Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You don't have to flip back, but where you showed the three pictures of the property. I'm sorry? Where you showed the three pictures of the property, you don't need to scroll back. Are all three of those homes that you showed coming, going to be coming down, or is that something the applicant would better address?

Were there any significant design changes for the layout or density following either the community meeting or the technical review with staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Wolf, the only question I had would be the access on canal and then going into your site. Is that a hammerhead for firetruck for internal to your site or is it at the end of canal? How does that integrate?

And are you and the applicant, I mean, I think at the end in our conditions, it mentioned acceptance of the site plan, of course, but then the elevations, is that accurate?

Okay. And I'm assuming, I think I probably know the answer, but just for the public good, all lighting ordinances and things that would apply by right to R20 would apply to your site as well.

Ms. Wolfe, I saw that or heard you had a community meeting, is that correct? Yes. About how many folks were at that?

They were all from summer rest? Pretty much, yes. And so the drainage, I heard you say you have good infiltration and seasonal high, which is great. It's underground, are you gonna put some level of pervious concrete or pervious pavers there?

Right. I see the 75-foot COD marked, and you've got the building area, so you're, I presume, under all of the square footages for the 75 feet?

And I'm certainly glad to see that you saved as many trees as you did. It seems that the bulk of what you're taking down are really right in the apex of the driveway. I don't know what size those are, but...

Okay, great. All right, thank you very much. Commissioner Adams?

I think Richard answered or you addressed one of my questions which was going to be tree save considerations. You're going to recombine or recombine and then newly subdivide this so that it's a lot, a parcel for each building?

Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to look at what, you know, the document that was sent in, shared with us at 3, and that's on me. That's not...

Could you kind of, you know, crib notes, what were the concerns that the person sent in, and how would you address them? I just, you know, just for the record, I just, like I said, I didn't get a chance to look at it.

The other question I have is, and I want to make sure I understood, because I think my fellow commissioners, a couple have brought it up. There is going to be an HOA here?

Yeah, several of my questions were already covered by the other end. The only thing I had a question about was the parking. Is it the garage and one space out front?

Cindy, the only question that I saw just a second ago, flipping through it now, the water main on Canal Street is a two-inch main. How are we providing fire flow?

But I'm not the engineer, so I can't say the answer. But no, there is a fire hydrant. Where is the hydrant at? I'm assuming it's on the aerial picture.

Just past the buildings in the drive-thru or just before the mixed-use building?

Okay. Pretty, too, nice and red. All right, thank you.

I'm good. I'm very familiar with the street. I think it's a good use for what's there and what's happening there, especially with having the light at the end of the street. I'm good.

Commissioner Adams? I appreciate the site plan, seeing the tree save, and looking at how this was subdivided. A tale of caution, though, relying on artificial intelligence and not architectural intelligence. We need to be a little careful about that because you could box yourself into something that may be overly specific, but I support this project.

Thank you. Yeah, I support the project too. I think it's a good use in this area. I may would have had a different opinion if a lot of the summer's rest folks had come out. But seeing that they are not, I am fine with it. I think it is really nice, really good use. Thank you.

Commissioner Cofer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this one hits close to home for me from personal anecdote, personal living experience. I'm actually in that. neighborhood node to the south of these, the high impact zone and then the enter But nevertheless, I mean, I drive past that intersection several times a day, and I think that the design, as I will echo my colleagues up here's sentiments on the design and taking careful attention to tree production, the stormwater plan, of course, that's gonna come with this type of project, and just paying careful, discerning attention to the sensitivity o

I'll make a motion to approve. Let's see here. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve agenda item number one, the request to rezone 120 and 124 Canal Street from R20 Legacy Residential District to R7 Conditional District, moderate density residential. The Planning Commission deems this request as consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans adopted by the City of Wilmington, the Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan, The Planning Commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides greater environmental pro

Nothing at this point. I'll wait for the applicant.

Could you go back a slide to your conditions? One more slide. So to reach the 17 units per acre and the ONI density, would that require the CDMU overlay kind of design aspect to that?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Hopkins, I can't put my fingers on, what exactly is the maximum number of residential units allowed?

OK. Thank you. That was what I was curious about. And this TIA update that would be required I mean, it's a procedural question. Is that something that just comes down the road? When does that all occur?

And then the last question would just be, I may have, I couldn't quite hear Mr. Woodruff's question, but I may be repeating it. Was there any discussion on the cap being eliminated with the 10% workforce housing?

While we're on traffic, though, the medical office before, their intensity was 64.2. Was that a limit, or was that just how much has been built? Okay. So the 213, the proposed 213 change, that is a max number two, or that's a proposal, or it's just a max they could get with the ONICD?

And I agree with Chairman Lennon, too. It is more of a traffic, it's lessening of traffic more so than it is adding to it, I believe.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, Mr. Nichols, the first question that just pops off the page is why not do the workforce piece that eliminates all the residential barriers?

I guess a follow-up question, Mr. Nichols, would be then is this, I mean, because it seems like a really specific number of 208. Is that meeting the code today? Does that bring?

I guess, and this may just be a staff question, would be because the numbers are so specific, 208, would that be what's allowed today under the non-2013 code, the updated 2021 LDC and comp plan, would 208 be suitable to this particular site? Again, it just seems specific, and then it's just curious that this recommendation that all residential density for the whole project, it sounds like, would be eliminated. You'd have no ceiling, as many residential units as you want if you did the 10% for the 15 years designated as workforce. Those two things are just kind of juxtaposing, at least in my bu

Thank you, Ms. Painter. That makes sense. You're doing the calculations based on this site, and per your calculations, 200A is the maximum allowed. But if the applicant decided to, on this site alone, not all of Barclay, do the workforce piece, then there would be no cap? Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Got it.

Commissioner Adams? When was the last time that we saw the site and looked at it amending the conditional use district or the conditional uses?

So if what's so different in your mind about 20 to 2013 in this original master plan, when this came before us three years ago, Why weren't we talking about this density issue then and we are now?

Okay. I did have a question about the number of units with the overlay, so thank you for that, Linda. It's unusual for us to see conditional requests without site plans. Yes, sir. And, you know, you talk a lot about numbers of units and you talk a lot about the ability to integrate with circulation, both pedestrian as well as vehicular, but it's, I mean, until you sort of see how that actually works, how are we supposed to determine that, you know, 208, 441, whatever number of units that you could do is being done in a smart way from a design standpoint?

Just to point out for you, his question is that number of years, it's hard to project what the trends are going to be and how people are going to live and things change and why we would go ahead and rezone it now is because when clients come or are interested in a piece of property, they factor in the time that it takes to go through the process. The question I had was on the tree line behind Wilmington Health? Is that like construction staging? There's several, it looks like, buildings right there on the bottom right?

Is that the new Wilmington Health building?

I'm just guessing what that is, because it looks like it's an undeveloped parcel with things around the tree line, and I'm guessing that Monteith or whoever did their construction staging back there, but it's not really relevant.

That's it. I mean, you answered my other two questions down the line.

Mr. Nichols, I guess the one question, the overall 1,375, is that the total number or something thereabouts? That number's not changing, correct? So what you're doing is you're being able to move some of the density into this one area more so than what you would have in 2013 or 2018 or 2023. Is that correct or incorrect?

But his conditions would not be outside of the conditions previously, correct? Like the 1375. So you're saying 1375 in 2013 would have been a total, but today, if we agreed with this, it would be 1375 plus, I know 208 is just a number, but plus 208, correct?

That's right. All right. And I have no qualms that what's going to be built would be built in a professional manner. That is very evident of what's out there. I think everyone's just more discussing how the density side of it's going to be done. And if there was a limit on, if you said, okay, we're only going to go to 150, I don't know what the number is, but a number. that may make everyone more palatable. You also changed the uses to all uses in O&I except that, which the ones you accept that I thought were really good. So I don't know, I don't have any issues with what's going on, but I do

Is that the 44 you were talking about, is that all that's left on the third? I'm sorry, Matt, I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, no.

And I agree. It is ideal for more density. I am not absolutely not debating that one with you at all. I think it's just how it seems that you're adding on the total that was approved in 2013 and we're adding to it. We're going over it artificially. And site plan or not, we're still going up over the cap that was agreed upon. So I'm not sure how to reconcile that in my mind. But you're right. This is absolutely the perfect place to put the density. You can go high if you want to. I think it's wonderful.

Would this be the last, in general, the last parcel that you would want to put that density on? Because right now what we're talking about only applies in yellow. That's correct. In the yellow boundary, right?

Will we only apply the 17 dwelling units an acre to the two green treat areas and not to the Wilmington Health parcel?

So in your picture, you've got a big overall yellow area that is. I don't know what that acreage is right now, but. So then there's seven and a half left to be developed or thereabouts, eight acres, something like that. Would that 7.5 times 17 be all that you put it on? You wouldn't try to apply 17 times the entire yellow boundary?

But if we're talking about density on an area, the density is calculated on either the total area or a part of it. So if you put 17 units an acre on seven acres or seven and a half, that's the 208 we're talking about. But if you do the 12, it's...

As long as you tell me you're going to limit it to 17 times 7.5, I'm okay with that. But I don't want it to come back to that we're doing 17 times 12.

Well, I think what you're hearing from up here is everybody's expecting now 208 times 17 because it's, I mean, yeah, because that's seven and a half acres. But I know if we're approving it, it is for the entire yellow area. Correct. And you can put that whole density on your seven and a half acres. It's not like you couldn't. I mean, you can go higher. I'm all about height. I like it. I think it's great. I just want to be clear on what we're approving and everyone else is approving, understanding it too.

Where we're at, I don't have any issue with the density there, honestly. All I'm saying is so everybody understands, we're not talking about 208. So if everyone gets in their mind, okay, we can probably deal with that, it could be more than 208 is all I'm bringing up. I think density there is phenomenal, I do. I know that the water sewer's there, I know it's the right place for it, and I know the height would be okay there. This isn't being subdivided out as a single parcel, correct?

Out of the yellow and the end of the yellow?

What is the height limit on buildings in this zoning? Is it 45? I believe it is.

Yeah, unless you do the step back completely, okay.

Thank you. I take back the last half hour of your life while I talked about something that made no difference.

My question is actually more towards Commissioner Collier, which is, because listening to your dialogue with Mr. Nichols, that was kind of what I was looking to hear a little bit of. And I'm wondering, is it possible, and Matt, if you could go back a couple screens. Right there.

Is it possible, because I understand your point in spades, that says, you're limiting the density to, it's almost like if you draw an artificial line, I don't even know what that street is there, but it's the, where it says the future development, is there a way to put a condition in this approval that cordons off that future development block as the density? Is that what you're looking for?

Well, that's what I was asking originally, because I thought that I didn't do the math well enough in my head. I was thinking that that area times 17 was 208. And then the other corner up where the Wilmington Health Building is, it's still in this yellow, the other 4.8 acres. I did a bad math calculation. So the 208 is the total number they could put in on this yellow block, period.

Okay. Unless I'm misreading something now. You know, Matt, I guess the only question I would really have is, and it's been asked two or three times here, is, you know, at some pieces along this discussion, this has felt like a discussion for a general rezoning versus a conditional rezoning. I mean, it's kind of just the way the discussion's gone on. but I clearly understand the conditional piece. So I guess I'm okay with directionally because obviously your clients have demonstrated over the years, the quality and the building. So it was a little confusing to me as I was trying to, visualize w

So that's why it's drawn the way it's drawn. Okay. And I appreciate my fellow commissioners. Great questions for me as I've been trying to listen and get my head around this thing. So Mr. Chairman, I'm good for now.

I'm trying to simplify this in my mind, Matt. So let me make a couple declarative statements and see if this applies. You're asking, I think, two things, right? You're asking, and if we could go back to the one where you have the yellow, you know, the cordoned off area in the yellow. And again, Amy, are you driving or I'm not sure who is. It just hit a tree, yeah. But I guess I can do it without the visual. I think you're asking two things. That's good enough. So first of all, you're asking the area that you have defined in yellow to create a, because multiple people own properties out here, y

Okay. Okay. And in that ask, you're saying, you know, I've heard the numbers, you know, 17 times 12 or 12 point something. But you're asking that, you know, and if that's the city code, then more than happy to adhere to that city code. Yeah, I think that's part of what you're asking.

Okay. The second thing I think you're asking, which is confusing, I know me and I think several of my commissioners, fellow commissioners, is the second piece, you're referencing the 1375 cap, and you've gone into a lot of detail. Would it have been simpler to just say, I know that based on that master plan, that's going to take the number of 1375, whatever it is, up to 1,500, just your round numbers. and you're asking the city to say, that's okay. I think that's what you're asking.

and the condition that you're referencing is nothing more than the 1375 cap. Yes. That's it in a nutshell.

I'm just trying to simplify the ask. Yes. In my mind so that, you know, to consider it. And I think you've answered my first question that says, you know, separate O and I for this as you've cordoned off. Right. And I want to develop the tree, the pieces that are, you know, these in your picture that are treed. want to have the ability to do residential within the city code, which is the 17 times 12 point something, 208. and could get bigger if you do the different calculations. So that's the first ask. And I think what's confused us is without a plan, without a site plan, the second piece, at

And that's why I just want to get clear in my mind, keep it real simple what you're asking. Yes, sir. You're asking two things. That's all you're asking.

You've answered my two questions, so I'll go silent and defer back to the Chair.

Commissioner Cofer? Sorry, I apologize. Not trying to belabor anything, but you made a few comments that I'm just curious to get some clarity on. Yes, sir. The CDMU has come up several times. So how does that fit into this discussion of rezoning to O&I for this parcel?

And this would have to just jump over to staff. So how does that change the complexion of what we're talking about? When we go from O and I with 208 units based on your acreage calculations, no site plan for the structure, but conditions that the applicant self-imposed, how does CDMUM fit into this? What does that look like?

Is there anything else significant or salient that we would need to know about CDMU at that point to evaluate this properly?

Okay. Thank you, Brian. Yes, sir. We've talked a little bit about the 1375 from 2013, and maybe it was arbitrary. I'm sure it had some kind of purpose. But if you do the math on 302 acres, it looks like it's about 4.5 units per acre. And this 208 addition would make you at around 5.5 units per acre, which kind of lends itself into somewhere between R7 and R10. If we were to rezone the whole site today, 302 acres, between R7 and R10 it would be this calculation if we applied it to the whole project. I just wanted to make that little comment and see if you, I guess part of why this feels a littl

So the opportunity exists for your client to sell this property once it goes through entitlement, but you wouldn't build the product, just like Wilmington Health is not building that. I mean, just like your client's not building the Wilmington Health building. That fair to say?

Well, I think you made a couple points, and I understand to advocate for the client and the family and the company. I get that. But I think in fairness, and to be candid and frank, it could be sold, and they aren't the ones who built it.

And those conditions will follow the property.

Yeah. I think that was all my questions or comments. I mean, beyond just echoing, I think Commissioner Pollack had mentioned, I mean, this is very similar to a general rezoning, but it's also similar to you kind of having to do your own infill development within your master plan. So thank you.

I'm good. Y'all asked every question I could ever think about asking.

Nothing further to add. Commissioner Adams.

One clarifying question for staff. This would be handled under the regional stormwater design for all of Barclay West, right?

Okay. It took me a while to get comfortable with this because, again, as a rule of principle, I like seeing a site plan generally, so we have some accountability around design, but knowing the design guidelines of the Barclay-West master plan, the ONI, the CDMU site plan guidelines, It took me a little bit also just to, I had to put my brain around what could go there because we're not seeing what a specific proposal would be. And the napkin sketch to me says, if you take Wilmington Health's building and parking, you're going to wind up with plus or minus eight-ish acres of developable land an

Other than to say I do agree, the density is where it needs to be in this project. Barclay is a great project. Never was that in any question. I wanted to make sure the density numbers were what we were talking about, but I will support it wholly. Thank you.

I think the... I mean, it's... It's just the approach and it's the procedure and it's having these come up before us in different cases outside of a bubble plan, outside of a master plan. How do you inject it inside the master plan but still evaluate it the same way you would others? I think the applicant asked several times or the counselor asked, what is your concern about putting this much density on that site? Well, I don't think you've heard, not a whole lot, but it's procedural, it's process. not to say that you're establishing some sort of odd precedent, but 208 in this site within othe

I'll make a motion to approve. Just give me one second. I'll make a motion to approve agenda item number two, the request to rezone 524 South College Road.

Rezoned from ONICD Office and Institutional Conditional District to a new ONICD Office and Institutional Conditional District. The Planning Commission finds this request to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans adopted by the City of Wilmington.

I just wanted to correct that. Do I need to read that address? Are you okay with the right? Sir? Okay, can somebody write that down for me? I couldn't hear.

I got it right here. The address is going to be 2225 Stone Crop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard. Okay, let's start over. I make a motion to approve agenda item number two, the request to rezone 2225 Stone Crop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard from an existing ONICD office and institutional conditional district to a new ONICD office and institutional conditional district. The Planning Commission finds this request is consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans adopted by the City of Wilmington. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission c

My only question at this point is you said it could go up to 96 feet?

There's not many buildings that are even 45 feet in that area.

Yeah, I would work in there. My suggestion would be to condition it to the 45 feet. The uses, I'm fine with. So that's my only question.

Could you go back to the slide that had the allowable uses for the two zonings? Is there anything about how the building is being used today in the LI zoning that is a non-conforming use that is triggering a desire to go ONI?

I'm going to try and phrase this as politely as I can. I drove by there today, and there were names on the door, which look like occupants. As I'm looking at your presentation, it appears to me that these occupants that are already there are more ONI-centric. So are we, to put it bluntly, are we asking forgiveness, but to rezone? I mean, it sounds like the people you want in there are already there.

I'll just say I kind of appreciate the honesty and the transparency around maybe what is triggering this, so thank you for doing that, and I think this is a great thing to support and do.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be prepared to make a motion. Please. As for agenda item number three, the request to rezone 3301 Burnt Mill Drive from light industrial to ONI, office and institutional. Recommend approval. This request is consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans adopted by the City of Wilmington to create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed rezoning is consistent with adjacent properties and is compatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, the Planning Comm

This may not be my last meeting from what I've heard from staff, so I'll save any of those comments for the next one. But for those of our peers and colleagues and friends here on the commission, that this will be your last meeting. I've most enjoyed our time together. What a great think tank that this body is. I think it's just so well-rounded. I like the fact that we uh we don't all agree and even when we do agree we come at the discussion from so many different angles that it's just i think a think tank is the best way to put it i think it's a great service to the city council Hopefully, th

Not a lot of comments. I would like to thank the outgoing commission because I do believe that we have been a very, very good group together, and we do think about things in different ways, which makes it For good discussion, sometimes way too lively and way too long, but good discussion. Chairman Lennon, you've done a great job this last year. We appreciate everything you've done and certainly hope you'll sit out a year and come back.

It's hard to pile on much more than that, but thank you, John. Thank you, Ron. John, it's been great to serve as your co-chair, so I wish you both well. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Pollack.

A couple of things before I get to the personal comments. To the staff, can we consider changing a policy and the policy is simply we wait till like 3 o'clock on the day of a meeting to and put out any comments that come in on the website. Is it possible to change the procedure that says the comments come in and end of business the day before so then the morning of a meeting you can forward those out so we have a little bit more time to look at them? Just something to consider, process change. Is it?

Okay. The second thing is I understand you've had a staff addition.

I guess then, John? You know, thank you for your leadership. You know, I know I've kidded you before that says, are we ever going to have anything to do? Because some of our meetings have been pretty light. But I appreciate your sense of humor. I appreciate your guidance. And thank you for your, you know, your custodian of the chair. I appreciate that very much. Ron, we're going to miss the carpooling, buddy. But you only live around the block, so we'll stay in touch. But thank you for your service. I appreciate it.

Yes, thank you to both of y'all. John, thank you for serving as chair. I'm sure I'll see you very often. Ron, I hope I get to see you often. I've enjoyed working with you and getting to know you better.

Can I just add, to Linda's point about the Cape Fear Bridge, take a look at a replay of last night's Council meeting. I talked to Linda before. I thought she did an excellent job of, here is really what option A is, and here's really what option B is. And it was a very, you know, nonpartisan, very objective, this is what it is, this is what it isn't. So I would, you know, I would encourage you if you get a chance, and even though I know, Ron, you just said it's not things you're going to be watching on TV, take a look at that because it was a really nice job done.

I'm the nerd who watches most of them. What's that? I said I'm the nerd who watches most of them.

You're right with me, but yeah. So yeah, take a look at it. It was a nice job, Linda.