Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and I'd like to call the city of Wilmington Planning Commission uh for Wednesday, February 4th meeting to order and ask that we all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. flag of America to the Republic for it stands one nation indivisible.

Thank you. Um just for the record, uh Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Collier are both excused this evening for um attendance. Uh, Mr. Attorney, hearing that, do we have a quorum? Yes, Mr. Chair.

Excellent. Thank you. Uh, the planning commission advises city council on applications for reasonzoning, land development code amendments, street closures, and long range plans and policies. The 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. All matters requiring commission action 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 the public hearing, 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. 10-minute time will be allowed for public comment in favor of an item and a 10-minute time will be allowed for public comment in opposition to an item. A staff member will track the 10-minute time periods and will notify the speaker at the five minute mark, one minute mark, and verbally call time when 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 on the city of Wilmington's website. All comments received prior to 3 PM 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, I'm assuming we didn't have any.

Thank you. All votes will be roll call votes after the appropriate after the proper motions are made and consistency statements read into the record. The chair will state the outcome of the vote and the action. Reszoning requests that receive an unfavorable recommendation from the planning commission may be appealed by the applicant to the Wilmington City Council. Appeal should be in the form of a letter submitted to the city clerk within 10 days of this hearing. Any item that is appealed will tenatively be heard by city council at the March 17, 2026 meeting. Very good. Um, moving on to the minutes. We did not have a meeting in January. So these meetings are from December 3rd, 2025. What is the will of commission? Do we have any comments, questions, [snorts]

Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Um, yeah. The only observation is it's going to be hard for me to vote for the minutes because I don't think we have minutes. This looks like this looks like a presentation outline. It doesn't there's these aren't minutes. So, from my perspective, it's kind of hard for me to to cast a vote one way or the other. So that's that's my observation.

Okay. Anybody else questions, comments? Um, Miss Painter. So, as was noted, there is a change to how the minutes are being presented to you. Technically speaking, minutes are generally required to have who was present, what the action, what the action was, what the vote, who voted which way. In terms of the the in-depth discussion, that is a style that's been used traditionally here. We have we are recommending and are opting to go with a more summarized format of the discussion. The more narrative we put in, the more potential there is for unconscious bias of the person preparing those that those minutes to slip into that record. Uh the minutes are one record that we keep of these meetings. We also have videos which show the full discussion. So anyone who is interested in looking to see exactly you know what was stated by whom when is all available online uh with an easy click of the button to click go to that particular item and that discussion

is just a quick question on that is this consistent is this for the planning department or is this go beyond that? So at this point this is how we are preparing minutes for our planning all the commissions that we staff by the planning part planning department.

Okay. Commissioner Plet let me react Linda the uh your comment about you know been used before or whatever. I mean I've been on here since 12 12 of uh what is it 21 and have never seen any format other than what we've been using. Number two, um that's why we review the minutes as at nauseium so the commissioners can look and see as a potential if somebody's bias in transcribing. That's why we do that. And again, this any any board commission that I've ever been a part of, the these wouldn't pass muster. These these would not be considered a um how do I want to say it? an an accurate memorial of the meeting that it's supposed to be representing. Okay. When you use words like um commission members ask clarifying questions related to that's pretty broad statement. All right. And then you got some bullets. Like I said, this would be something that I would use if I was presenting a uh you know to a discussion group and these would be guidelines for the discussion. I I just personally don't view these and in my experience I don't view these as an accurate memorial of the meeting that it's intended to represent because what you because your comment to finish the point your comment basically implies that if you want more go look at the the um go look at the uh um video and I assume I guess that that applies to us as well. We're supposed to be approving these minutes so that they become an accurate public record. All right? That's why we do this. If if we didn't, you know, if that wasn't a requirement, this would probably, you know, I guess pass muster. But, you know, we don't do that. So, I'm just saying that from my

perspective, these don't reflect the minutes, you know, the meeting that this represents. So, okay. Um, thank you.

What is the will of the rest of the commission? Prior to making a motion, I'll make a comment. Um, and I have seen other municipalities drift to this style of minutes because it it is, you know, live streamed and and it is on record in a very high high-profile transparent way. um you know the the potential to be misqued in the minutes when those are brought back up in my case six seven years after the event which is it's actually right now in a a planning commission meeting we had at Rightsville Beach that's you know because of a violation of a cup or an SUP it it's back in the public's domain so I actually prefer this type of minute recording [laughter] playing devil's advocate or angel's advocate or what have you. Um, but my question would just be I mean what are the mandates again just to review and where do those mandates come from from the state governing how a municipality conducts business and city conducts business in this regard. You you mentioned that those the ingredients that are required just can you repeat those ingredients to the minutes that are required and who requires those?

Typically those come from Robert's rules of order in terms of what of what the minimum requirements for minutes are there. My understanding of Robert's rules and our attorney is is is reviewing this now is they are not intended to be a verbatim um report of the discussion that happened. And you know, and I think that the the minutes have been kept, I mean, in my time on the commission in and very vague and nuanced paraphrases, which I find more [clears throat] comfortable. Um, but perhaps there's a meat in the middle with Robert's rules as to what the minimums are required to what, you know, may be more palatable um to Commissioner Pa.

Yeah. Commissioner Kofer, and I respect your opinion. I truly do. I value your opinion. Um I'm not sure Robert's rules of order is going to say this is exactly how minutes should be done. I mean, you know, one of the I look through the lens of when we had our round table or our planning session with the city council, we talked about several items. One which I'll cover later. One of them was communication. And this this looks like nothing more than a this this feels like a takeaway. I mean, I just personally I can't support it. So, but I I appreciate your opinion. I do.

Just real quick, um Mr. Chair, just thinking in real time, I mean, you could potentially use with um AI evolving so quickly. I mean, I'm sure that these videos are going to be able to be transcribed in adium. So, I think tech may help with the old days of um you know, dictation and typing and things of that nature. Thank you. Sir,

if I may, I [clears throat] don't have the full copy of Robert's rules. I did not anticipate that issue didn't have with me. Uh, but I do have a summary motion and uh it does state in response to a question, is it necessary to summarize meeting matters discussed at the meeting in the minutes of that meeting in order for the minutes to be complete? Uh the answer with this version is not only is it not necessary to summarize matters discussed, it's improper to do so. Amendments are a record of what is done at a meeting, not a record of what was said. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Kofheer, I believe you made a motion at the beginning of that.

Uh yes, make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay, we have a second. Second. Commissioner Adams is seconded. Um all those in favor? I I All those opposed? No.

Thank you. Um and I apologize. I forgot. I I was going to thank Miss Bradshaw. There was there was a comment which I think was good. I think I had a request based on some extensive conversation we had around porches on the last item. Um and and that was noted and I appreciate that. The thought being that hopefully a council member would see that and find out what all hub was about. So, thank you. Um any old business at at the um items from commission? U Commissioner Pollock will give us a summary of uh the subcommittee meeting that they had. Any other items of old business? Any items of new business? Okay. Um, I guess I should probably not move to adjourn the meeting without

Yeah. [laughter] Sorry, Miss Wolf. Uh, very good. We'll call for the first item. Um, this is new business. Item number one, conditional district reszoning, excuse me, [clears throat] property containing 386 acres located at 5324 Writesville Avenue from R15 moderate density single single dwelling district to R5 medium density mixed residential district conditional district for a residential development. And uh Zach Smith will be presenting on behalf of staff.

[clears throat]

Good evening, chairs and members of the commission. This is public hearing number one, a conditional reszoning located at 5324 Riceville Avenue. The site is located along Riceville Avenue and Park Avenue containing approximately 0.38 acres. The subject site is currently developed with a single family dwelling and attached accessory dwelling unit. Uh this map shows the general vicinity surrounding the request as well as the existing conditions of the subject property. These are photos of the existing conditions surrounding the subject property. These are photos of the adjacent properties and land uses. Commercial uses are located to the south. Residential areas are located to the north, east, and west of the site. In front of you is the existing frontage along the Riceville Avenue corridor. This exhibit also illustrates the existing conditions along the Riceville Avenue corridor. This exhibit shows the existing setbacks along Riceville Avenue as well as the setbacks for the proposed development. As shown in the exhibit before you, the proposed new structure is inconsistent with the predominant setback along the block face. The site is currently zoned R15, moderate density single dwelling district. The site is bordered by OI to the north, CB and OI to the south, R15 to the east, and O and I R5 to the west. The applicant proposes to reszone the subject property to R5 CD, medium density mixed residential conditional district for a residential development. The applicant is proposing two conforming R5 lots, which includes subdividing an existing lot and constructing a new single family dwelling with an attached accessory dwelling unit in front of an existing single dwelling home on Ritsville Avenue. Staff has highlighted the potential critical re critical root zone impact of

the trees on site as well as the existing drawings orientation towards Riceville Avenue. The subject property is located in a neighborhood scale infield development designated area of opportunity on the growth strategies map. The proposal includes placing a new single dwelling home with an attached accessory drilling unit in what is currently the front yard of an existing single dwelling home on Riceville Avenue. Previous resonings in this area have created new residential lots in the rear of the existing structures preserving the existing development pattern along Riceville Avenue. The location of the new structure would also be inconsistent with the predominant setback along this block face. Staff believes the proposed zoning amendment is inconsistent with the create Wilmington comprehensive plan and recommends the no. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have and the applicant is here as well.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Are there any questions from members of the commission? Commissioner Adams, you made reference about part of the rationale being uh inconsistency with setback along Rightsville Avenue, any of the adjacent houses or properties. if they wanted to redevelop either just a single lot, they could tear a house down and build it within the setback by right closer to Rightilaw Avenue than those houses currently exist today. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions from commission? Commissioner Pollock Z question. um as I go through different things and what I find interesting and and as I read the staff's position and it and what the applicant is asking for the the um you know they're looking for R5 for a residential development. Keep me honest. What is actually being proposed to be built that's not there today? Because I I drove out there today, you know, and I I see the buildings are there. What is what is being proposed to be built? That's my first question.

They're proposing to subdivide the lot and they want to uh construct a single family home along the Riceville Avenue frontage with an attached accessory dwelling unit. So, would they destroy the building that's there today? Would they tear that down? I do not believe that is their intention. Yeah. No, I I see that. But that's on the Park Avenue side. Yeah. And there's one there's one on the What did I see from Ritsville Avenue? Have conversations in the mic.

Yeah. What did I see from Writesville Avenue then? I saw today there was I I thought there was an or is that the is that the the I think I think I'm answering my question. is the the building that's when you look at this thing and where I look at where the subdivided lot is subdivided on this that's the front end of that building today is what you see from

so the if you look at the site plan what's the building currently fronting Riceville Avenue is what's being proposed uh where the cursor is right now is what's currently existing so they're proposing to put a single family dwelling and an attached um ADU in front of a single family home that's already fronting Rightful Yeah. So, it does. Okay. So, my next question is from a their R15 today. What is it that they could do in the current zoning versus needing to have a zoning change?

Um, currently what's existing, they could have a single family dwelling. Um, they don't have the lot area to subdivide. This is why they're proposing to resone the R5.

Okay. And I guess the other question I have for staff is I'm trying to in my mind square or reconcile the the deal where you know I look through a lot of the verbiage it talks about lack of consistency doesn't fit with the rest of the and these are my words doesn't fit with the rest of the um you know with the neighborhood net but I look and there there look to be you know a couple uh examples where there are you know multiple Yeah. So if you go down if you go to the right of this this chart and you go down a few lots then you've got you know multiple structures you know bordering rightsville and park you know forget the lines for a minute. So and then right next to it you've got kind of the same thing. So at least based on this drawing so I'm just trying to square the in my mind the concern about consistency from the staff's perspective.

Understood. Um, I believe you're talking about the two lots the far right of the and then the two then the two to the left. Understood. Um, so the two lots on the far right, uh, they are part of a subi subdivision that pre-existed, the subject property. Um, so it's kind of an outlier along this portion of Rightsville Avenue. Um, and also the properties that are directly behind the ones that are fronting uh Riceville Avenue, they're currently facing Park Avenue. They're not facing the back of the structures that are currently fronting Riceville Avenue.

Okay, that's that's all I've got for now. Something else may come up when we talk to the applicant. Thank you, Zach. Commissioner Adams.

So your your comments [clears throat] about frontage or orientations with the buildings, I mean, typically we're not evaluating building design, right? We're evaluating site design. That's that's correct. In this case, just looking at the the frontage, I mean, most of the houses you see along this portion of Riceville Avenue are set back further from Ricefly Avenue than this. Um, we're looking for consistency with precedent. Um, so it your rationalization is not as much about building design, i.e. where is a front door versus a back door. It's more about setback relative to rightways.

Correct. Um, we want to maintain the residential character of what's currently located along the Riceville Avenue corridor. Okay, Commissioner Kofer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Smith, my only question would be um I mean, I'm just trying to figure out what the the points of the the pressure points are. So if if the applicant were recommending or in their design to change the front facade to be the rear facade of this house, would that make any impact on your evaluation or analysis? Um when we were doing our policy analysis, one thing we really focused on was the existing development pattern along um Rightsville Avenue, which has been previously um new development has occurred behind the existing structures that are currently on Riceville Avenue. Um in this case, they're proposing to build a single family home in front of a a home that's already fronting Riceville Avenue. So that front of what's currently existing would be facing the back of what they're proposing.

I understand that. And my question though would So Commissioner Kofer, could you

Yeah, my Let me lean forward. So the trouble I see with this particular site is is is because it's it's a through lot, not a through street. It has either frontage on Ritzville Avenue or frontage on Park. Which one do you sacrifice? And there's times when I I often ride down Ritzville Avenue and um what's it called? It's a it's over on the corner of French um a little town home community. I wrote it down. uh Rightsful Towns is to the north and it's on the corner of French and Park or and so you're either going to have this beautiful entrance from Park which Ritsville Towns has and this sort of not so attractive rear along Ritsville Avenue. So in that case for that project we sacrificed Ritsville Avenue's street curb appeal for the benefit of park. And so where I look at when you flank this site that we're seeing right now, you have one, if I'm look counting on my screen from left to right, one, two, three that are subdivided so that we have fronts on park, fronts on Ritsville. Then then there's 11 in the middle and then off to the far right of the screen is again fronts on park, fronts on Writesville because we get back to that six that have been subdivided. So at some point, you know, it seems like when I looked also at the um the Seagate plan that we promoted as a city the to get the properties closer to the street, the parking behind. So, I mean, I guess my question still remains in the event that this applicant changed the facade of the property so that that that the front of the house was facing park and the rear

of the house was facing Ritsville Avenue, would that change your opinion? I think as proposed with the primary structure being proposed being so close to the Riceville Avenue frontage, I think we would still stick with our recommendation. Okay. Thank you.

Yes sir. Uh ju just again it seems to be two elements. One is the uh frontage on Rightville Avenue and then the other is um which is the front door be the right. Okay. Two things none of which is as I've noted zoning. It's just an aesthetics thing basically. Danny's question about under current rules if somebody tore down the structure on this lot um they could actually place the front of it closer to Ritzville Avenue. Did I understand that correctly? That's correct. Um I have the dimensional standards. So if they were not proposing to reszone and they stuck with R15, uh that front step back would be 20 ft.

20T is correct. Do you know Okay. Um I have no clue what the dimensions are, setbacks are. Do you propose with the front the building that would be fronting on Writesville Avenue what the setback is on that? Is that 20 ft? Um in the site plan that the applicant has provided. They're showing the setback lines. So for R5 is 10 ft. Okay. Um they're not providing the exact distance in the site plan. So I would defer to the applicant to but would they have to comply with the the setback you just said of 20 feet if that's the current regulation? If they get approval for this resoning they would be designated R5. So that setback would change to 10 feet in the front

to 10 ft. Okay. So I'm sorry to interrupt sir. Go ahead. I think I'm perceiving a disconnect. I think you're asking what's the setback for R15 which is 20 ft. Well, I was going off of Danny's question earlier. If they tore down the structure and put in brand new structure up there, which I'm I'm going with the R5, put it that way. And so, how close to the road could that new structure in an R5 zoning be allowed? 10 ft is the front setback, okay, for R5.

So, okay, which is much more drastic than what it is. It looks more drastic anyway than what's on the plans we've been provided. All right, that's the the setback. And then the other is you want the front door facing the road, correct? Which will happen on the new structure. But on the back one, if if if these folks want their ADU on the uh park road side as they show and they make a front door in that little parkway there, does that make it any better for you or

um as currently proposed, they have an attached accessory drilling unit that's existing? So that existing um attached ADU would be fronting the Park Avenue, right? I understand that. I mean that's that's what it is right now, right? I mean ADUs, but the plan they showed that we have where the car parking is in between the structure and the ADU. Um my assumption would be their front door is now going to be off the parking.

Their frontage would come off of Park Avenue. No. Off the off the parking where their cars are parking is what I'm saying. Which if you want to say does that front park enough for you or does that ADU create the problem? You need that to be the front entrance. Um, sorry. I'm kind of Can you repeat that? I'm kind of

No, I probably couldn't repeat that if I tried. Okay, I've got this nice one that's got colors with colored cars on it and I [clears throat] understand completely what it's showing, but apparently one of the other main features is that on park you're being they're being required to make that front park which by the existing building is the back of the building. I understand that that is there. If they put a door in there and make that their front door off of this parking area down here, does that satisfy uh the structure facing I mean the housing structure facing park? Um I believe in this case it would um they would obviously have to park off of Park Avenue. The parking for this existing structure would have to come off the Park Avenue side.

Commissioner Woodruff. if you don't mind if I chime in a little bit here. Go right ahead here. I mean, we're talking about individual components of this development pattern. Um staff would have to evaluate that and and come up with a different recommendation. Our main concern was the precedent that has already been set on this segment of the corridor. Um there's a long history along Rights Avenue of protecting the single family character going back to 1990 with the Rights Avenue plan in the Waco overlay. Um, our main concern was protecting the existing pattern and then following the precedent that's already been set with with placing the additional construction on the rear of the properties along Park Avenue. And

thank you. I understand completely what your guidelines are. I'm just thinking from a perspective of again this is all aesthetics but maybe word to the uh owner builder whoever that with some minor changes this might work for them. I don't have a problem with what it is but I understand the problem you guys have and I'm just trying to bring out where some changes could be made that don't appear to me to be significant could be made and everybody goes home happy. Thank you.

Without objection. I think I'd like to propose that we let the applicant do their present. We always have the ability to call Mr. Smith back and that may help clear up or further mess up our understanding of this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. My name is Cindy Wolf. I think I can shed a little bit of light on all of this hopefully. Um, the house on the subject property was built in 1954, similar to most of those adjacent homes between Hawthorne Drive and French Road. You can see, as staff has pointed out, that this stretch, the homes are staggered in their setbacks off of Rightsville Avenue. Mr. Pollock, what you saw from Writesville Avenue is currently the front of the existing house. That's at the top picture. Um, I will say that and then at the bottom is the view from Park Avenue. If this fence were removed, I the house at the top looks exactly the same on the back as it does on the front. So, I believe as Mr. Woodruff pointed out, and we'll see in a second, that based upon where we intend to park, then basically in the courtyard between this back building, which I don't think has a bad aesthetic as far as some of the other rears of properties along Park Avenue, um it would become the front door into that home. The new home would, yes, um be in front of this, but from Writesville Avenue, you just wouldn't see this at all. So the original home, as we've seen, is just happened to be positioned towards the rear so that the detached garage could be accessed directly from Park Avenue. In 2013 was when this garage was approved for an accessory dwelling above the Ritzville Avenue frontage is across the street from all commercial. It's all O and I on the opposite side. You've got the hospital on the opposite corner of Huntington Road. you have um uh some type of business that has a good many trucks at it. Some of those other houses, you're not real sure whether there's offices or they are

non-conforming as residential, but it is all zoned um office and institutional. Uh there have been obviously several R10 and R15 to R5 resonings, but those were able to basically cut the lots in half. This we don't have that advantage of unfortunately. We'll go back actually because of where the existing house is. I had to place any division of this lot into two at least 15 foot off of the existing house facing Park Avenue, which would be the rear setback. So, my owner just wants to split his lot and build another single family home with an accessory building. Um, you know, I I started off with this is a no-brainer. It doesn't always work that way. So, based on the position of the existing home, the general development pattern of single family homes, right along Rightsville Avenue, I knew that conventional zoning would end up garnering too many questions. So, that's why I'm here with a conditional district petition. So, we go conditional. We propose a single family home located close to the front back front um frontage which is certainly what Rightsville Avenue has promoted all of these years. And I knew that a conventional zoning would um you know save the trees that could be cut down today. Those are all factors that come into play with coming conditional. I'll go back. And so this is where Mr. Woodruff. This was actually part originally part of the community information meeting which no one came to as to the best of my knowledge. We have no opposition towards this. But I also wanted to point out and I think several of you if not all were party to the

resoning just to the left of the screen um back on two duplexes on Park Avenue back sometime last spring. So, the initial staff review did respond that they'd perform prefer more setback for the new building. Um, initially on that last thing, we proposed that this would be a detached accessory building. So, instead we combined them. We shoved it back to the 15 foot setback as best we could. I made the building wider and less deep. And so we are set back right now more than 33 feet from the frontage. And as you were asking the question, that's greater than the 30t which was R15 before the LDC update in 2022. Now that R15 setback is 20T and we are certainly well in excess of the current, you know, if it were R5, the 10 foot. So, we're trying to work through this, but we have the impediment of the existing building. The proposed house design, which would face Riceville Avenue, is certainly a nice street appeal. It's got a porch compared to the brick ranches that just sort of are willy-nilly along that area. And I certainly believe that the general population traversing Ritsville Avenue would rather see this than some of the units that are along there right now. And as things transition, this is probably the preference of what they'd like to see. This particular building is along Park Avenue. It's very typical of the newer two-story homes throughout these surrounding neighborhoods. These are pictures of the property across the street. the business um there on the corner of Huntington, the twostory build or oh actually two and a

half story building that is down closer to French road. There is a wide variety of styles and setbacks all along this corridor. So basically, we'd like to become I I I feel like we've become so tethered to conditional districts sometimes that sometimes logical and sensible decisions get bogged down with some bureaucracy, if you will. In this day and age with the deficit in housing, certainly the issues with affordability of housing that we do have available, you would think this re that reszoning this entire strip of through lots along Ritsville Avenue would have made sense, but they come in sort of peacemeal and there are existing homes along it. Um, but certainly that would have allowed owners to opt and divide their lots, take down the old one, put in new one. But the interesting thing here is that the ones that can be split in half, the recommendation from staff is to build duplexes on the back. So I was working with a difficult situation. Obviously, I certainly understand the points outlined by the staff recommendation if they were related to a residential development. Some big change like I tried to combine the lots and I tried to a string of four town homes or something that would not be consistent there. But splitting this lot in two for another single family home that no one along Rightsville Avenue would know there's one behind it. No one on Park Avenue is going to know that there's one behind it. How is that plan really having an adverse impact on the character of that existing corridor um which is certainly variable now? Why should this owner be penalized because his original home happened to be oriented towards the back of Park Avenue? Would we rather he destroy that

altogether and you know then he can split his lot in half? He'd have a duplex on the back. he'd have some a regular single family on the front, but would we limit him not to do a nice twotory up on the frontage, which is what we're promoting all over the city right now. So to be consistent with a predominant setback that has generally yielded unattractive parking lots along Writesville streetscape, we believe that this is the type of plan that as these older homes transition that we'd like to see along the the corridor. I'd be happy to answer your questions. We do feel that this is a consistent um request.

Thank you, Miss Wolf. We'll start down this end. Commissioner Kofheer. Sure. Thank you. Um Cindy, um which of these two plans are going are we voting for? Because I've seen one where it was an attached ADU and one where it was a detached ADU.

What happens is the staff includes all of my report of the community information meeting. You've got to always keep in mind that that is day one before a whole lot of things get done before the pre-TRC before the submittal of the application. So yes, that plan with the detached accessory dwelling was the first blush of what we presented to the community and put out there and then the staff gave us an initial review and said, "Hey, we don't have enough setback." So we made that change. What you would be voting on is a single building on the front parcel which would encompass a single family home and an attached accessory build dwelling.

Okay. Thank you for that. So the plan in front of you is what things would look like as far as rooftops. Um and then with regards to the the the the two lots. So we're you're um requesting and we would be voting to create two lots. um that could be sell sold arms length to two separate entities, two separate families. That's that's correct. Yes.

Yes. Um and then on the Park Avenue side, the existing ranch, onestory ranch, has a twostory detached uh property that was permitted in 2013. What are we calling that? It was actually attached. There are rooftops connecting the main building to the accessory garage and now accessory dwelling above it. So it is a single structure that is attached.

Right. So a single structure in our community these days with accessory dwellings there are some regulations if they're brand new that they can't be any taller than the primary structure and that they cannot be in front of. That's if it's a brand new detached accessory building. Um, if you're designing a home with an attached accessory building, it is just as long as it's all under the same roof, it can be oriented any way you'd like to design it. That was um my question. And I'll defer to staff on that, but I am I'm

uh my question then would be are we is this creating any sort of nonconformity because that we have a a what I assumed was a detached accessory dwelling unit that was higher than the principal dwelling on the survey. It's all connected. Yeah, now I can see that. Does the attachment prevent that from being a non-conformity really in today's code? Um would be the be the question. I don't believe that I believe that they could have built that today.

Yeah. The being that it is attached it would be conforming. Okay. Thank you very much. That uh those are my two questions. Thank you. Commissioner Adams. Yeah, I was going to ask you to go back to the slide. So, I kind of want to talk trees for a second.

Um, some of the previous versions of your colored site plan were more suggestive of parking layouts and ideas. The black and white site plan that you have is really talking about trees and and Zach talked about critical root zones. Is your intent with this site plan to save, you know, some of these big trees? That big 46 inch oak is obviously not on your property, but there are some other substantial trees on the property. Is your intent to save these?

Yes. Generally, when my site plans come in and we are showing trees not being uh the Yosha cherry, for example, is shown as being removed. Um, on the pre-TRC plan, there's a legend and So yes, the Darlington Oak would be saved and so would the Longleaf pine. Um there is not really a requirement for single family residential parking, but I thought it was important to show how it could work. Um and and they're just in exhibit obviously. Um it was suggested that probably not showing it um on the actual plan made for a little bit of versatility, but if we're saving these trees, we cannot park in front of the building.

Okay, that's all. Commissioner Pollock, I am slow tonight. So, I first admit that. Would you I don't know which direction or just answer the question. I'm sitting here look looking at my packet and just please clarify one more time. You're proposing a two-story house with an attached ADU. Yes. As opposed to that is the footprint of the entire house. So that's as opposed to the picture I'm looking at here in my package. You saw this one and this was an early on exhibit for the community and we've backed off of that because of the increase setback. So this is what you're proposing?

Yes. Okay. It's all I Thank you, Commissioner Woodruff. Sandy, am I right that I heard you say that if this is adopted that the existing structure which is now on park that that would be the front entrance off of that parking?

Yes. What I had mentioned here right now that courtyard the the area between and you can sort of see there's a tree in there that's fenced in I guess just for privacy or whatever because we would put the parking in there. um that fence would either be gated or whatever, but yes, the back the back of the existing house looks exactly like the front. There is a door, there are some windows. It looks the same as what you're seeing in this upper picture. So, yes, people would pull in, park in that courtyard, and that would be their front entrance.

All right. So it seems to me you've attempted or tried and feel and feel that you have to complied with the uh aspect of setback off of Ritzel Avenue. I mean you got it back to 33 feet. I do.

Right. It's your position as I well at the other issue is the structure now the existing structure according to the plans we have the packet we have is facing the wrong way and you're telling us by your drawing in the presentation that now what was the back will be the front and will be utilized as the front and I think we just heard that having the detached uh ADU in front of that unit is is is not a non-conforming issue at all. No, the new building would certainly front on Writesville Avenue. No, no. I'm talking about the existing building back there where you pull in and you're saying the front will switch to the existing back

basically. And the fact that the ADU is in front of that is a non-issue. No, they both will have 15 foot setbacks between the common property line. So if they want to put a fence there or if they want to share it as common open space. I'm sure it depends on whether the owner sells one of the lots or both away to different parties. Thank you. Could you um Excuse [clears throat] me. Could you go back to Yeah. Okay. There. Let's let's start there. So the 33 feet so I'm clear is to the property boundary to the right of way which is the property boundary where we would have to install a sidewalk as part of this plan. So there's not one there currently.

Correct. And the edge of pavement would be I'll call it the next dark line to the north. The next white line basically the apron goes from the edge of right right. Oh yeah either one. Okay. And there will be a sidewalk to the left because that project is required to have a sidewalk. So speaking of that, can you go to that slide please? So what's currently to the left that this body approved the reasonzoning of last spring are the two homes at the top. Is that right? Yes. And to the on the bottom side, the southern side, those will be two duplexes. Correct.

Okay. Um, the parking you addressed, Commissioner Adams stole my thunder about the trees. Um, but I do want to just reiterate that I [clears throat] it does appear that you're making an effort to save the larger trees. Absolutely. Yep. So, um, that's all the questions I have. Anybody else?

Thank you very much. Thank you. [clears throat] We'll now open the public hearing and we will begin with anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this conditional district zoning. Anyone wishing to speak in favor? Okay. Hearing none, we will move on to anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this item. Going once, Miss Bradshaw. Just affirming we've not received any emails. That is correct.

Thank you. Hearing no uh need for or no one to speak. Uh we will close the public hearing and get some thoughts from members of the commission. I don't have any more thoughts. I think I've put it I mean I understand where uh staff came from and is standing on um I don't see it as being issues that prevents us from approving the plan as done. Uh setbacks was one issue and front facing front and back face and back is seems to be taken care of also. I don't see the issue.

Thank you Commissioner Adams. Yeah, I mean for me um gentle density is something that has been talked about. Um and I think this illustrates a a good way to do that. Um I think a lot of staff's concern was about the pattern of development and setbacks. Well, the existing house as an is to me an outlier right now compared to a lot of the other houses as they relate when you're only comparing it to Rightsville Avenue. So, the the diversity of setback and architecture that's out there, and for the record, I love a good ranch house, don't get me wrong. Like, um they can be done very well. Um just doesn't justify the the the ability to subdivide this. um as the applicant's uh looking to do. And it it's it's a project that I support and I don't like having to essentially disagree with staff because we value their opinion greatly. But in this case, I think it checks more boxes as a positive than negative for me.

Thank you, Commissioner Kofheer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Um I I came into this one really um undecided and appreciate everyone's comments both from um the staff and from the applicant and our peers on this commission. So when I'm looking at this particular site, I I look towards the Seagate small area plan and ended up reading most of that plan today. And I feel like the um design of the twotory that will become the frontage on Writesville Avenue actually marries really well with this Seagate plan and some of the illustrations that were in that. um having the uh reduced setbacks, having the concealed parking. Um but the I think that the trouble and I and I appreciate and respect staff's analysis wholeheartedly. I think the trouble here is that we get on the edge or the periphery of that Seagate map and when you look at look at the 35,000 foot view at the satellite it's it's really right where the triangle ends um for Seagate and it's that triangle sort of ends at Hinton and then between Hinton and the subject we have you know 36 acres of the Dr. blacks property undeveloped um both on the Oleander side and north of the park and Ritsville side. So that's sort of an island of itself that's off of any plan that the city will probably have a whole lot of influence on because they're doing ground leases at this time. But nevertheless, so we keep going towards um Hawthorne, which really that's where Seagate, you might would argue, I mean, the city would recognize that's where Seagate and Winter Park collide. And we just don't have a great plan for this area. Um I understand Mr. Chambers comments that the rightsful avenue corridor could take precedent, but I would argue

that the really the Seagate plan probably would to me supersede that. I think this marries in well with what the people of Seagate got together and and agreed to. Um, it is a huge eclectic mix of of housing products. It's it's got one of the largest mobile home properties in Wilmington still in existence. I mean, when we talk about affordable housing, that's really hitting a lot of hitting a lot of notes. Um, and and in the subtle increase in density just just makes a lot of sense. I I I keep going back though if the applicant could potentially just change that front to look a little like a rear. You know, maybe that would take a little of the heartburn out of the whole thing, but um certainly not going to go down that rabbit hole. So, I I'm in support of it. Um with all due respect, thank you.

Thank you. Um, I guess just sort of going down my to be honest, to be completely blunt, I front, back, I don't care that I mean the property owner is going to make that decision and um that's their decision to live with. So that to me was never really um we're not we're not here to design houses per se. Um, the other thing that was impactful to me is the the current setback, as I understand it, for R15 is 20 feet, correct? So, all this could get torn down and I could build a house 20t off Rightsville Avenue today. And PS, I could cut all the trees down, too. Um, and so I I I for one appreciate the applicant's effort to, you know, at at Steph's staff's request um to move it back and to make it a an attached ADU. Um, and I just to me this checks a lot of boxes and I also struggled reconciling the reasonzoning that we did literally next door. um you know and then and not having the same thought process here. So those are my thoughts. What is the will of the commission? I'd like to make a motion to um approve agenda item number one. Uh the request to uh for 5324 Writesville Avenue to reszone from R15 to R5 conditional district medium density mixed residential conditional district. This request is consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans adopted by the city of Wilmington. The create Wilmington comprehensive plan and the Rightsville Avenue 2030. The planning comm commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal

provides compatible infill while maintaining consistency with the desired character of the surrounding areas. Therefore, the planning commission recommends approval of this request. Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Adams. Do we have a second? A second. Ju just a point of clarification is the approval would be subject to the recommended conditions in the staff report. [snorts] Yes. [laughter]

So just to clarify one more time the the proceeding um motion was made subject to the conditions cited in the staff report. Um Commissioner Kofer how say you? Uh, I second that motion. I'm sorry. Try again. Voting. Voting. Oh, we're doing roll. I. Commissioner Adams. Yes. Approve. Commissioner Pollock. Yes. Commissioner Woodruff. Yes.

And chair votes I. Item passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And to anyone watching and to my fellow commissioners, I apologize. I was reading off the wrong agenda and that's why I almost skipped Miss Wolf um in the beginning. So yeah, haven't been here in a couple months. Um now go to uh items from the commission and I believe Commissioner Pollock's going to update us. Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as as all of you as the fellow commissioners remember, we had our um, you know, planning session, retreat, whatever word you want to use with the city council back in I think it was October and um, you know, which did encompass the the current city manager and and um, you know, several familiar faces. So, um there were several topics that were brought up at that um that I think we talked about that we as a planning commission could work work closer with the uh the um uh planning staff and you know we talked about uh better communication uh the comprehensive plan. Uh, one of the things we talked about was process. And so to to start to at least move the ball forward on that one, um, myself, Commissioner Collier, uh, Mr. Chambers, uh, Miss Painter, uh, Patrick, I get it got it right this time, and I apologize. Patrick walked in the room and I called him Sean, you know, it's like, don't ask me why. Like I said, slow. And Amy was also in in attendance. and we talked about um you know how do we how do we kind of improve on process? We we talked we threw out you know the TRC, the DAC, BOA, planning commission, city council, you know, uh one of the and I'm reading

from some of the notes that Commissioner Collier took and then distributed. So, and and I'm sorry, Mike, you were also in attendance. My my bad. It's been a slow it's been a confusing week for me this week. Um we talked about um you know how do we develop maybe more transparency uh asked the question about development fees you know um fees haven't been raised or modified or changed Brian do I have that right in years you know the fees that we we put in front of the developers so you know code says um code kind of defines today what you know how the the process applicants have to go through before that gets to the planning commission city council um planning commission um you know while there are hard fast rules around what is the zone what isn't the zone what does that all require planning commission does have some subjectivity we talked about um uh you know educational component how do we how do we accomplish this as as a planning entity and I mean that the commission as well as the the planning staff um how do we message things? Um you know, we talked about, you know, um as a community, how do we potentially discuss how do we help decide, you know, where the uh where do we want growth to occur? I mean, the the the mayor keeps talking about we've got about a thousand acres of undeveloped land. We still, you know, hear the conversations about affordable housing and and lack of numbers of doors, etc., etc., um which is is has been and I think will continue to be a debated topic um traffic improvements. One of the things I I know you know do we have the right threshold in place for traffic studies. Okay. Um talked about affordable housing

you know supply and demand distance from jobs you know the 30% income threshold. How do we include city and county in more broad comprehensive planning items? Um, couple of bullets that Richard took were how do we review the county's, you know, review of the county's 2050 draft plan, get involved in the city's comprehensive planning process. I know I for one have been, you know, nudging on that for, you know, a while now is how do we how do we take this body uh and and accomplish a couple things, which is, you know, get more involved in that in in those long range plans, which is part of our charter as a commission. Um, and I don't mean just from an approving, and I'm not saying we should start setting policy because I don't think that's our role either. Um, but I thought another good discussion we had was is there an opportunity for us to have a and I'll use the the phrase a commission retreat with the county's planning commission? You know, are there as we move forward into the next three to four years, are there opportunities for synergy? Are there opportunities to identify that there just isn't going to be synergy in some things? But it's just, you know, it's kind of take the take the, you know, the blinders off and and so so and and look at that. So from a process, it's talking about, you know, where do we what are the things that we should be getting involved in? How do we get involved in those things? How do they work? How if you look at and you talk about affordable housing as an example, you know, one could opine that there's there are things at at the federal level that we can't, you know, affect. There's things at the state level that we can't affect, but there's certainly things at the at the city level and at the county level that we might be able to affect and and from a process standpoint, should we try to to ident jointly

identify those and bring those back to council. So that was kind of the the highle notes and I would also ask Linda, Mike, Brian, Amy, uh, Patrick to, you know, please add their [snorts] comments to the to the summary as well. So I'll I'll be quiet for a minute. I think you summarized it very well. We had a good we had a good conversation. Um, and I would say on the comprehensive planning side, you know, that's one of the things that is next up for us is looking and so we will be having conversations with you as we and with the commission because that is an important part of your role is being involved in that process of updating the comprehensive plan.

Thank you. And and thank you, Commissioner Pollock and Commissioner Collier, if you're watching. Um, thank you. Also, um I think I think part of the intent of this subgroup was to really focus on process where um how can how can we improve collectively? Um and and as Commissioner Pollock indicated, a lot of that came from council. So, I'm going to take this opportunity and throw out three things that I'd like to see us improve on process and then if each one of you and Miss Bradshaw, sorry, but if can you write these down or I'll play the video back. But, um, so for me there's there's three. Um, one is the old prot track or a development activity map on the website so that the public can actually see what is being worked on um, and what's in the pipeline. Um, I think that helps dispel a lot of things and and to me that's a pretty simple process for us to improve. To be candid, if you compare the county's map and and what's available on their website as far as what's sort of coming down the pipe, so to speak, it's much easier to do than it is for the city. Um, the other one you've heard me talk about before and and we've talked about it twice with council is conditional district resoning. How do we prevent making an applicant have to go through the entire process again for essentially providing the exact same service in a a moderately different footprint? Um, and then the third is uh kind of a big one, just the overall time it takes for an applicant to go through the process. Um, I've already talked to Brian and Linda about one that I'm familiar with that hopefully we'll hear at some point. um that's been in the queue for over a year. And so I'd like to see is there a way to trim that down

somehow or another. So those are my those are my top three. Commissioner Kofford, do you have any? No, I do not have anything to add at this time. Commissioner Adams. Good.

Commissioner P. Yeah, I was I was going to say then given the the the two or three items that you just referenced and I think the last one was was was is kind of stares us in the stares us in the face a lot. Why don't I get with the you know commissioner Collier and the team and let's you know we jointly come together and and look at that in depth and see if there's some you know recommendations we can bring back to the table. you know, just we'll just drill down on that process, what somebody has to go through and see if there's ways to streamline that. And I know I'm absolutely 100% comfortable that the planning team looks at their processes on a regular basis. Um, but it's just then then if that's the case, then I'd rather check the box that said yes, the the team went and we looked at all these and right now we just can't see any any things to change or we looked at it and yeah, there's a couple of improvements we can make here, but I I think that's that's on us as as the subgroup to go do that. So, that that'd be the recommendation I would make to the to the commission.

Great. Thank you. All right. Uh any other items from the commission? Commissioner Kofer.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um and circling back to where we began uh with the minutes and the change of uh procedure with the minutes. I mean, I can see the value and Mr. Pollock, Commissioner Pollock mentioned this at the end of that discussion for the council to you know have where paraphrasing needs to be elaborated where where it needs to be, you know, a thicker body of the discussion. you know, I hope in your discretion, you know, you may may paint with a broader brush. Um because I mean, it is of benefit for the city council to not have to go back and watch the tape even though the minutes are very transparent there. Um that was just [clears throat] one comment. And and two, I always really appreciate um when the staff tells us what the outcome of the council meeting uh especially agenda items that come through this body because quite frankly I won't go back and check. So I really appreciate you um keeping us surprised. Thank you. [clears throat]

Anyone else? All right, Miss Painter, Mr. Chambers.

And that was next. uh was to let you know that the item that you approved recommended approval of in December which was the text amendment change related to reducing lot area for duplexes in the R3 if certain uh building design building elements were met uh was was approved by the council. So that was approved that was the last item you sent forward. Um, I am also going to note while it did not come before you, the council did um adopt a resolution at that same meeting which recommended uh or essentially withdrew support for the extension of Independence Boulevard. Uh and that was based on the draft environmental impact statement that was published uh by uh NC DO that I that in black and white identified the adverse impacts uh that that project was going to have on the community and the the council looked at essentially if you look at the resolution um those impacts were were too much for that comm for that in particular that surrounding community to bear uh for that project. And so they are they are requesting um that instead other alternatives be considered for how to improve north south connectivity in in a way that does not result in in the those that severe of a detrimental impact on existing neighborhoods and community.

Was there any discussion as to what those alternatives might be? So the resolution basically looks at suggests taking a working collaboratively with WNO and NC DOT but looking at what we can do with our other north south corridors uh to address some of those issues. Thanks. Anything else? That's it. That's it. All right. Last chance. I hear a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjourn February planning commission hearing. Second.

All in favor? I I meeting is adjourned. Thank you.