Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Like to call this uh April 1st City of Wilmington Planning Commission meeting to order. And we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Thank you all. This is the biggest crowd we've had in four months.

Um, I will note for the record, um, Commissioner Kofheer contacted me today and is not able to make it, so he is excused from this evening's proceedings. That being said, Mr. City Attorney, do we have a quorum? Yes, Mr. Mr. Chair,

thank you very much. 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. The 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. Excuse me. All matters requiring commission actions shall be presented to the planning commission by the planning staff and the applicant. In situations where planning staff is the applicant, there will only be one presentation. City staff will make the first presentation. The applicant will make the second presentation. To maintain an orderly meeting, all presentations shall proceed without interruption unless the commission desires to intervene with questions or comments. For 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 window will be allowed for public comment in favor of an item and a 10-minute time will be allowed for public comment in opposition. A staff member will track the 10-minute time periods and will notify the speaker at the five minute mark, one minute mark, and verbally call time when the time expires. 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. Public has been encouraged to submit their comments in writing via a web-based form located at City of Wilmington's website. All comments received prior to 3M today were forwarded unedited to the planning commission. All comments received will be delivered to city council when the

item advances and all comments received will be made available to the public if requested. Miss Bradshaw, we received any since we did not.

Thank you. 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 their May 19th, 2026 meeting. With that, we'll move on to the minutes from the last meeting. Any members of the commission have any comments in regards to the minutes? Not. Do I hear a motion to approve?

Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written. Second. It's been motioned by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Pollock. All those in favor? I.

Very good. Um we will the old business item we will discuss at the conclusion. Um very good. Under new business we will begin with item number one which is a land development code amendment to an amend city code chapter 18 section 18 through 43 and 18 through 44 C for revisions to the CBD district specific standards. and Miss Lame will be the planner presenting.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, vice chair, and members of the planning commission. I'm Grace Lame, planner one for the city of Wilmington. Tonight for your review, I present a proposed land development code um amendment to allow for semi-permanent structures to be permitted with conditions in the central business district, also referred to as the CBD. This application was submitted in February 2026 and has been reviewed by staff and is now at the first public hearing for recommendation from planning commission. The land development code design standards for the new development in the central business district were clearly written with primary buildings in mind. As a result, smaller accessory structures or ancillary features are not specifically addressed and are held to the same requirements as the principal structures. Applying full CBD design standards related to fenestration materials and building articulation to small-scale semi-permanent structures can pose practical implementation issues when compared to applying the standards to new development. This is especially apparent on properties with existing existing structures that are set back more than the CBD dimensional standards would allow. The proposed amendment would establish semi-permanent structure as an accessory use in the LDC al the land development code allowed only within this central business district subject to conditions. The proposed conditions implement standards regarding the allowed uses of semi-permanent structures as well as the quantity, dimensions, appearance, and location. Starting off um with the number u no more than one semi-permanent structure shall be permitted per lot. Such structures may only be used to serve food and beverages as an accessory used to only primary restaurant and nightclub uses. They may not be permitted as primary structures and they may only be permitted as

accessory uses to principal structures existing as of May 5th, 2026 should it be accepted by the city council. This condition was added by staff in order to ensure that all new development will be held to the central business business design standards. The conditions go on to place limits on the maximum size for semi-permanent structures and set permanent or set minimum standards regarding the outward appearance of these structures. Aside from the front setback, semi-permanent structures will be subject to all building setback requirements and these structures can be located in front of the existing principal structure. This is the proposed definition for semi-permanent structure to be added to article 8 of the land development code. That would be in section 18693. This map shows the general location of the central business district within the city limits. Also shown is the historic district overlay where additional review and approval from the historic preservation commission would be required for semi-permanent structures. Staff reviewed locations throughout the central business district with non-conforming buildings set back more than the dimensional standards would allow. And here you can see some of the examples where these semi-permanent structures could be permitted. Staff has reviewed this application's alignment with relevant adopted plans, including the create Wilmington comprehensive plan, and the growth strategies map identifi identifies areas of opportunity with corresponding policies to guide the look, feel, and use of new development. The create Wilmington comprehensive plan also offers broader policy guidance to shape new development throughout the city. Staff assessed this application with the relevant policies and found

modest support for the application's alignment with the plan. Staff did not receive any comments in support or opposition of this application. And to summarize the application and staff's findings, the current land development code design standards for the central business district do not address accessory structures, meaning that they are held to the standards that may be unnecessary or even infeasible, especially for the adaptive re reuse of non-conforming structures in the central business district. By distinguishing between primary and semi-permanent structures, the city can maintain its commitment to highquality design while allowing flexibility for smaller secondary use specific features. Staff finds the request to be reasonable, in public interest, and consistent with the relevant policies in the Create Wilmington comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval. And this concludes staff presentation. I'm available to answer any questions, and the applicant is present as well.

Thank you very much. Um, before I ask for questions from the commission, I just want to in the agenda review, this is the updated version that we're that we got. I just want to make sure everybody got there. Okay. Very good. Um, Commissioner Jones, do you have any questions?

I kind of want to know what this stems from. Um, and we've got the district already happening in Wilmington. Um, I work with Newland Real Estate who does projects across the country. They have retail centers that are these type of projects, residential. Um, what are we concerned about or what are we So, this actually stemmed originally from a board of adjustment case within the CBD district. We don't currently allow for um metal to be a construction material and so um it wouldn't permit

like a pre-engineered metal building. Well, yeah. like the exterior of the building couldn't be metal like a shipping container for example. So we have the entire cargo district that utilizes that sort of structure which is a permitted building material within that district. So this would allow um those types of structures to be placed on current um existing properties that meet all of the conditions in the proposed amendment. I guess we're just finding some gaps in our code that maybe wouldn't have allowed for this previously and trying to correct that. That's correct. Okay. Thank you,

Commissioner Woodruff. Hello. We haven't met before actually, have we? I don't believe so. No, I wasn't here last. Um, just a quick question about the use. There's wording in the definition back there that says it cannot be hooked to sewer or water. Does that affect what they're intending to do with this property?

That's correct. So, this is meant to just be in accessory use to an existing use such as and really only limited to nightclubs and restaurants so that they can serve food and beverage from that location, but it's not meant to serve as a separate use on its own. So, I think that that is meant to sort of limit what uses are able to operate from there. I guess what I'm question is can it operate without having um attachment to water for for serving food and beverages. Yes. Okay. So they're cooking it preparing it somewhere else and bringing it to this right facility. Yeah. It would be like a distribution point.

Okay. Thank you. How about residential? It would not be permitted in residential districts only the central business district. Commissioner Pollock, kind of on the same theme and like I said, we haven't met either, so welcome. Um, the same theme that the other two commissioners were asking. Give me give me a couple examples in town where this might apply. Now, maybe we need to go back to your picture. Yeah. Where you had um

So, the intention is for this to only apply to existing properties with nonconformities um as for setbacks. Um, and so we have some examples from around town where the property has a pre-existing structure that may be legal non-conforming with our current code requirements. Um, so this would allow them to expand their use and utilize the space that they don't currently occupy with the structure like current code requirements would apply to new development. Are there time limits set on the existing of these uh structures? Well, to use that phrase, not not I mean they can

not in this proposal. Okay.

But they're only allowed on properties with these conditions as of the date that the city council would adopt it. So any property with new development would need to meet current code requirements. This wouldn't be applicable for them. the the the thing that came to mind when I read through this was the following and we all go back to to uh you know the COVID days, okay, when we actually front street we shut it off for you know and serve food out on the on the sidewalks and at one point I know there were diagrams in in several of the city documents that you know kind of envisioned a pedestrian front street on a more permanent basis. Would this fit in that kind of a scenario? If somebody, you know, if you take like circa, if somebody set something up in front of circle, would that be would that fit in this scenario or that'd be an entirely different case?

I believe that would be an entirely different case. particularly if it's located within the historic district overlay, there would be additional um requirements for the historic preservation commission to look at the design of the structure before it's ever approved. Okay, that's all for now. Is there a specific project that we're trying to incorporate to make this work or because I can see a lot of uses with the cargo district type whether it be residential housing, retail, restaurants. I think we're going to hear from the applicant um as to this particular case. And

also I'll let um when when it's my turn, I'll because we we did dig into that pretty deep. Okay, Commissioner Collier. Thank you, sir. So, reading between the lines, we have really written this around the cargo boxes, correct? For the most part, that does tend to be only what these conditions would apply to. So, would a tent be allowed? Um, that's not what the conditions were written for. Um, but there may be tent semi-permanent and it's considered a temporary structure. So, in that case, that would be a different permitting situation.

I bet you're going to get a lot of tents put up for the same reasons. Um, so tell me about this May 5th date again. I know it's the council date if they approve it. Hi Grace, how are you? I'm sorry. I didn't mean should have said hello. Um, so after May 5th, any restaurant or nightclub that comes in and opens for business, they cannot do this. Correct.

Any new development, so if it's an existing property with a structure that's non-conforming is in regards to the setbacks that they could place this on there. um they wouldn't be able to after that May 5th or they would be able to for those existing properties but anything new they would not be able to create a nonconformity in order to place a structure like this. So, if the gas station on third and um uh Chestnut Third and Chestnut

that since there's a little little bitty station that's used to change oil, I don't know if it's even right working now. If they came in and it opened as a nightclub or a restaurant, would they be able to then do this? They would be subject to our our usual zoning compliance change in use requirements. Um but if they're not planning to make any changes to that front area, then they absolutely would be um eligible to utilize the semi-permanent structure option. Okay. So it's only if it is a brand new building, a brand new development completely on the back lot.

So for example, if somebody came in and decided to demolish that structure and build a build a new nightclub, then that would have to meet our current requirements. But if they're reusing the building as it exists, then we are this is meant to work work with them to be able to expand their use beyond what is currently on the property. Okay. Um and in so the being located in front of the principal structure that's not normally something we want to do. Um are there any other is there anything that is since there is no limit on how long the semi-permanent structure can be there and it being in front of right

I presume you have and I think I read in here we have some u painting and looks and it needs to look like it's fitting with the existing use correct that's correct Commissioner Adams,

can you expand a little bit about the tightness of nightclub and restaurant as really the main two or the only two CBD types of uses that this is I guess being considered as applicable for? I guess why the specificity of because a lot of different uses are allowed in the CBD,

right? I think it's just meant to limit what uses could operate from those structures seeing as they are able to be located in front of primary structures. So, it's just meant to keep it to a minimum what is able to operate from those structures and it needs to be an accessory to those existing uses. So it's just operating as a, you know, as a part of it.

Commissioner Pollock, you had a follow-up. Yeah, a follow-up question. You alluded earlier, I think Commissioner Jones asked the question as to the the genesis of of this request. You alluded to the fact that this came about as a result of a request in front of the board of adjustment. Could you elaborate on what was the request being made? What did the board of adjustment decide on? So, how did it get from there to here?

Right. So, the the request was to allow a shipping container to be used within the CBD district without having any exterior fenistration or the orientation meeting our current code requirements. And instead the board wondered if maybe since this is something that seems to be popping up more as far as architectural styles, um they thought that it might be more appropriate to put it through as a code amendment and the applicant was amanable to that and here here we are. Um first of all, you're doing a great job. Thank you.

Welcome. Um, all the ABC permits still apply, right? Okay. Um, the zoning requirements still apply. Yep, that is correct. And who's going to police the painting, matching, complement, appearance of the principal structure? That would be during the permitting process, we would ask that they provide renderings of what it's going to look like in um in regard to or in comparison to the primary structure. Um, and that would be something that's discussed at a staff level. Okay. And then, and this is not going to encroach on the public right away. No.

Okay. Um, that's all the questions I have. Is anybody anybody else? Thank you. Thank you. The applicant like to speak?

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, evening. Uh my name is Joseph Ebar and I own the Eagle's Dare at 420 North Thirdrd Street. Uh I'm the originator of this text amendment. Uh based ma'am off of your uh question. Wanted to really give kind of a little background on how we got to where we're at right now. So when Eagles opened three and a half years ago, we did we put in a shipping container. Uh from my understanding with working with my uh architect and every and uh contractor thought we were in the right. We've operated for the past three years with this shipping container, which you can see uh on that image right there, uh as a secondary bar for us to serve out of for our larger scale events. We also utilize uh it for storage uh so dry product, things like that in there. Fast forward three years, um you know, I think there's other projects happening. Someone at some point said, "What about Eagle's Dare?" And that's when we got a notice of violation. We had four zoning violations that that I ended up going to board of adjustment to request a variance on and that was building height, fenistration, uh material and setback. All four of those things uh went back and forth with board of adjustment on several things and ultimately was recommended to put forth a text amendment because as we were doing this what we have come to find out is that there is not any kind of comprehensive uh code addressing shipping container architecture. And so when you look at a district named cargo district and other areas, what you're seeing is in the sure you all are aware in the eyes of the city, those are new build constructions. So uh and I'm sure there's things I might misspeak, but in in general sense when you look at cargo district in in the eyes that those are those are new buildings. So, like when you when you go

on the south side of where the the food is on that that cargo area and you see the windows into all the food area, all the windows are see-through. Well, that's because of fenestration because it's a facing side to the street and 50% of that has to be fenestration. So Leslie, the developer over there, he navigated that space to get it up. But what I dealt with specifically for the Eagles Dare for this shipping container was these four variances and we were not going to get those um pass through the current status of our code. Uh and those and those variances for those reasons cuz it's not a new building. It's a shipping container. And so we went um I'm joined by uh Mr. Andrew Penny is uh my legal counsel uh and he put forward uh working with uh zoning uh an amendment to address those things. So what you currently see in front of you will rectify my situation and my situation specifically um in terms of being allowed to keep that shipping container. Um, Miss Miss Jones, ma'am, I I I think you really hit nail on a head in that, you know, this is a this is a architectural style that we're seeing across the world, adaptive reuse, whether it be, you know, retail, uh, restaurant, uh, nightclub, but we're seeing it across the board. And when we first had our first meetings with zoning, um, with at that time, uh, Miss Thirstston, uh, the the conversation was, hey, are we going to go large and really try and tackle this beast? And the direction to us was worry about ourselves. And so that's where this very specific uh coding uh and verbiage came. Uh and again working with uh zoning has been great. And you know this is where we we now find ourselves is is presenting this. I will also say that in one of the earlier drafts uh Mr. Adams I think you brought up uh retail was a part of that. it was dropped off uh through coordination with with zoning, but there was an original uh part that

we had we had added retail to that as well. Um but if you're, you know, familiar with Eagle's Dare, it's already non-standard in in terms of how old it is. So the requirements of especially the setback, you know, uh was just is is a non a non-starter. Uh so we we developed this uh amendment and that's where we find ourselves now. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. We'll start down this end. Commissioner Collier, you have any questions? No, no, I don't think I have any yet. Okay. Maybe come back.

Commissioner Adams. I think my question might be back for Grace about how if this situation occurs in the historic district, what happens in terms of that additional review. So, I'll come back to that. Okay. Commissioner Pollock. Yeah, I'm going to probe with you a little bit um because I think I got I think you have now filled in the blanks. So, I'm going to make a couple declarative statements and please correct me if I if I'm wrong or affirm if I'm right. Um back to the question of why are we here? Why are we having this discussion? You have made the statement that you've gotten code violations because of the situation you're currently in. So, so it takes down you've gone to board of adjustment. They have um I use the phrase have declined to grant any waiverss and have basically kicked it over here and recommended a uh a a code you know a code adjustment. So my mind is going down a path. Are we really here to address your specific situation? And the the proposal to address your situation is a, you know, a citywide, you know, code amendment. And and it begs the other question, is there really, you know, are we making a change to accommodate your code situation? and is there really a demand for this type of thing that is there or not there? And that's that's what's troubling me is I'm trying to figure out, you know, what's the problem we're trying to solve here? Is it just your particular situation or is it a city-wide situation that's just gone, you know, un unressed for for a period. So, I'll let you react to that.

Absolutely. No, it's a great question and it's something that I think we've been struggling with in terms of and and in term in the fact that hey, I'm worried about myself, right? And that's what was the marching orders to me personally. Do I think there's a a at larger scale issue to be addressed because yes I mean shipping container architecture is globally like it's across the world adaptive reuse like there the the the benefits of utilizing that type of architecture is well documented. I do think that there is further conversation that should probably be had in terms of how it affects Wilmington at large as well as tying in whether we're talking residential other aspects. But from my from from my perspective and for others within the central business district that have that are operating in older buildings, uh this does apply for for not just me but for others in the CBD. So while this is obviously came from our situation uh and our specific uh our own our own matters, I think there is a grander conversation. Sure. Uh but for this this affects not only me but also other potential spaces in the central business district. Does that answer your question sir?

It does. I may come back with another one but no but thank you. Yes sir. Uh is the use of it as it stands right it stands right now prior to the code violations it's going to change.

Uh negative sir that's the whole we're pushing to keep it in its location. It's it's inside of our It splits our beer garden. So, I have a service window that when we have our free concert Friday music series, when we have St. Patrick's Day, when we have some of our larger events where we need a secondary bar, we, you know, bring in some ice, you know, put beers in there, open up the window, and my staff is serving out of that window. Uh, and then it's again as also a space for, uh, dry stock and storage. Okay, that's that's great. You answered the question I didn't even get around to. Thank you. There you go. Yes, sir. Commissioner Jones.

Um, I think we touched on it earlier and I'm a proponent of it regardless of it just being one project. Um, I watch nerdy things like YouTube and most magnificent homes. New York City has a great has several great container residential units. Um, like I mentioned earlier, Nuland, who I worked for, who developed River Lights, had a project in Seattle and they built a retail center out of container storage units. So, you know, I get the historical, you know, probably pass through or what I don't have a problem with. I think it's a great um affordable um I I would recommend affordable housing for it. Um there's a lot of uses to it. Um so I I don't have a problem with it.

Yes, ma'am. And I I think this at least starts the conversation. This obviously being more geared towards uh you know nightclub and restaurant, but you know Yes, ma'am. There's a lot of uses that and and if we want to talk historical, I I I think we're known as the port city. Um so, um I'm saying this sort of tongue and cheek, but not really. I guess my only question is, are you prepared to be the test case if this passes? Uh and you and you realize the attention it will bear,

sir. I I I've I'm I'm good friends with zoning. We uh we set a timer and every two years I think we deal with something or other whether it's one of uh whether it's one of my businesses or or Eagles Dare but we we dealt with this uh matter several years ago not not shipping container but temporary stage usage uh and I was the the test subject on that as well when we went to uh request for the uh the number of temporary usages per calendar year um with the code that updated several years ago. It went from 60 down to two and then I was trying to put on the downtown sundown concert series and ran into a problem because I needed to be able to use a temporary stage 13 to 14 weeks and worked with the city did a text amendment update. So to answer your question, sir, uh yeah, I uh I'm willing to take on anything that comes at me. Okay.

And I don't know if any of y'all been to Rutled Cab Company in Charleston. They have a great outdoor container that is is an additional property to what they originally created. Um, Bill Murray is one of the owners and you know it's it's um I just think we need to be open to new ideas and things and I haven't heard a negative about why we shouldn't. I know character is a thing and if we have to or Wilmington needs to work with the historical that's their side of things I think it's a great option okay

if if I may uh sir one other piece that was brought up about uh design and stuff like that again a great case you know case study is you know swing by the dare uh and and see our our shipping container color scheme you know paint vinyl that we have on there is you know to the main structure and complements it. So very very clear but it is you know again the the structure of a shipping container is metal but uh it's it's upkept and it's uh you know it matches the design of the building and the aesthetic. Okay. Anybody else have a question?

I I do have a couple staff maybe related questions. Um, I mentioned what happens in the historic district overlay as a secondary review and what what that means for these kind of projects. That that's sort of question one. And then you mentioned that this would be a conditional use if allowed. So, as a conditional use, I think understanding if one of these semi semi-permanent structures lands uh on the property, how is it being used as like front door, back door, all of those would need to be identified in the conditional, you know, zoning, right? And where I'm going with this is we should be able to tell I think if it's conditional how things are being served or utilized out of them because we wouldn't want to end up with a situation where a primary street frontage of one of these containers ends up being only the back of house things that we don't like to see on, you know, a rightaway. So I'm curious what aspects of the functionality of these structures would be covered in a conditional review.

Well, I can answer your first question. Um if they are within the historic district overlay, they would be required to present their uh proposal in front of the historic preservation commission and provide all of the details on how the structure is made and the materials and the commission would have to decide whether or not they would approve that within the historic district. Regarding your other question, I would defer to Mr. neighbors painter.

So, and I'm just going to add on to Grace's uh Grace's response. This the historic district commission has an adopted set of design standards that you have to meet in order for them to grant a certificate of appropriateness. So, those standards would apply above and beyond anything that is in the conditions for a semi semi-permanent structure in the code. So, in the historic district, and I'll be honest, it may be very difficult, if not impossible, for a shipping container to meet those historic preservation design standards, but that will be up to an applicant to demonstrate how they are meeting those criteria because they do they do continue to apply in the in the historic district overlay for anything that can be seen from the public right of way. So, that is the one distinction. If you cannot see something from a public right ofway, it is not subject to their purview because it's an overlay district. Um, in terms of your second question, I think we did not get into and I think to the applicant's point, one of the issues they were struggling with was fenistration and that when you treat this like a primary structure in the in the CBD, we have fenestration requirements that say you have to have windows cut into the these structures. And as he mentioned in the cargo district, they have met those standards. They have put the windows in. Sometimes you see toilet paper, sometimes you see paper towels. It may be into their kitchen, but they have put the windows in to meet that the request here. So we don't specify windows. These are really identified as you have to use it uh for either a retail booth or to serve food or beverage beverages as accessory to restaurants and nightclubs. So, it it's intended to be an active use, not a back not a back of house use. I'm not sure if that answers your question, but that was done in combination with the requirements that it uh be well maintain that it be maintained free of deterioration, that it be painted, and that the the painting complement the the primary structure to which it is

accessory. C can I clarify something? You're using the word retail there in the context of a bar or a restaurant, right? Um, if the I'm using it in the context that it says retail booths or to serve food or beverages as accessory to a restaurant or a nightclub. So, if the restaurant or nightclub wanted to sell t-shirts or logoed beersteines, that would be an acceptable use of this. Okay. I just because you mentioned that retail been taken out, so I just want to make that clear.

Yeah. And I honestly Brian and I were ch we were like I don't remember taking retail out. We were going back and forth with the applicant. So I was like I didn't remember if this was if we had had accessory to a retail principal use at some point. But you could have retail out of out of this. Again if you wanted to sell t-shirts if the band that is playing at one of the Friday night concerts wants to sell t-shirts and uh Mr. Karion is amendable to that or any other business owner. They could sell those t-shirts from this space. Okay. But he couldn't sublet it to Joe's Ice Cream Shop.

Correct. It has to be it's it's intended to be it's it's intended to be accessory to that principal use. And as Grace mentioned in her presentation, understanding that we do have properties in the central business district where you have buildings that are just non-conforming to our primary standards. so that when they're looking to extend their use into um a smaller structure without doing a full-on building addition or an accessory structure, this provides them with a mechanism to to kind of do that use, support small business without having them come into bring their entire site into compliance with the the CBD requirements for a primary structure.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams. You good on that? Anybody else have any other questions for the applicant? Y So you said earlier and this may have nothing to do with this case. You you had a violation on building height. Was it on the uh container or was it on your building? Uh sir, it's on the on the shipping container. So new construction build is 33 feet. 36 feet. Thank you. There's a there's a minimum height there's a minimum height requirement in That's what I thought. That's what I thought. So it it was for that. It was for that, sir. So then this would cover that. in the ordinance now. Yes. Okay.

Because because again, we're not we're not subjecting it to those primary building standards. We're we're treating this as essentially an accessory structure.

Okay. Thank you on that. Um I've been by your shop. Your your container looks very nice and it's over on the side. It's not out by the road. I think some of I believe what Mr. Adams was speaking on earlier. I I don't know that I would really enjoy it if your container was sitting up on Third Street and it was that we saw the back of a container and couldn't see your I mean your building is very nice. I want to see your building, not a container. I think that's the only issue I have with they can be in front of the building because that gives it subjectivity to somebody's eye. You know, it it fits better on that part of the property than it does if you put it somewhere else.

Yes, sir. Well, when we were doing this with with board of adjustment and zoning, the the sepic is 5 ft. Uh, so one of we looked at multiple different courses of action, right? One of which was moving the shipping container all the way up to the property line, the sidewalk of Third Street because, you know, again, per the code, that's what is required. And right when we were briefing the board of adjustment, uh, you know, showing a couple different locations where we potentially could move it, which would completely mitigate it being a secondary bar just to meet code requirement and setback. To your point, sir, yeah, it looks ridiculous. There's like why why is this here? And there's also a question if it was put over in the corner of Third and Red Cross uh visual obstruction uh for traffic taking a turn onto Red Cross and and onto Third Street potentially. So, you know, again, this and it fits, you know, perfectly underneath the tree right there. We don't have to cut down any cut down any trees. Uh and it it just fits. But yes, sir. Uh that was again one of the the variants uh that we had requested was because again putting it all the way forward just would not look right. And

agreed. I agree. And and and I'm okay with the flexibility of where it goes. I'm more concerned of it being directly in front of and, you know, showing as the face of your your your project. Yes, sir. And again, yours doesn't look that way. And some of the photos I'm seeing here do not look that way. Um, but

that would that would be my concern. So, do we have anything that's working on that? So, as currently written, there is nothing that would preclude them from putting essentially what I'm hearing is the long edge of the structure facing the street, whereas in in the applicant specific situation, they have the short end of the structure facing the street. So that that would be something that you could recommend adding is that the small you know to to avoid blocking view of the principal structure the you know the the smallest uh the narrowest edge of the building of the semi-permanent structure shall be oriented to the street. Can you write down what she said? Everybody

Well, and just what y'all are talking about, I think like with what we're trying to accomplish here, I have no problem. But it's like Richard's saying is as we move forward, I think it would be good for us to look at an over all-encompassing um guideline is if other people want to do this as to where they can place it, you know, and and give some specific guidelines to it. Let me let me let me interject for the sake of the applicant. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant specifically? Commissioner Pollock and then and then and then we'll bring it back.

It's a process question more. So, please take it in that context. You went to the BOA to ask them for what what specifically did you ask? I asked for variances to the four uh code violations that they uh advised me I was breaking. Okay. And the response was so the first meeting was in August of last year

of of last year sir. Um and one went one one before them. Uh and we I basically provided a brief and said hey you know these are what I'm requesting. This is why I'm requesting it. And then I also kind of went into alternate courses of action where we talked about putting it on wheels and you know started playing the the the game right of how do we circumn what's written in code and what happened was through the course of two more meetings I got continued uh went back briefed my my findings cuz I went and had a general contractor we talked about potentially moving the shipping container back into the side beer garden which if you're looking at that picture that that middle picture, that yellow rectangle is where the shipping container is. There was talk of potentially moving it back into the side beer garden there. Again, taking away the point of it in its its original purpose, but I went and got a general contractor to give me a bit of a quote on that. I looked at some other options that the BOA had had given me. Went back and said, you know, gentlemen, this this is no go. Uh, you know, I would again request variance. They then came back and said, "Hey, we're we hear you. We deal with a lot of shipping container variance matters. Suggestion is that you put forward a a text amendment." And at that was in October and at that time I then had and had to get it u submitted by I think January 3rd and and that's where uh started this process. I'm sorry.

Okay. Mr. Pollock, I I just and I'm just going to add to what the applicant has indicated is my recollection of the discussion is you is the commission may be aware the board of adjustment has four findings they have to make in order to grant a variance. Linda, I know I know I know you know that that's more for the the your the other commission members who have not served on the board of adjustment.

Um but one of those findings is that the the the situation for which you're requesting a variance from was not self-created. And what I recall is some of the discussion from the board members was they were struggling with that particular criteria and that was how it came to the apply for a code amendment. And so that that case has been tabled with the board of adjustments since since October. We only accept applications for code amendments four times a year. January was the next elig eligible submission date. So Mr. of carrying submitted by that deadline and when you submit in January you come you know the schedule is to come before this commission in April. So at this point it has been tabled for the board of adjustment and they are they are waiting for the outcome of this application to determine whether or not to go back to that and act on that pending variance. So if if this is approved here and therefore recommended for council to approve it, if it goes through to that process, council approves it, does this then go back to the BOA for variance to ultimately address his violations? If if this amendment goes through, then that application is no longer needed because the the the point of this amendment is to address the four var the variances that he it currently cannot meet the way that that structure is situated. Uh height, maximum, setback, fenestration, and materials.

Okay. Thanks, Linda. Yep. Uh, one other thing that I'm going to note because uh, Patrick uh, did send me a message which was the language I kind of off the cuff suggested in response to Mr. Collier's question earlier. Pat had a good point which is if you're on a corner lot, we could be boxing somebody in with that. So, because then you have two frontages. So, it may be difficult to do that. Like no matter what, if that makes sense. If you put the narrow on one frontage, the longer dimension is then going to be facing the street. There may be a way to word smith that, but I wanted like Pat had a good point and I wanted to call that to your attention if you're considering Pat here.

Pat is over there and and I agree with you on on the corner on the corner lot. I mean, it may be that the only reference we can make is do what Eagles Dare did. put it to the other away from the street and and I know we can't code it that way and we're getting into a lot of details. Sorry. Let's let him. Yeah, let's any any other questions specifically for the applicant. Thank you, sir. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. Cheers. Um what I'd like to propose we go and have the public hearing and then we'll

discuss. Good. So, at this point, I'd like to open the public hearing um for this matter and invite anyone wishing to speak in favor of this amendment to please step forward. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Can't talk them into it. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this amendment? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? All right. Without hearing any M um we Bradshaw, we don't have any comments. Correct. That's correct.

Thank you. With that, we'll close the public hearing and what are the wishes of the commission? Commissioner Collier, I'll start with you as I know I cut you off and I apologize for that.

No, no worries, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My only concern I think what you're doing is great. I don't have an issue with this. I think it is something that um can be used in the in the solely in the CBD. I would not want to see it everywhere, but in CBD I understand why uh and particularly for those uses. Um the the D part um what is it? Uh 18217 now semi-permanent structures uh item D location. I I would want those rewarded a little bit and I'm not sure who's going to write it, but uh because the first one says you got to meet all the building requirements except maximum front setbacks. That doesn't that tell but then the next one is you can put the building in you can put it in front of the principal structure. It may be that that meant to was meant to say the front line of the structure like we have to do when I park my boat at my house sometimes until my HOA sees me. It can't be in front of the front, you know, the front line of my house. Um, so I don't know if that was the intent or not, but I those two are what has has me bothered. I if we can write it and say make it look like Eagle's there, I would be thrilled we'd move this on and we we'll solve his problem, but we'll have to work with the rest later. Um, and I know we don't want to do that.

Commissioner Adams.

So, the the distinction that this really is only allowed by existing structures is an important kind of component to this. Um, architects are funny people and we could figure out ways to make this work in new construction if we weren't careful. So, I appreciate that. I mean, I do think it applies or affords some good flexibility um for utilizing some lots in different ways. I mean, I do share a little bit of the concern that that Richard does about primarily orientation if these things end up in front of a structure. So, I don't know if part of the the conditional either review or some of the location that that orientation um or operation considerations if these things wind up in the front of the building can be considered as part of the conditional review. I I don't know exactly how to say that, but that's the only kind of little thing that gives me any kind of concern or pause as well.

Commissioner Jones,

um I think I've kind of expressed my opinions or um I don't have any concerns. I I do think that we don't want to set a precedent for something that's not right or not proper, but I also think we need to look at different type of structures and their placement and how they can improve properties. Um, just looking outside of our realm of Wilmington, I've seen it used in a lot of different environments. Um, and I would ask, you know, if we approve this tonight, that we study that, look at it as a broader context of things that can be used. Um, I've got housing authority board meeting tomorrow and we're looking at all kind of affordability issues and there's going to be a lot of different types of construction that can provide that. So, I'm not just looking this as a retail, bar, whatever. I think we as a city need to look at um what's appropriate and what other places are doing. Um, but I appreciate y'all bringing this forward and I know months of going through something like this is costly and um I I think it's a great place on that corner. So, I mean that's my two cents. Thanks,

Commissioner Woodruff. Um, I'm all in favor of what you're asking for. You've worked hard to get here. Um, what I seem to be hearing though is not any problem with what you've got, it's what could happen. Uh, you know, if you move that trailer all the way up to the the roads, people be jumping up and down. You're not not your problem right now. Um, whether there's room for future consideration or whatever, I don't know. But as to what you put before us, I think you got a good plan. Commissioner Pollock.

No, I'm good. I'm good. Thank you. Can um Miss Lame, can you go back one screen? So, did I mean I'm good with this, but I did and in the agenda review, we kind of struggled. We we actually were thinking, okay, where else can you do this? And we were we were all doing the experiment of going up and down Third Street trying to pick,

you know, where you could do it. Um, I do wonder if a way to do this, you know, we love the phrase neighborhood character, and I'm wondering if there is if in the approval process, the structure is placed in a way that doesn't pres he he pointed out a good um comment about putting it right on the corner of Third and Red Cross that doesn't impede or endanger traffic flow. safe safety of traffic um doesn't impose upon the character of the neighborhood and complements the appearance of the principal structure something to give staff the ability to say this is a really bad idea to put it here. So I I want to hear you defend how you don't want to use neighborhood character on this one. So I think when we use neighborhood character it's typically in policy language. It is not usually in a regulation because that is very subjective and we as staff we do do not have discretion to make subjective decisions. It has to be an objective criteria. I think you know hearing what the commission is saying Brian Brian and I were trying to think of okay how can we accommodate your requests? I will tell you I'm struggling to come up with a way on the spot that like again like I tried that earlier and Pat immediately went uh you're not thinking about this. If if the commission wants us to work with that, we are happy to sit down and work on that language. I do not think we should try and do this tonight in this meeting because we're inevitably going to forget something, but we're happy to work with the applicant to find something that accommodates what what they're trying to do, but creates the certainty that you are looking for in

terms of reducing potential impacts of the amendment. Okay, I can't let this go by without because the one that we just did last month, neighborhood character was a huge part of that whole conversation about why staff opposed it. But, um, it that that being said, um, what I don't want to have happen is for them to have to stick this out for two more months. So, is there a way um if we vote to recommend approval that staff can work on language to be presented to council for consideration?

We'll we'll do whatever you ask. Understand that the language will not come back to you though. So, like you'd have to give us direction in terms of what you're trying to accomplish and then we will work with the applicant between now and council to come up with language that does that.

I would recommend that we work with the case before us tonight and maybe with our suggestion that as we move forward something that forms this with staff as to something that's something we can work with in the future instead of I mean we don't want to hold them up in the process I think hearing from everybody but I think it's something that needs to be addressed

I I think it needs to be addressed I don't want to hold them up because again I would rather draw the picture around and say build it like this and I would be happy with it. But if we send it forward just like it is without asking staff to change the things, I wouldn't support it with it saying that that thing can sit in front of a building. I also wouldn't want you putting a um if they get a little shed from down the street somewhere at one of the little on the skids and you bring it in and sit it down in front. I wouldn't want that in front of the building either. I don't that that's what bothers me is it's not the material. It's not what it is, where it came from, or what it can be used for. It is I don't want it blocking the principal structure. And I didn't even think about the traffic on the corner. Whoever said that, that's great, too. I think it just needs to be it needs to be back some and it needs to be, you know, away from um away away from the streets. And it's that has nothing to do with look of the building. I we can put shipping containers everywhere and you don't even have to paint them and I'm okay with it. But I don't want them to be in in the wrong spots and in front of your building is not a good place. And even though it's not yours, the way it's written, it could be at my little gas station that um down the street.

One of the examples we talked about was the Shell station across the street. you know, if that changed.

Um, Miss Painter, Mr. Chambers, any suggestions? I mean I I I would suggest that we ask staff to tweak that language in delocation just so we are there's some flexibility in in it not being directly in front the broad side of that box being along the along the street face. If they bring fi if they bring it up five feet off and it's the little narrow part that's fine with me. I just don't want the big 20 foot long piece up there. Actually thinking about Pat's comment to um Linda to your original thing on the corner. Don't we have something like that for gas stations that we changed when they're on when they're on a corner? We did something in the primary street was the like it couldn't face the primary street. We we used to have a requirement that the fuel canopy couldn't be located in front of the primary structure and we removed that from the code.

Um I don't believe there's anything specific to a corner that I recall, but it's been a few years on that one. Okay. Yeah. What what does what does signs have in terms of because they end up in the corners and in the way all the time? there's something about a sign in its location that we may could pull some language from. So, we have vision clearance requirements. So, in terms of the actual corner, we have vision clearance requirements that would that would also apply. So, that that that addresses the So, that would pull it back 45 ft at least.

You can't obstru you can't obstruct the vision clearance at corners and intersections. So, that we do have some requirements for that. And looks like Brian has a possible solution. It's different in the CBD because we have the grid and we have stop signs and stop lights. If it was free flowing one way or the other, vision clearance is typically an issue. But if you have stop conditions on all four intersections, you typically don't have a vision clearance issue as if if it was just a suburban street. We have buildings up on corners all throughout the CBD. And that's the case in point. If you go through the entire grid downtown, all the buildings are up on the corners because you have these the grid system, you have stop conditions, you have slower traffic, you've got pedestrians. That's that's the environment we're describing.

So, um it's a it's a just a different take on vision clearance in the downtown area specifically. Is the do we not still have the 12 foot in newer developments? Do we not have the 12oot set back with the concrete on it now in the CBD in or was that UMX that had the the 12oot walk against the building so you could have the pedestrian walkway? Inx there's a required minimum sidewalk width in front of the building. Yes, sir. Okay. But that's not in that's not vision clearance. That's just a predict we're trying to create a pedestrian space.

Right. Right. Yeah. Could we could we say something to to me to solve it? Just say they can't put the long side against the street frontage. If we do that, I would be okay with it for now. But so which I guess where I'm going is the primary street frontage. The primary street frontage. Whatever the front of the building is considered because it's always addressed off one of the two streets. Yeah, I that I would that would work. But you're addressed off Third Street, are you not? Yeah.

What for the rest of the members of commission, if we if we were to say that you could not put the long side facing the primary street, the street or parallel to the front of the principal structure. Is that that to me is fine. It's just I'm back to if that's not good, then we'll wait for staff to come back with a proposed amendment to the LC and get it right. I'm not sure we have to go that way, but if going that way can get Commissioners, could you speak closer to your microphones, please?

Um I'm just saying pass what we got in front of us. If you want with that addition on the long side, short side, that's fine. And if it's not good then or it's not good by not having in there, we direct staff to come back with a proposed amendment to this language. That's, you know, we've got I assume there's nobody in the pipeline that's going to be affected by a delay of that kind. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Commissioner Adams,

we're beating this up pretty bad, but again, you could do a square building, right? and you still might end up with a situation where either side is is a problem. Right? I I would advocate if there's a way that as part of the conditional review, the orientation when a building the size and/or orientation when a building is in front of the building on the primary frontage is subject to part of the conditional review by staff. That that doesn't mean that just the long side can't be in front of the front of the principal driveway and principal address.

Yes. Okay.

I'm saying it it it can be studied and allowed, but it's Linda's shaking her head. I I think what you're asking I think what you're asking for is is something that gives staff discretion to say no in this that your particular configuration doesn't work. We don't have that discretion unless it's specifically outlined in the code. Um hang on one second. Clearly we're hung up on setting a precedent and and unintended consequences, right, based on accommodating your your need.

It is nothing against what you you're coming here for. I promise you that. I mean, I do like the fact that it is CBD restricted. It's restricted to the uses. So, it's got to be a bar or nightclub or I mean, a restaurant or a nightclub that they're they're used for. Um well and it's and it's ex yeah existing as of that date. Yes prior to May because I I would I would challenge you to look at the zoning map that was given as the exhibit and go up and down there and figure out where you could actually do this and you're going to have some

there's going to be quite a few that you could if somebody stepped out. I mean he stepped out to do Eagle's Dare where he is now. Someone could do it again and if they do it that well I'm good with it because that's what you want them to do. Um, so check, Miss Painter. I I think we may have something. We're We're trying. Okay. They call Pat over. That's what it is. And I'm just going to like I'm not Why didn't y'all call Grace over there, too? Y'all didn't get Grace over. It's her case. That's okay.

And I want to be clear. This is not ordinance language. This is a concept that we would have to put into ordinance language if it addresses what you're looking for. Uh adding a condition that that would require the narrow portion of the semi-permanent structure to face the primary street frontage as identified uh on the CBD map in the land development code. If there is a lot that has multiple primary frontages, um it has to face the you have to fa you would have to face the narrow portion towards the street of a higher functional classification. So if you have if you happen to be on a on a corner where you've got you multiple primary frontages then where the narrow piece has to face the higher functional classification um in terms of arterial collector etc. and then placing the long portion of the the structure as close to the interior side lot line as possible which we think describes what is on the applicant site and address and hopefully addresses some of the concerns about orientation. In general terms, I think your what your language language is is something I would like. Uh I would just say instead of the higher fun, I'd just say the address. We know where their address is and it's typically on the higher classification street downtown. I

I think they have to I think they have to use a technical classification for the roadways address. Am I right on that? the address is um it does not necessarily tied to the the functionality of the street for sure. Okay. With that being said, if someone would like to repeat what Miss Painter just said in the form of a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve agenda item number one. By far this is the longest item we've had this year. Agenda item number one to land development code amendment to allow semi-permanent structures within the CBD subject to conditions. Um this request is reasonable and consistent with the objects objectives and the policies of the following plans adopted by the city of Wilmington. um the create Wilmington comprehensive plan. And this proposed amendment would allow for the adaptive reuse of unique buildings and lots while maintaining the intent of the central business district design regulation design and regulations for a new devel for new development. I also would in my motion ask that we add a add a um uh condition under dloation making it number three to the effect of what Linda just read out in public from the microphone but basically saying that the long the narrow side of the structure must face the primary street unless it's on a corner and if it's on a corner The narrow portion must face the higher traffic roadway classification

uh and and it be located as closely as possible to the interior lot line. Thank you, Mr. Collier. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Very good. I'm not going to ask for any further discussion. Commissioner Jones, how do you vote? Uh, yes. Commissioner Woodruff, yes. Commissioner Pollock, yes. Commissioner Collier, yes. Commissioner Adams, yes. Chair votes I. Passes seven to zero. Chairman Lennon, who seconded that motion. Commissioner Adams. Thank you.

Just point of correction, there's six of you tonight. Ace didn't make it. 6.

Thank you. Hey, thank you for being here and we're sorry it's taking this long. What's up? All right. Thank you. Uh we'll now move on to agenda item number two. request for 136 East Westwood Drive to be reszoned from MH Manufactured Housing District to R15, Moderate Density Single Dwelling District. And our presenting planner tonight is uh Miss Hopkins.

Uh good evening, chair, vice chair, and members of the planning commission. My name is Haley Hopkins. I'm a planner one with our community planning and design team. Um, for your review this evening, I present a general resoning from MH Manufactured Housing District to R15, Moderate Density Single Dwelling District at 136 East Westwood Drive. This application was submitted in midFebruary and has been reviewed by staff and is now at the first public hearing. The site is owned MH manufactured housing and is currently vacant. The allowable applicable uses in the MH district include manufactured housing with maximum height of 35 ft. The proposed zoning in R15 moderate density single dwelling district. The allowable applicable uses in the R15 district include a detached single family home with an accessory dwelling unit. The maximum height would remain at 35 ft. There is existing R15 across Lance Drive to the southeast. The site is located at the intersection of East Westwood Drive and Lance Drive and consists of approximately 15,192 square ft. The site sits about 0.15 miles from the military cutoff multi-use path and is in the vicinity of Food Line, MCS Noble Middle, and the Village at Mayfair condos. These are views of the property from East Westwood Drive and Lance Drive. The site is currently zoned MH manufactured housing district. Zoning districts neighboring the site include urban mixeduse to the north, manufactured housing to the east, R15 to the southwest, and manufactured housing to the south and west. The site is currently vacant. Uses of the surrounding properties include a

vacant site to the north, manufactured housing to the east, south, and west. Staff has reviewed this application's alignment with relevant relevant adopted plans. The create Wilmington comprehensive plan is the only adopted plan that applies to this site. The create Wilmington comprehensive plans growth strategies map identifies areas of opportunity with corresponding policies to guide the look, feel, and use of new development. This site is in a Greenfield sites as multi-use places area of opportunity. However, no policies for greenfield sites as multi-use places apply to this application. The create Wellington comprehensive plan also offers broader policy guidance to shape new development throughout the city. Staff assessed this application with relevant policies and found modest support for the application's alignment with the plan. Key policies that support this resoning from R15, I mean from MH to R15 um focus on the need to encourage neighborhoods of the variety of housing types and price points where new development fits in or enhances a desired character of the neighborhood while allowing for transitional changes. No comments in support or opposition were received for this application. To summarize the application and staff's findings, the site located at 136 East Westwood Drive is currently zoned MH Manufactured Housing District. This application requests reszoning the site to R15 moderate density single dwelling district. R15 zoning exists across Lance Drive to the southeast. Transitioning from MH to R15 would create the opportunity for detached single family home with an accessory dwelling unit. The site is just off of a major roadway and is a five-minute walk from the military cutoff multi-use path. Staff finds this application to align with the recommendations of the comprehensive

plan, particularly policies encouraging neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and price points. Staff finds the request to be reasonable in public interest and consistent with the relevant policies in the create Wilmington comprehensive plan and staff recommends approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Hopkins. Um before we go to questions, just one thing for anybody who's watching on TV, could you go back to the shot that shows the aerial and the picture of the lot? It that to be clear, there's nothing on this site, right?

Correct. I just a request on my part if we could make sure we're using updated aerials. I think it'd be helpful for what's that on the site since the last aerial flight. Okay. All right. Yes. This is our our most recent aerial. Okay. All right. I'm gonna pull it up on Google Earth during the public hearing. All right. Is it not there? They need a new Okay. All right. Uh, let's see. We'll start. Miss Commissioner Jones, you have any questions for staff? No, I I don't. Commissioner Woodruff? No. Commissioner Pollock? No.

Commissioner Adams? Thank you very much. We'll hear from the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Cindy Wolf and I'm here on behalf of the owner. I appreciate Miss Hopkins um thorough synopsis of the project itself. Usually I'll have a presentation, but in this particular case, this is fairly straightforward. The chair had suggested that perhaps I just give a little bit of history. The West Westwood and East Westwood was a mobile home park all the way back during the county period before military cutoff was, you know, anything more than a two-lane road. It was an unusual mobile home park, however, because it was set up basically as an R-15 subdivision. All of the lots both to the north west of Military and down here are generally in the range of about 15,000 square feet. um they were sold to individual owners and it just happened that all of those owners pretty much used mobile homes as their home style for years and years. That has obviously changed. The west westwood turned into arboritum which is a combination of uh business and departments. Um east westwood has transitioned a little bit. We've got the corner lot that was R5 a couple years ago. It's now under construction for four small homes on that. You've got the avenue to the other side of this. I'm not quite sure when the homes that she referred to that are R15 along this back Lance Drive occurred, but again, when the city annexed, they because it was so many mobile homes still on these individual lots, I believe they assigned the zoning district of MH, which is manufactured housing. At this point of the game, my client has removed the manufactured or whatever was there, which I believe it was mobile, but it

was stationary. It wasn't on wheels for any in any point. Um, and if you look on the Google Earth Street View, it is now vacant, but as far as the county's aerial photographs, this is the most recent that there was. So, that being said, my client just wants to build a house and perhaps an accessory dwelling. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. Had I come in here with anything other than an R15, because this lot is it slightly over 15,000 square feet, it's conforming, it would be limited then to a single house and perhaps an accessory dwelling. any other district that I might have asked for would have needed to be conditional because it could have been three R5 lots. So that's sort of the short and sweet of it. We believe that this is consistent. The issue with the loss, I know sometimes we talk about the loss of manufactured housing and potentially more affordable housing options, is that unfortunately this compared to something like Greenwood, which is off of Rights, Ritsville Avenue. Uh there's one or two other manufactured housing districts I believe in the city, but this one in particular being in this location near the avenue, near Mayfair, near landfall, the property values are just not reasonable to justify bringing in a manufactured housing when in our community with hurricanes and everything else. Certainly manufactured housing is built to a code, but stickuilt homes are the preference when you've got high property values and a location like this. So, I'd be happy to answer your questions, but we appreciate the staff's recommendation and hope you'll believe the same. Thank you, Commissioner Collier. Do you have any questions? Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Pollock, Commissioner Woodruff, Commissioner Jones? Um, no. And thank you for that explanation because this this is different than a typical park setting where these are individual R15 lots already essentially. Thank you very much. We'll now open the public hearing for commission planning commission item agenda item number two and ask anyone wishing to speak in favor please come forward. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of item two? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to item two? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Miss Bradshaw, do we have any comments?

We do not.

Thank you. We will close the public hearing. What is the wishes of the commission? What are the wishes of the commission? What is the wish? You know, hearing none, I'm ready to make a motion if the rest of the commission is okay. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that uh you the request for 136 East Westwood Drive to be reszoned from uh MH to R15 uh to be approved. Uh it is in concert with uh the create Wilmington comprehensive plan. We consider its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest. Um the proposal allows for compatible development that is consistent with the surrounding area. Therefore, the planning commission I would put a motion to approve uh to to recommend approval.

Thank you. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Pollock. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Collier, yes. Commissioner Adams, yes. Commissioner Pollock, yes. Commissioner Woodruff, yes. Commissioner Jones, yes. Chair votes I. Passes six to zero. Six to zero unanimously. Thank you. Good luck.

Very good. Um, under the uh old business, Commissioner Pollock, do you have an update on the subcommittee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, our subcommittee on on process, which is myself, Commissioner Jones, and Commissioner Collier, uh, met last week and kind of said, "Okay, let's talk about where where do we want to go explore? Where do we want to try to look for improvement? We we talked a lot about, you know, the fact that the city does have a lot of processes very well documented and they and and and I applaud them for that. But the thing that we we've pretty much decided that we wanted to do was want to take a look at the intake portion of their processes which is if you think about it is you know something comes in how does this how does the staff decide what comes to the planning commission and that can range from you know a straight vanilla you know conditional resoning to longer range projects that that are ultimately going to go to council. So that's where we want to go spend our time uh initially. So I'll I'll stop there and ask my my peer committee members to jump in as well. Commissioner Jones,

um we had a great meeting and I think you summarized well what we discussed. I just think um there's a lot of knowledge that needs to be given to the general public, to applicants, etc. and we we talked about that, but I think with everything that's going on with a lot of things in the city right now, um I think it's something that we need to look at and study and discuss more. I mean, we had a great kickoff meeting, but um we take projects through the process and kind of have our own opinion. Um, if you're an owner, I'm sure, you know, a property owner, you have an opinion, but I think it's important to inform the public as to what these owners, property owners processes that they have to go through. And it's not just a city or a county approval. It's storm water, you know, transportation. And I I think when I go to a lot of these meetings and hear comments, I think people just think there's a box that you check and um you know, and talking about affordability, I I I get on that subject a lot, especially with the residential side, but in order for us to have more affordable housing, we're going to have to look at our processes. And um and and I don't say that we skirt any rules or regulations, but it costs a lot of money when somebody's going through a process and they're having to hire consultants and they have to come back to our board or city or county. Um so I I appreciate our initial discussions. I

just think it's going to take some really input and delving into and some insight from the city um as to what we can do to make it I don't even want to say easier but more transparent and more um there's I I I do a lot of community hearings and they're not easy and people have perceptions and not that we're going to necessarily change those perception. ceptions, but I think education is a good piece of it. So, that's what I have to say. Thanks, Commissioner Collier.

Yeah, I I think the education piece is going to be the biggest uh the biggest windfall in a process we're going to do is to to get everyone to understand how the process works. I do think the city has really good processes overall. Um, and I think that there are ways that we can improve it. I think the intake side is one way that we can start looking at it. um and see what we see what we come up with and you know maybe it's something they've already already thought of but at this at least we're going through it and we're looking at it and if there is something that we think we can do then we'll talk with the get with the staff and work that out but I appreciate uh I appreciate uh your your summary because it was very very good. Um I do agree with with Miss Jones on the on the affordable housing side. I I would love to find out if there's something in our process, whether it's red reductions of fees or some way we can help encourage or or or move move the needle a little bit more on uh on the affordable housing or workforce housing side. So, but yeah, thank you.

So, our Mr. chair. Our our goal then is um you know, let me work with the staff and let's you know, schedule up the next the next follow-up meeting to to start digging down on this. And I and I know it's not like the staff is just sitting there waiting with baited breath. I mean, I give them hell of a lot more credit than that. I know they're busy. Um but we'll we'll figure out a next, you know, ne a date that we can get together, you know, and then be able to come back and and go from there. So,

thank you and I appreciate all three of you all spending time on that. Um, just as a reminder, I have five meetings left before I term out. So, I look forward to the process revision around conditionals districts and making it easier for somebody to modify a site plan. Um, that being said, I just for everybody, I will not be at the meeting on the 17th, a pre-arranged trip, but you all will have a good discussion and I'll follow up with um, uh, Miss Painter and Mr. Chambers after the fact. Any other items from the commission? Commissions from sta commissions items from staff? I'm sorry. Did you have something, Commissioner Adams? I was just going to say it was good to see some new faces tonight and meet some new people and I also noticed some tweaking of the graphics and sort of the presentation. It It's good. It's it's got some clarity and it Thank you for saying it's nice.

So you you are going to be seeing new faces. So, I'm sure everyone here has heard about the overall city uh realignment or organizational realignment, but the reality is we were already planning a realignment of our own in the planning department uh that we were originally targeting for July, but given given where we were with some staffing, the organizational realignment go going into place was a good time for us to do it. So one of the thing changes that we're making is that uh items that come before you as the planning commission these are really legislative decisions. They're based on policy. Uh so we are going to be transferring the coordination and project management of applications from the planning commission from Pat's team which does uh development review and permitting over to what we are now calling our community planning and design team uh formerly known as comprehensive planning. And so you are going to be seeing new faces. Grace actually is one of Pat's folks. Um but she had expressed an interest in taking a a case before the commission and so she's been working on this for a while. I think she did a great job tonight as did Haley. Uh but you will be seeing seeing more of Haley Hopkins, Hillary Taylor, uh and Tucker Cherry uh are going to be your three main people that are going to be presenting to you in the future. And then as we need assistance, we will be we will be obtaining that. Uh Pat's team will still be involved during the review of particularly conditional districts because a component of that is compliance with land development code requirements and that's their area of expertise. But on the community planning side, their their expertise and their specialty lies in policy analysis. They are actually the ones who've been doing the policy analysis for the last three years uh on projects that come before you. So every time you see that is it strong support modest support that is coming from that team they they go through that every application. So we

thought it was appropriate to shift over this responsibility to them. So thank you for being very welcoming to them tonight. I appreciate that. Uh but you will be seeing more of them. And other than that we do not have uh any updates because as Brian pointed out this is the rare occasion when your meeting is happening before the city council meeting. So the two items you considered at your last meeting are being heard on t the this coming Tuesday evening. Very good. Thank you. Um no further business. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn?

So moved. All in favor? I thank Thank you all very much.