Wilmington comprehensive plan and staff recommends denial. If the planning commission elects to approve the reasonzoning requests, staff recommends that the following additional conditions be applied in addition to those listed in the case summary. Uh these should be available in your packet and staff has also notified the applicant of the additional conditions. I have also provided the uh HUD high high home rent uh limits for your reference as well.

This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. And the applicant is here as well. Thank you very much. We'll start with Commissioner Pollock. Do you have some questions? Yeah, I do.

Yes, I do. Zach, couple process qu couple process questions. Um, I notice on I guess it would actually be page two where you go through the proposal and you talk about all the different variances that have been asked for and all that. So, just for the record and that's why I'm asking this question. Um, if the planning commission were to deny the request, therefore, you know, agree with staff's proposal, those variances, do they go away? They just I mean, they only apply if the zone is changed. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. Um, so that was the first one. The second question was what and and everybody get used to this because I'm going to ask this all year. So by right, what is it that he could do? Therefore, what is it that going to the other what what is acquiescing to the change benefit for him? What does it give him? Is it just the variances? Are there other things that as opposed to by right? You know where I'm going. I'm just trying to compare the two. You're asking why he can do by right currently. Yes, please.

Um it's zoned RV so mostly commercial uses. There is the CDMU um option which allows for residential units with a commercial component. Um I believe you have to dedicate 20% of the um of the project towards uh commercial. Um in this case I think I have a slide Um so if 25% or less of the perimeter of the site fronts and arterial street the commercial square footage may be reduced to 10% of the total building square footage.

Um so in this case if they did go a CDMU route they would provide roughly 2600 square feet that would be required to provide roughly 2600 feet of commercial. Okay. I I have a question on amenities but I'll ask the applicant that. Um I think that's all for the moment. Thanks Zach. Commissioner Adams,

I think Jack stole my thunder a little bit. I was going to ask if you could elaborate on what CDMU options would have been present or available for them for by use. And you got it, Commissioner Collier. [clears throat] Um, I just want to clarify one thing. Commissioner Pollock asked and you answered Um, with the my understanding if if we were to vote against or to vote consistent with staff's recommendation of denial tonight, they still have the ability to appeal to city council and the city council's vote would dictate whether those BOA variances stay or go away. Correct.

That's correct. Not not ours. I believe that's correct. Okay. Just want to clarify that. Um, [clears throat] so how many units did they offer up initially on their initial application for workforce housing? Um, when we first received their submittal, staff was under the impression that the entire um, development was going to be workforce housing. Um at that October board of adjustment meeting, the applicant agreed to um set aside 20 units for the workforce housing.

Okay. So um and and if I'm understanding correctly, this is a conditional district reszoning, right? That's correct. So what they're proposing to do is the only thing that can be allowed to occur on that site, the 76 residential units. If the reszoning request is approved, if it's approved, thank you. But but I guess my point is the people get focused on the density per acre and the number of units, but it's not as if they could go tear that building down and build 60 units per acre on that site or not as currently zoned. Correct. And they nor could they exceed the 76 units that this conditional district

not without the approved variances that they received. Okay. No, that's not really my question. This conditional district reszoning request, if approved, is contingent upon the site plan and the 76 units. That's correct. Okay. So, they couldn't get approval from us and city council and come in and raise the building and build something else without having to go through. Okay. That's correct. Just want to clarify that. How many um why did the issue of amenities come up?

Um well, when staff was conducting the policy analysis, um you know, one of the main focuses we looked at was the amenities and open space. Um we looked at similar projects um that offered amenities. Um and as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, uh we feel like uh the future residents deserve to have amenities that are similar to other projects that are similar to this. And I guess that's where I'm struggling a little bit because to me that's more of a market business decision um as to what amenities you put in a particular project. You do that to draw people in. I think if 20 of these units are going to be workforce and the balance are going to be um close to the HUD high rent, I don't know. Arguably there's a lot of amenities within a short distance of this property in terms of services. maybe not a pool or a gym or something along those lines. Um, so that I I struggled with that one as a as a rationale behind this. Um, the other thing that became glaringly apparent to me is our code lacks any reference to or ability for adaptive reuse. because to me at face value this is taking 76 rooms and changing them from short stay hotel which arguably has had historically problems with it to long-term rentals. So I that's and and if I understand correctly from the multiple conversations I've had um fitting that into our code as currently written has been problematic. Is that fair to say? Um, I'll defer to fellow staff to further to elaborate on that.

I mean, it's it's going to be sight specific as to how properties are adaptively reused, um, it's it's difficult to give a a blanket response to that because we're going to look at these individually. Um, for this site, if you're just talking about changing over rooms and the the length of the occupancy, that's one thing. Um, it really depends on on the situation. Um when we talk about amenities, we we do talk about quality of life and we know that sites need to be reused in the future. Um but we also want to um take into account the residents experience when they when they take when they take over those uses. So um again, it's I I can't give you a blanket response to the the the adaptive use. We do have provisions of the code to allow other buildings to be other uses in other districts. Um this is a a fairly unique situation. I I understand they're two totally different use types, but several months ago we had one that came up for and I forgive I apologize I'm going to butcher this. It wasn't the food bank, it was the um

NourishNC NourishNC and I think we all agreed that there had been an adaptive reuse of that building, right? And we had to make a reasonzoning decision to accommodate that. Yes, sir. So, how is this different other other than the obvious residential commercial? That that is how it's different. People are going to be living on this site. Um, and we thought it was important that the quality of life be addressed as part of the adaptive reuse of this. Well, people are going to be living there subject to long-term leases as opposed to nightly occupancy. Is that Yes, sir. Okay. As you can tell, I'm struggling with that, but Yes, sir.

All right. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Pollock. Yeah. And it kind of ties back. It I'm going back on the page. It has basis for staff recommendations. And it and it ties to John some of the threads you were just bringing up. Says the proposed resoning request does not include any changes to the current site conditions. I read that that says nothing's going to site conditions are defined as what the the physical structure of the building uh parking what what it um what the applicant is proposing is no changes at all. What is currently out there is what will be is what being is being proposed by the applicant. Okay. Let me ask

adding parking impervious. They're not changing the building. Let me ask it a different way, Zach. This the statement here as written does not preclude that the the developer is going to go in and obviously do some work to the inside of the building. I'm assuming paint, you know, repairs, paint, you know what? So, well, okay. So, I I guess we'll probe that with the developer a little bit. Um, and then, uh, what was the other one I had here? Uh, it was Well, that's it for now. Thanks, Zach.

Commissioner Coll Adams. Anything else? Um, one last question I had. So, we we were all emailed this late this afternoon. There were five additional conditions. And if I understood correctly, these have been provided to the applicant. That's correct. Okay. So, in the packet that we received from Miss Bradshaw last week, I'll start with item number one, it was consistent with the 20 units that the 20 units be workforce and in as a condition. And now, if I understand correctly, staff is saying you're recommending that if it if this is approved that they all be designated workforce housing.

Uh, that's correct. Staff is suggesting that. Can we legally do that? I think the applicant would have to be in agreement with that. So, no. Is that is is the answer. We can't we can't require it. I do not believe you could. Okay. Okay. Um what's the purpose of the sidewalk connection to be provided between the public sidewalk along Market Street and the building entrance? Um it would allow for a more pedestrian friendly site and it would also benefit the residents as well. Can you pull up an aerial of the site, please? I don't think I have one on my slide. There we go.

I'm cheating. I'm looking. So, if I'm not mistaken, there's two I'm going to make this up. 20 foot asphalt driveways on either side of the buildings, right, that connect to Market Street. Uh that's correct. And those access points are not changing. They are not. Okay. Um street tree shall be provided along Market Street frontage if utilities allow. So currently I believe there's landscaping in front. There is some currently.

Okay. So, I'll wait to ask the applicant that um streetcape landscaping shall be pro provided within the open space area located between the existing building and market street in accordance with city standards. But if we make them put in a sidewalk, that's less land for streetscape landscaping. Right. There is already sidewalk existing. Uh it would just be that pedestrian access. No, I'm talking about the one you you want them to do from the building to to that sidewalk that would result in that. Yes.

Okay. And then the existing pole sign shall be removed. Monument signage shall be installed consistent with land development code requirements. Um that was not in the original request or list of conditions. Uh no sir, it was not. Why was that added? Um currently pole signs are prohibited in the proposed zoning district. That's why we were asking for monument signage in the I'm sorry in the in the existing zoning district in the proposed in the proposed zoning district. Correct. Okay. So, did this come up during any of the previous conversations with the applicant?

Um, not that I'm aware of. Okay. Commissioner Adams, are the three board of adjustment variances listed in the packet or is it really is it only in your presentation tonight? Um, it is mentioned in the case summary, but I can pull it up here as well. Believe it is should be under 2.1. Okay. Thank you. Any other question, Commissioner?

Yeah, I just on the point you were on, Commissioner Lennon a minute ago on the the workforce housing numbers and and I want to make sure clarify something that I thought I heard Zach say. I just want to be sure you you stated earlier the initial proposal that you guys got and evaluated was all everything was workforce housing and then you said then when it got in front of the BOA it was 20 staff was under the impression that the project was going to be 100% workforce housing. Okay. So, we've got a little we may have a discrepancy here to to try to flush out, but I just want to make sure I heard you right,

Commissioner Pollock. Um, if I may, uh, the site plans that were submitted throughout this process all the way up to that board of adjustment meeting identified a workforce housing parking ratio which identified all 76 units as workforce housing. Okay. So, that that's why we were under the impression that is workforce. Okay. Great. Thanks for the clarification. Anybody have any other questions? Can't promise we won't ask you to come back, but thank you. I'd like to invite the applicant up. Evening, gentlemen. My name is Nicholas Silivanch. I'm representing the property owners. Sir, could you put the microphone down a bit? Both of them or one?

Either one.

Better now. Okay. Hi, I'm Nick Silivanch, um partner at Eastern Carolina's Commercial Real Estate and uh representing the applicant in the conditional resoning of 4118 Market Street as an adaptive reuse project. Um how do I There we go. Down. So, right now the property is a 76 unit hotel. Um, we're located along Market Street, um, in an area that's going through transition right now. As I'm sure you're aware, Elizabeth's Pizza to the north of us is converting. The former movie theater site to the south of us is converting into apartments. Um, those are all projects that take a long time to deliver um, housing units that are desperately needed right now with the affordability crisis we have in in Wilmington. Um the current owners of the site owned the former budget which is now Vivo Wilmington. Um that was an adaptive reuse that we did uh 220 units on 8 acres. Um we also did the uh adaptive reuse using the CDMU process on the days in which is now River City Studio Suites. Um, so we're John and I are very familiar with the entire uh process for doing adaptive reuse and and we've set quite a bar because we've been recognized by um the state realators for innovative housing needs in a housing crisis. So when we were talking with the owners here and we were discussing what to do with this property, they wanted to potentially provide 76 units basically immediately with the thought process of we turn the light off today as a hotel and we turn it on tomorrow as an apartment complex. Um, what do we need to do to do that, Nick? And I said, 'Well, we would need to get it reszoned, or you know, you could do month-to-month rentals, but that's kind of shady. Why not just do and you'd still be under the hospitality regulations there, and you also are one of the what's what's the right word I'm looking for, John? What do they They agreed to what?

We've got the for the anti traffic.

Yeah. And we've got a public nuisance um thing on on the hotel from years ago when Ben David went after the hotels that were involved in human trafficking, drug use, all of that. And as a result, both at Vivo and River City Suites, we've seen the crime rates uh drop dramatically there with police calls after doing the adaptive reuse because of the sense of community you get when you do that. So, we are 1.26 acres. We are located walking distance to a food line. Uh entertainment, you've got Captain Bills next door. You've got um a gym just up the street. Uh you've got plenty of retail and food establishments nearby for people to walk to. Um the rooms are already set up as a a suite, which means, and you'll see in the pictures, we've got a hot plate, we've got a kitchen uh kitchenet, we've got a sink, we've got a a microwave. We've got all that there already. Um and there's the pictures of it showing. Some of them have some desks in there. Um, but you've you've got everything that you need in the unit as it exists today. So, yes, to answer your question from before, we're making no changes to the inside. This is literally just a a a larger version of a change of use for a space basically. Um, you know, some of the some of the rooms we will end up moving um, one of because they have two beds in them right now for for double occupancy or whatever that other bed goes away and they come in with a couch and a a dining room table or a little kitchen table to have in there. Um, most of the rooms we do have ADA compliant rooms that are mixed throughout the bottom floor. Um, but yeah, we're seeking to convert the existing hotel from 76 hotel rooms to 76 studio apartments. Um, we're looking to reszone it from RB to MD17. Um, providing a residential adaptive use within the current commercial corridor. Um, we've discussed 5040 Market Street and 4903, which were the other two adaptive reuses we've worked on. Um, we

believe that we're providing that mix of housing here for the city. Um, also, um, and we've gotten previously approved variances for our parking, our density, and our open space. Um, one of the things that we looked at and we were trying to find a way to provide more open space for the project because we realized right now we're basically a building as an island in the middle of asphalt um, completely wrapped with it. There is an existing grill area in the top right. Can I put a little marker thing on where it is? There it is. So, up here on the top right, we have a little grill pit right now. Um, and a dog area there. Um, in the front right now, you've got basically the ability for people to come in and turn around. By doing what we're doing, we're just going to have one continuous loop for traffic flow, and we're going to add in some open space and greenery right there on Market Street in between the front of the building where you would go check in and, you know, the the sidewalk that exists. Um, so that Yeah, there you go. So, that's kind of what it would look like after we come back through and add in the new green area um in front to to put some more pvious area back in. Um because obviously we're we're not touching the buildings at all. We're not adjusting footprints. That's not our plan. Our plan is literally to start renting studio apartments out to folks that need an affordable place to live here in Wilmington um as as as quickly as we can. So, that's that's what our intent here with this resoning is. Thank you. Commissioner Collier, do you have any questions of the applicant?

So, Nick, all the the five ADA spaces, it it looks like from the plan, they they remain. I know that the words just dropped off somewhere with the with with the variance request. Um, I think the adaptive reuse is good um because I do I do believe it goes in and creates um instant res uh affordable residences. Um talk to me a little bit about the original notion that all 76 were going to be affordable and then and then now that the is it 20? Yeah, 20.

So that was surprising for me to hear. Um, we came in with the 10% which we thought would be the number for an MD17. Um, when we got to board of board of adjustment, um, there was an exchange and almost a negotiation back and forth um, on what we could or couldn't do. And we agreed to go from being at roughly eight of the units to 20 of the units um, and that we would try and intersperse them throughout otherwise we might lose our entire first floor um, in theory. Um and that's where we have most of our wheelchair handicap accessible units are on the first floor. Um so we we did agree for 20 on that variance to get the higher density on the unit count. It was never the intent for it to be all 100% um rent restricted units. Um the na these are naturally occurring affordable units due to the fact that they're 20 what 250 to yeah 225 230 foot units. We're not going to really achieve a rent higher than maybe 1,50 to uh,75 a month. And that's also we're looking at including utilities in that because we're not going to separately submeter anything. So that that rent is also going to be further hit down for whoever would have this property um by the cost of utilities spread throughout the units. So in essence, in in when you came into the meeting, you gave twice as many units as you thought you were going to be giving. Correct. And I understand what Brian was saying. If the numbers were the parking was calculated off a workforce housing thing, then I can understand where he he came to the opinion that it was the entire development. Um I know you said you're not doing anything to the insides of the rooms, but the photos, it looks like you've updated a lot of the rooms already. Is that is that fair? So after Florence came through in what was it 18 or 19 um the owner came in and renovated the property and did all that work

during the renovation process. Okay. So what we're seeing in the photos he didn't Yes. Okay.

All right. I mean you know it I think it sounds weird in everyone's mind of um someone wanting to live in a one-bedroom apartment and there may not be amenities on site, the pools, those kinds of things. um you know, you see it in larger cities and at some point we've got to figure out we may not be a larger city, but we do need to come up with the options of how do you have housing for folks that need it. Um and if you know there are people that that will rent the 225 foot place just because that's what they need and they can afford it. Um and I'm I do agree we have services close by. It's not it's not perfect. There's nothing nothing about it that's perfect, but for adaptive reuse and an instant 76 apartments for rent that are at a with at least 20 of them at being 80% AMI. I mean, I think it's I think it's a good project. Um, there's a lot of it I'm not a fan of, but that's the what will what will go over what would push me over to the the edge and approving it is having the instant the instant units. So, thank y'all for doing it.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams.

You talked about some of your other home run projects going through the CDMU um phase. Can you talk a little bit about why or or what what those other uses were that you added into those that you think um or or that complied with the CDMU approach? So, the River City Studio Suites had a former restaurant building out in front of it. Um, used to be Janette's Kitchen, I believe, is the the tenant that was up there. Um, and now it's going to become um a Mexican uh Latino grocery market and and restaurant. Um, it was already there. The infrastructure was already in place for commercial use there because it was a 4,000 4,200 foot building out in front of the 120 rooms uh of the Days Inn. So that that was already existing. It made sense and we had to get a variance for that because I think we were under that uh percentage on the floor plate. We went through board of adjustment for that, right Brian? And and had multiple variances that we needed because we were distance-wise to target. And that was when I learned that you had to be distanced to the front door, not distance to the the property line of Target um for the the the distance to count. Um, so one of those those those steps and processes there was looking at it from that point of view and saying, "Okay, well, we're, you know, x amount here, we're x amount there. What can we do here?" And and we had to agree to close down one of the driveways there um to only have one access point. Um, we had enough of the overall project and density, which there was already a pool because Days in as a as a franchise brand required you to have the pool. We actually have EV parking available at that project because they were renting out um spots to Nie's Sausage for their cooling trucks. Well, now they there's EV chargers at a adaptive reuse of you know workforce housing slash studio apartment complex and and typically and I don't mean this in a bad way, but

typically the residents there don't have EV vehicles. Um, so that that was a unique property in and of itself where the CDMU was recommended to us as a better process to get it approved and with some variances and conditions which we agreed absolutely and did that. On the prior one at Vivo, we did a straight resoning to um what was it? Uh multif family 30. I think it was one of two instances in the city where that density was granted. Um, and that was done prior to the land development code change, but we agreed with the new land development code because we were in that flux period to do a 10% set aside of the 220 units. Um, there was already a pool there from it being there back in the day. Uh, no changes were really made to the site other than uh I think we had about 130 of the rooms there actually needed the addition of the uh kitchenetses um and and whatnot into them to become suites. um because the owner had started some of the work but didn't complete it before the sale to Vivo occurred.

So, that was going to be my other question. Did did either of those projects um you know, turn the lights off and change the keys as it related to the the rooms? Because um you know, when I'm looking at this slide here, um yes, there were some upgrades made, but all of these units have to be compliant with the Fair Housing Act, right? Do do these units meet that? From my my understanding is yes, they that we do meet that. Okay. Um, one last question. So, you're not proposing any commercial at all as part of this?

No, sir. Uh, we're going to have our um the current reception room will basically become uh you know, tenant check-in and office management. And then there's a small room to the left where it would be like a a work room for people if they wanted to come in and work outside of their uh unit if they're work from home or whatever it is and have like a small little tenant amenity center. Other than that, we we we don't have space to lose units for commercial use. And with how the project would be laid out, um we wouldn't have enough for commercial parking. Um we wouldn't really be able to accommodate those things. and with the breadth of commercial surrounding us um and commercial uses surrounding us, it didn't make sense when we were looking at it on which route to go for the zoning process.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Pollock. I It's interesting to me that we're, you know, you're basically you said earlier, Let me just go down this track. This is basically you're going to come in and just like I think what you said earlier was you know Friday you turn the turn the lights off to Motel 6. Saturday morning you turn it on it's whatever you're going to name this. Mhm.

Okay. Um I am still very puzzled having sat on the board of adjustment myself and I think I still remember the processes fairly well. Uh I'm still trying to understand how we still have this confui this confusion about you know the staff and I listen I trust the staff um has the opinion you know that what they originally saw was everything was a was a uh workforce housing so all 76 units and then how we get to the board of adjustment and they did you pitch 20 to them and they agreed? No, we negotiated that back and forth because we we said 10%.

And then it was well who's we we negotiated

with the board of with Katherine Thirstston. Uh Katherine started telling us what she wanted from us to get the density we needed and she wanted almost 50 units and I said that that doesn't make any sense. It's not viable for us and that's that's a little out of line. And then we said we, you know, we understood it to be, you know, between 10 and 15% for the MD17 to get the bonus. And obviously we're asking for more. So we were fine with granting more, which is where we settled with at 20 units is being what we would would agree to. And it's on the the video from the board of adjustment meeting, too. So let me ask the question this way. What would you be amendable to going above the 20? No. Okay. We were we were hit with that yesterday. Okay. Um All right. I mean, this this whole thing, this confusion is troubling to me. So, okay. I'll be quiet for now. Um, so the other two projects that you referenced are are they currently being leased or are they still under

they're at occupancy and one of them was just uh traded hands for the first time which was Vivo. They just sold and became the studios on market. At what occupancy are those two? Uh both operating between 92 to 98% occupancy. And what was the lease up period?

Uh lease up occurred for River City Suites. They had a wait list of about 75 while they finished up the construction because those units to to your point, Mr. Adams, um those units had all been completely destroyed during the by the hurricane. So, they were all gutted down to the studs and were built back fresh. Um they took about 4 months for lease up and stabilization at River City Studio Suites and Vivo took about four months after the last unit was finally converted over. So I would anticipate we're looking at two to three months for lease up here at 76 units and those projects were 120 and 220 units. So I anticipate that lease up here will occur very quickly uh based off the demand and need for this type of housing.

So you you've been in real estate investment sales for 20 years. So would you say that those two examples indicate a level of demand for this kind of product? Yes, sir. Um, and let's say for some reason that half the people walking in the door say, "You don't have a swimming pool. You don't have a gym. I'm not going to rent here." At that point, it could be a business decision to add amenities, right? It could, but the operator of this is going into this with the full understanding that they don't have any amenities and they're going to they're going to lease apartments to the public. Correct.

Okay. Um, I'm going to say something and I want to give both an opportunity. It seems to me like what may have occurred is that the original submitt had an error in the parking calculations when it was submitted, indicating a parking ratio consistent with 100% workforce housing. It also seems like planning didn't catch up on that until fairly recently. Yeah, that would be December when we were told about it and then we got shifted to February for board of adjustment.

Okay, Mr. Chambers, is that an accurate assumption? And it is an assumption on my part to be crystal clear. the assumption that we didn't realize that the

because the plan was submitted with the erroneous parking ratio and it was planning staff didn't pick up on how many workforce units were actually going to be required until December I think you said of this year. We we picked up on the the parking issue based on the reduced number of workforce units at the first BOA meeting because the site plan that was submitted for BOA had 76 units of workforce dedicated via the the 0.5 spaces required per unit for the parking standard. Well, my point is the assumption was made that they were 100% workforce because of the parking ratio that was submitted on the plan. Yes. But also, if you don't mind, I'd point out

Sure, please. The applicant has has said that the rents would be market rate. It' be about 1050 a month. Um, we had a slide up earlier and if Pat doesn't mind pulling it back up for a studio apartment for HUD HUD higher home rates, it's a 10 1083. So, they're already in line with it. Um, if that's what the the rent they're talking about. Just wanted to make that clear. Okay. But that's ultimately a business decision that they True. I just want to make sure that we're if we're talking about that rent that's they would meet it if that's what they're intended to do. So, okay. Um I think that's all the questions I have.

Just a point. Um I was running off of the HUD high home rents from last year which were 956 versus what currently that I think HUD just released the new numbers maybe what 10. Uh these are new from what today?

Yeah, the 2026 survey. So I was running the numbers off the the before and I think part of the other issue on the parking too is we're not changing we're actually losing parking spots because we have to restripe them to current city standards. So we're at 8 ft. They need to be 8 1/2 ft. So that could also have been some of the issue is we showed that we were going to restripe to try and meet city codes as much as we could wherever we could. And that that could be part of what what transpired there. But it was always our intent to try and be around 10% and we agreed to the 20 units overall. So I'm glad you kept talking because it reminded me I did have one more question. Um so there were five addition I'm going to call them additional and forgive me I'm not doing a sideby-side comparison but there were five additional conditions that staff

okay that were distributed to us late this afternoon. Um, I think you've already answered number one, and I'm I'm asking you in terms of what you may or may not agree with. Number one would be, as I understand it, changing from 20 workforce housing units out of the 76 to 100%. And I believe I heard you to say you would not be willing to do that. No, sir.

Okay. Item number two is a sidewalk connection shall be provided between the public sidewalk along Market Street and the building entrance. What say you? I think we can agree to do that and and as long as we're not going to affect the impervious area if we run it along where we're going to put that green space in. I think that that I mean realistically we're talking what 20 ft here that someone's going to walk they're either going to walk on the driveway to the sidewalk or they walk on a sidewalk to the sidewalk. I'm not splitting hairs on that. So is that is that a yes?

I think that's fine. Yes, sir. Okay. Number three is street trees shall be provided along the market street frontage if utilities allow. Yeah, I'm good with that. Okay. I I can't promise because I don't know where you know how CFPA got their lines or the electrical or what Duke Power would allow. So,

well, and um Mr. Chambers, correct me if I'm wrong, but the I think I think what he's answered is consistent with if utilities allow. Okay. Um, number four is streetscape landscaping shall be provided with the open space area located between the existing building and market street in accordance with city standards. Did you have a didn't you have landscaping planned there already? Well, we've got bushes, small shrubs already out in front and then what our thought was for an amenity having a picnic area or whatever in that green space that that would be created by shutting down the driveway, putting out some picnic tables, some stuff like that. So, I mean for us I Jake, can you answer that better than I can?

Yeah. Well, I before you do that, I want to ask staff to elaborate in accordance with city standards. What does that mean? In accordance with city standards for this proposed zoning type. Yeah, Commissioner Lennon. Um, that would be consistent with properties outside the 1945 limits. So, it's a calculation based on their street frontage. Um, one canopy tree is required per 100 linear feet, six understory trees, and nine shrubs. So, they may have to do, if there are shrubs existing, they may have to do additional canopy and understory tree plantings within that area per 100 ft of street frontage. Correct. How wide is this site? 150. 150 ft. So, a tree and a half. That would probably be two trees. Two trees.

Yes, sir. Okay. So, is that a yes? I I'm good with two trees. Okay. And the additional understory trees as well. And the addition Yeah. What? Well, we've already got shrubs and stuff. So, are we going to rip more shrubs out to put stuff in? And then also, what are we talking about on a root ball going into Market Street and then the city's just going to come cut the tree? The green the green space. On the green space. Okay. Yeah. Two trees and bushes. Sure. All right. Number five is the existing pole sign shall be removed. Monument signage shall be installed consistent with land development code requirements. I don't think that's an issue. So, is that a yes? Yes, sir. We're We're good with changing signage.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions before I move to the public hearing? Thank you. Absolutely. At this point, I'd like to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project, please step forward, state your name and address. Anyone? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this project? Please step forward. Miss Bradshaw, have we received any additional comments on this? No, sir.

All right. Without hearing anyone wishing to speak at the public hearing, I'll close the public hearing and get the opinions from the commission. Uh, I think I started down here last time. So, Commissioner Pollock.

Yeah, I I'll sit closer. Um, I I look, you got a you've got a property here that I mean, the applicant has laid out a a a plan to, you know, reuse the property and I get that and it and I and I understand it and it's it's all studio apartments. I get that. I think the one thing that just is still catching me and and I don't know that it's enough to to not support it, but it's just this whole issue over the uh the you know the residential you know the the 100% the 76 versus 20 is really and how that's all developed. And I understand if I think I understand your calculation Nick is is to go above the 20 would would seriously impact your financials. I'm putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of

It's cool. Um, based on the previous performer that we were working on and operating off of where it was $954 a month for rent on the HUD high home standard and I believe that was even calculated just a little bit. What was that like 60% or 80%. John, you remember that was that the 80? So that was at the 80 on the studio efficiency chart that you know HUD sends out. And then looking at what the com competition is also renting for, which they agreed to a set margin at 10% and 10% for or maybe it was a little bit higher, 15% at a HUD high home rent to be locked in for 15 years. Mhm.

Um so knowing that going in that we were going to be between 10 to 15% of our project, that's what we kind of budgeted for to put us on scale and on par with competition right literally up the street. Um, so to treat us a little bit differently when there's two other users that we are potentially competing with a studio apartments and locking in at 15 years and what happens if HUD decides to turn around from $1,000 and drop it to $600. Yeah. So agreeing to 20 is is acceptable and then that still leaves some other units there to offset or adjust with. Okay. If that makes sense.

No, I understand. Okay. understand and and part of my to my fellow commissioners, part of me is, you know, is a probably a process discussion that to figure out how this all happened and and you know, we can work behind the scenes with the staff and explore that. But, um, that's my that's my only hesitation right now. Thank you, Commissioner Adams. Can I go last? I just need to organize my thoughts just a little bit more.

Certainly, Commissioner Collier. So, um I understand it that that uh the conditions would change to 20 units. Uh sidewalks are okay, the sidewalk connection is good, street trees are good, street landscape, street landcape landscaping is good, and you'll take the existing pole down and put a monument sign realistically are the five conditions. Plus, there's a couple of the others that are uh are routine um routine things that are on on on conditions. Anyways, um again, I I am I'm all about having 76 units that can come online quickly. Um 20 of them. I mean, granted, you're still more than the the 10% uh 10 or 15% number in terms of um um 80% AMI, so affordable housing standards. Would I like to see 100%? Sure. But I don't know that that that that's your business decision, not mine. You are certainly in excess of what I think we are typically asking um folks to commit to. Um so I understand the numbers because I don't necessarily completely If if of the 20 units, are they the ones that will be rented at 1,083 or whatever that number was that came up or is it or those lower than that?

No, that that's what they would be rented at. Um and quite frankly, probably most of our units are going to be rented at that because we were budgeting 20 at 950 and the balance 56 at 1050 and we were looking at also including utilities because we're going to have just one meter. We're not individually metering everything. So then all utilities are included in your rent as well is what we're looking at. So are you effectively all 76 really are today? They're you're just only committing to holding 20 of them for 15 years. That's the the difference. I I don't think anybody's going to pay more than $1,100 for 250 ft. I just don't. We're not in Manhattan yet.

Um but that's that's where the rents are. They're kind of in they're in line with the other two developments. And yeah, it's naturally occurring workforce affordable housing because you can't really charge more than that for 250 ft. Sure. Okay. All right. So, but but you you commit to 20 and that rate's fixed for 15 years. The other the other 50 they could change if market changes or whatever. Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. Um, again, I I think it's uh to me the the accessibility of 76 residential units right now may not be what I would want to live in, but I know there are folks that could use it and and could and it's at a much more affordable rate. So, I'm good with that. Thank you,

Commissioner Adams. So my my struggles with this aren't at all related to the type of housing um what has been assumed or agreed to about market rate versus um you know any of this. My issues about this are there's a lot of instances where this really feels like it's a square peg and a round hole. I mean it's feel like it's unusual to see this number of variances now conditional resoning um a lot of things that are trying to do something you know just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should do something so this is this is a struggle for me um you know we talked a lot about qualitative use design requirements and I I think people here framed it around qualitative relative to the users. For me, the qualitative things are about patterns of desired design um development andor land uses. So, um it it's not so much the the residents needs as it relates to qualitative. It's more about patterns of development and types of uses that that were desired with with these zoning requirements and and the prescribed land use code in a especially so in a resoning. Um this does shine a little bit of a light for me that we should really think about an adaptive reuse incentivization for I don't know allowing relief or credit uh on zoning. But unfortunately we we don't have that. Um, and you know, I I think that what the what the goal of this project is trying to do is really really noble. And yes, there

is a need for this kind of housing, I think. But again, prioritizing that over um you know, some of these qualitative design things just it sets a bad precedent in mind or in my mind that that again we can ignore these things just just for the sake of providing housing. Um you know, as a designer, I don't get to ignore things like building code or land design requirements. um you know they're not conveniences they're they're requirements and I a lot of times I think some of these things that are standards in zoning are are very similar not just for designers but for the the development community. So again this this is a hard pill for me to swallow but it's maybe for different reasons other than what you're intending to do with the project.

Thank you. um as I tend to do I'll say that somewhat the same thing but in a different way maybe a little simpler um for me and and that is square peg round hole has been used a lot to describe this and and I say this without any reflection on staff or anything else really it's it's a the round hole is the code the square peg is the I think if in a vacuum somebody walked up to you and said, "Hey, we got a 76 unit hotel or motel project and we can turn it into 76 rental apartments. The project's got a history of problems. We can solve that. Provide 76 units of housing, you know, a portion of which are going to be workforce for 15 years. Um, is that a good idea? I think we struggle to find anybody in this room that would say it's not a good idea. I think the square peg aspect of it was came about because we don't have an adaptive reuse incentive. I think that was a good terminology to use um to get us through this process without having to go to BOA three times. So that to me that this this identifies that um overall I think this is needed. Um I think that there's uh the I [clears throat] think that this this place will fill up quickly based on current demand. Ultimately for me this comes down to a land use decision. Is this use appropriate on this piece of land consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses? And and I think it is ultimately.

So all that being said, what are the wishes of the commission? At which point I may say if someone chooses to make a motion um to move this forward, I I would ask you to be specific on the conditions cited. or we can talk about it some more if you'd like.

Well, let me let me ask a question and this is to to Brian and Linda. You've got a situation where right now you've got a um you know you have a motel has a set of standards and codes and you know you know all those kinds of things in place migrating to a set of studio apartments. Are there is there anything that the commission or the the applicant for that matter should be aware of? In other words, are there any building codes that are different in a studio apartment com, you know, uh setup versus in a motel setup that we ought to be discussing here?

Unfortunately, I am not a building code official. I would only have to say that I assume there are and I would have to defer to the applicant and what they've done in previous projects. Okay. Well, Nick,

um, previous projects, uh, I was not on the construction team. I was the listing broker and sales broker responsible for recruiting a buyer to come in and buy the project. Um, I was involved, John and I were involved on the days in where the rooms were down to the studs and we brought in a JV partner and they came back and put the rooms back together. Um, went through the construction permitting process with the county and the city and and had those units approved. This one, um, renovations were done and completed. They were done to Motel 6 standards to or Studio 6 suite standards to have the the suite component in it. Um, and the owner said, "You know, Nick, do you think that we can turn this into an apartment complex?" And I said, "Yeah, I think we we could because, you know, this is what's happened over here and over here, and it's needed right now, and you know, you guys would be um, you know, you it it makes sense. It's like, you know, it's just one of those things. It just makes sense. Um, I'm not a construction guru, but knowing that the rooms already have all that work completed, you know, as part of the remodel that was done. See, I'm asking the question, and this is for everybody here, you know, having sat and ran the BOA for a year, now sitting over here, you know, I've struggled. I I've sat on both scenarios where an applicant has come in to the BOA only after they've gotten a uh a zoning change and then said, "Okay, we've got this zoning change, but we want to get these kinds of changes. This this process, the way this occurred, kind of threw me a little bit." Um, and is puzzling to me. Um, but I do find it interesting, and Danny, I think you've kind of alluded to it. Um, you know, do we are we comfortable that,

you know, six months from now, we're not in a situation that says, "Wait a minute, this this building is not up to city code for, you know, for resident residential specifics." And I'm that's what I'm struggling with is is do we, you know, does does it automatically transfer over or like you said, it's, you know, Motel 6 standards, but are those City of Wilmington residential standards? I I don't know. I'm asking the question.

I think uh Mr. Pollock I think as Brian mentioned unfortunately those are building code questions that we are not equipped to answer. We can answer changes regarding the land development code. I will note in terms of process there was a change within the last few years where previously applicants could go to the board of adjustment after getting their zoning. We we changed that process because we didn't want to have someone going through the entire resoning process with a plan that we that the council you and the council did not know it's going to be buildable. And so the code now requires that before a resoning application go before the council they go through any quasi judicial process that is needed. So whether that's board of adjustment, design adjustment committee or historic preservation commission, any of those things that you are needed through quasi judicial, you have to obtain before you go before council. So, you probably made that change after 2021, which would

Yes, because it has happened. It's happened since I've been here. I was going to say it makes sense because I I think you and I kind of came to this about the same time. So, that makes sense. I that from a context standpoint, but I'm just wanting to make sure that to the best. So, would this from here if we approved this, would this go have to go to TRC for any reason? What what would be the process from here? It will go to council assuming count, you know, gets approved. Assuming council approves it, what's the process? I'm looking at my TRC experts. I do not believe TRC would be required based on what

based on the improvements I'm hearing tonight. I don't think a a formal TRC would be required. It would be a change of use and we would review that through zoning for compliance with whatever conditions are assigned to this and the plan that's that the applicant submitted. Um, so there's there's no there will be nothing really to review because there's really not a lot of changes to look at. So, back to my basic question, is there any step in the process going forward that would answer the questions that I think have been brought up a little bit that said, are the Motel 6 standards, do they do they suffice the city of Wilmington standards?

Yes. So, the again the the New Hver County building inspections would look at the building code. Any any change of use would go through that department. They would look at meeting whatever standards are in place for for residential um Okay. the residential codes. Um, and again, as part of that process, there is a city kind of pass through review of that. And at that point, we would make sure they met the conditions that are ultimately approved for this. Okay. And that would happen before it opens or Yes, sir. Okay. Commissioner Adams, do do you mind if I elaborate on just Jack's question? So,

absolutely. The the Fair Housing Act is u a federal multifamily design guideline standard that basically regulates a lot of different things in multif family construction. Uh accessibility to a certain degree, egress, um layouts and designs of kitchens relative to um you know your your space around and under the counters. So um it's it's different. It's not the same as a hospitality type of set of code requirements. So, um you know, if if these units are compliant from a fair housing design set of standards, then there shouldn't be any problem. Um I I don't know if they are or not, right? The there there will be other methods and triggers where that is verified independently from from the land use kind of thing that we're talking about today. and and they would have to have that signed off on before they could get a certificate of substantial completion or certificate of occupancy. I don't know if you're doing a level of alteration that require any building permitting at all, but still I think the land use change would require a code review, a building code review anyway. Let me and Danny, thank you for that because I all I'm really asking is if I put it into practical terms, I remodeled a a bathroom in my house and the county inspector who does the city inspections came through and placement of uh you know fire, you know, fire alarms, a whole bit. I mean, and that's what I'm saying is is is that kind of a step in place. And if the county inspector is supposed to go through and do that, then fine. I'm I'm comfortable. But that's that's why I'm belaboring the point and I do apologize. But Danny, thanks for the clarification.

Commissioner Collier, did you have another question? What may I interject one while you're up there, Mr. Silivanch? Just so we're clear, when somebody makes a motion one way or the other, in the packet that we were given, which I'm assuming you saw,

there were seven conditions listed. Um, I'm assuming that you agreed to those seven conditions and and the one that I think you'd be you have previously talked about is number five, which says 20 residential units shall be provided at a minimum 80% of the area median income. So I just want to I want to make it clear that you agree to those seven conditions and there are some and there are some related to that in terms of annual reporting and maintaining of the 15 years.

Yeah. No, that that was all typical stuff and and that's that's why with number five saying that we were agreeing to the 20 and then this Mr. Silivance, you need to speak into the Yeah, sorry. We get Yeah. When I when I looked over what it was, um I didn't really see anything that we wouldn't agree with here and then we got hit with

Okay. So, so, so here hear me hear me out. You you are confirming that you agree to the seven recommended conditions in the packet that the commission had and items two through five on the additional conditions that were distributed to both you and the planning commission. Correct. Okay. All right. Did you guys Sorry. You you good with that? Okay, everybody. Okay. Commissioner Collier,

Junior, help me out over here. Um, Pat, may I ask you one question on parking standards, please? Um, understanding that they are restriping the parking lot to get to 8 and 1/2t spaces. My one only one hangup I have with this is the number of spaces, which is 68. That's still eight spaces short on what I would perceive to be is 76 cars. Is there the existing parking as it striped today I think is 73 if I'm reading right. Um do we are are they required to restripe to 8 and 1/2 ft or is there another reason that I'm missing? I believe the restriping may stem from the additional ADA parking. Um, I don't recall off the top of my head the reason for the restriping. Um, but I believe there's an additional ADA component to this as well.

This is my engineer Jake. He can tell you about that. Great.

Jake Modesto. Yeah. So, can you can you hear me? All right. Sorry, the elevations keep changing here. No. Yes. So, as it sits today, the existing parking spaces range in size, but most of them are shorter than the 8 ft. So, if you stack that out and go 8 feet, you end up picking parking spaces. that's non-compliant. Eight and a half is the minimum. So, what we did is we brought that into compliance. So, we removed an existing nonconformity on the site and made it compliant. We did lose a parking space or two because of that that long run. We have over 36 390 linear feet of run. So, we end up losing a parking space as we restriped it back. The additional 88 space still counts. We did lose an aisle uh to make it compliant. Um but that was all in the intent to match what we're proposing. that's not the intent to reduce but actually bring us into compliance with the actual spacing the sizes

and and I I understand that part of it. I I am having a struggle now with when I've sat and realized it's we don't even have one space per per unit and then that's going to be that can create another issue that I don't know that we want to have into those unintended consequences.

So the ratio would be 0.9 it's very close to that one. These are rentals so it be it would be regulated. uh we have public transportation uh within several hundred feet. Um so it would be continue to you know improve or push forward um transportation oriented uses so that we we do feel and comfortable that this is what it would be even when there was there was a change we call in the the workforce housing that we were very comfortable with the number of spaces on this site. Felt it was enough to support the proposed use. How was your other your other two developments? What's the parking ratios there? So, we were one to one almost. Can you step up to the mic? Thank you.

These things are my balls.

Hey everybody, this is better. Um, so statistically based off of the other other two projects, they're not overparked at all. Um, many of the residents due to the natural rent levels that we're at don't have vehicles. They might have a bicycle. They might have a scooter. Um they may or may not have an actual car. They rely on public transportation. Um I believe over at Vivo, um what is it? 220 unit 220 hotel units. I think we had 220 parks plus we had a bunch of parks out front from what the old nightclub used to be over there. Um that parking lot isn't full, but the apartment complex is. I I'm not in the day-to-day operations, so I don't know what the ratios are right now on usage, but if you drive by and you drive through, you know, at night or whatever, you can see that the parking lots are not full, but all the lights are on and people are home.

Um, years ago, we approved a um an off-campus housing project that was really, really tight with less than one space per unit. And these kids only had to walk a 100 yards to get to school. Um, and then there were then it was the battle a little bit later on of how many cars are parked and parked behind and all those things. Um, I I don't know that it's for us to resolve right now. It may be for staff to resolve or council to agree to because u but I I think the parking situation needs to be u certainly looked at a little bit harder. Commissioner Collier, if I sir, if I may, I have the calculations for the Vivo uh site um and the 5040 Market Street, the River City Studio site. So, the Vivo site had 234 units uh and we're providing 274 spaces. The River City Studio site um we're providing 120 units with 140 spaces.

And if I if I remember right, your River City had a restaurant with it, so it probably had additional parking. and Vivo. Did it have It had a former nightclub that was up in the front as well. All right. Okay. Thank you.

What are the wishes of the commission had more parking spaces? Commissioner Pollock.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and make a motion. And I'll make a motion to to approve uh based on the fact that the uh plan it's consistent with the create Wilmington comprehensive plan. The commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest proposal provides additional uh density along a major corridor with access to transit services. I also want to make sure for the record that this I make this motion with the fact that we are talking also about the seven conditions that are in the packet as submitted plus the conditions two through five of the addendum to the conditions that were shared with the the commission and the applicant today. So based on that I I make a motion to approve.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Pollock. Seconded by Commissioner Collier. Commissioner Collier. What say you? Yes. Commissioner Adams. No. Commissioner Pollock. Yes. Chair votes I. Passes three to one.

Thank you very much. Okay. Um, very good. At this time, we will ask for any items from the commission. Commissioner Pollock.

Yeah, just a quick update and my apologies. last time we met, I gave a quick update on the uh the process discussions and all that and then I've been out of town for about two and a half weeks. So, I'm literally just getting my head back into this. And uh Patrick was good enough to you know to print me off because I'm a visual learner, print me off the uh administrative provisions for the, you know, a lot of the procedures that we work through here. So, I've started taking a look at that. I talked to Patrick tonight and asked him for a uh if if there's where can I get a copy of the fee schedule that goes along with this. Um I've disseminated the the uh packet online to Commissioner Collier and to Commissioner Jones and so the action to me is to get with them and let's kind of go through this and then we'll come back, you know, Linda to you and Brian and say, "Hey, you know, let's let's get together again. we've got some some recommendations or some things to look at. And so right now the actions to me and and my two peers to look at this and then we'll come back to you to, you know, to schedule a rejoin up.

Thank you, Commissioner Collier. Commissioner Adams, how can we request that our blinds be open for our meetings so we have a lovely view of the river? Dennis says no. Ah, okay. Thank you,

Danny. That actually came up last night. I happened to be listening to to a conversation that was the the officer in charge of the detail. Exactly. Security. Um, the only thing I was going to bring up, and I chose not to do it while the applicant was here, but in in the first item that we discussed, the 8th Street, the um, traffic count comparison, there's a one single family home on the property. Now, we compared the traffic count for that to I guess the max UMX buildout on the subject site. When we're looking at it in reverse, we always assume an ADU on a residential zoning. Should we not assume an ADU on the property in its current condition if it's residential and there's only one house because by right they can put an ADU on it. I know I know we're that's why I brought it up now and not

I I mean in this case we were just considering what was existing on the site. So yes, we could in the future if there's a home and we wanted to add that just to say what you can do right now. We we're happy because we do it the other way. Right. We're happy to do that. We were just looking at what the the existing condition. Fair. Fair enough. That's why I saved it for now. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anybody else? Items from the staff. Uh last evening, the city council approved the reasonzoning on Writesville uh that you considered at your meeting last month. Great. Thank you. Any other items of business? I hear a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn.

Second. All in favor? Yes, meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for attending.