Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the July 8th City of Wilmington Planning Commission meeting to order and ask all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. I believe the only absence we have is Commissioner Collier, which is excused. He notified us previously due to a work conflict. Mr. Attorney, do we have a quorum?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sir. Planning Commission advises City Council on applications for rezoning, 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. 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 be only one presentation. Excuse me. City staff will make the first presentation and the applicant will make the second presentation. To maintain an orderly meeting, all presentations shall proceed without interruption 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 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 and one minute marks and verbally call time when time expires. The chair in their discretion may extend these time periods. Yes, ma'am, thank you. We have our timekeeper. All groups, organizations, neighborhoods, or similar associations desiring to comment are asked to appoint one spokesperson to present their concerns or point of view to the commission on each agenda item. The public has been encouraged to submit their comments in writing via a web-based form located on the City of Wilmington's website. All comments received prior to 3 p.m. today were forwarded unedited to the Planning Commission. All comments received will be delivered to the City Council when the item advances. And all comments received will be made available to the public if requested. Ms. Bradshaw, I know you sent two this afternoon. Do we have any others?

No, that's all that we had.

Thank you. For voting, all votes will be a roll call vote after proper motions are made and consistency statements read into the record. The chair will state the outcome of the vote and the action. Rezoning requests that receive an unfavorable recommendation from the Planning Commission may be appealed by the applicant to the Wilmington City Council. Appeals 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 tentatively be heard by city council at its August 18th, 2026 meeting. The first item of business we have is the approval of the minutes from our June 3rd meeting. Do we have any questions or comments in regards to the minutes? Hearing none, do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Minutes are approved.

For the first item of new business, We have a conditional district rezoning property containing 1.76 acres located at 524 South College Road from O&I Office Institutional to CB Conditional District, Community Business Conditional District for general retail and fuel pumps. And Ms. Hopkins will be the planner presenting.

Hello. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Planning Commission. For your review this evening, I present a conditional rezoning from ONI, Office and Institutional District, to CBCD, Commercial Business Conditional District at 525 South College Road. Prior to submittal, a community meeting was held in February of 2025. The application to rezone was submitted in December of 2025 and reviewed by staff. The applicant received two variances for this site in May of 2026 for tree preservation and a drive-through facility. Staff developed a recommendation in late June and the project is now being presented for your review and recommendation. The site is currently zoned O&I Office and Institutional District. Potential uses include professional and medical offices, places of assembly such as churches, small scale services, and commercial district mix use, all limited to a height of 45 feet, or 96 feet with a step back. This proposal is for a conditional district with a specific use, a convenience store with fuel pumps in the CB Community Business Zoning District. This map shows the site and the general vicinity surrounding the request. The site is on South College Road near the UNCW campus. The site is currently zoned ONI Office and Institutional District. The site is bordered by MD 17 to the west and ONI to the north, east, and south. These are photos of the existing conditions of the subject property. The site currently includes the vacant furniture fair building which is proposed to be removed. These are views of the areas surrounding the property including looking north and south on South College Road and at the rear of the site from University Drive. These are photos of the adjacent properties and land uses. There is a fast food restaurant to the north, the UNCW campus to the east across College Road, a bank and restaurant to the south, and a vacant lot to the west. As I mentioned, this is a conditional district proposal. The proposed development includes a Wawa convenience store and fuel station with a drive-through. Both the building and the fuel pumps front South College Road. A landscape buffer is required along the rear of the site adjacent to the residential MD 17 to the west. 43 parking spaces are to be provided. The entrance from South College Road is proposed to be right in, right out. There is an additional connection to the site from University Drive. Cross access easements are provided to the adjacent north and south developments. This redevelopment would decrease the amount of impervious coverage on the site by a little more than 900 square feet. These are the proposed elevations for the site. Again, the primary frontage is along South College Road, which requires a primary entrance. Elevation four on the bottom right shows a rendering of the development facing South College Road. A few site-specific conditions are recommended. These conditions include ensuring the design of all doors located on the street-facing facade present an inviting and pedestrian-oriented appearance, providing a pedestrian connection to the adjacent site zoned MD 17 to the west for connectivity upon redevelopment, screening parking and loading areas along South College Road with a three-foot-tall planting strip and relocating trees within the right of way as permitted by utilities. I will note the tree location condition, condition five, has been updated from the case summary as requested by the applicant to reflect the driveway alignment constraints from NCDOT. In May of 2026, two variances were approved by the Board of Adjustment for this site, which allowed the removal of one specimen tree within the access easement connecting to University Drive and a reduction in the required setback from residential areas for a drive-through facility. Staff has reviewed this application's alignment with relevant adopted plans. The Creek-Lowington Comprehensive Plan is the only adopted plan that applies to this site. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan's growth strategies map identifies areas of opportunity with corresponding policies to guide the look, feel, and use of new development. The site is not located within an area of opportunity, but it is along a major corridor and regional parkway and a high capacity transit route. The comprehensive plan recommends landscape street yards and higher density residential development along corridors and transit routes. The Create Wilmington 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 resuming the site to CBCD highlight the need to improve access to goods and services through infill and redevelopment, and to increase connectivity to sites along major roadways through frontage and backage roads, such as the connection to University Drive. As you may notice, the analysis wheel is almost an even split of policies in support versus not in support. Key policies not in support of the proposed rezoning encourage mixed use redevelopment of commercial corridors and sites and places that create visual interest with attractive building design. Comments are collected leading up to the public hearing. While no comments have been received in support of the application, two comments were submitted in opposition. Comments shared concerns regarding the proposed connection to University Drive and the increase in trip generation to and near the site. In summary, the proposed rezoning request to redevelop the vacant furniture fair site for a Wawa convenience store and fuel station on South College Road. Several conditions are recommended to maintain and enhance the existing character of the streetscape along South College Road and to include a pedestrian connection, and oriented features that create a welcoming and human-centered development. Along major corridors, the Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan encourages retail services and vehicle-oriented development. Staff finds the request to be within the public interest, reasonable, and consistent with the Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan, and staff recommends approval. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Hopkins. Commissioner Cofer, we'll start this end.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't really have any questions. I mean, it looks like the city maintains University Drive up to that certain point just past Little Caesars where it's gated.

That is my understanding.

And then that becomes private from there and just completely shut down right now from public use.

Yes, that may change upon redevelopment of that MD-17 site.

Right, okay. That was just a comment, not much of a question. Thank you.

Commissioner Adams.

Does the existing retail use of the, well, it's closed now, but did that retail use, was that a conforming use allowable in the ONI?

I do not believe so, but I will look to Mr. Chambers.

It was conforming when it was constructed many years ago, but I don't believe it's a use, the retail would be, that size of a retail use would be allowed at the O&I now.

Okay. And then, other question because you did bring up concern over traffic and trip generation. Did this project trigger or will it trigger a TIA based on the new trip generation?

They did have a TIA completed.

And were there any recommendations yet on off-street improvements that came out of that yet?

I believe the ride-in, ride-out driveway was part of that recommendation and the connection to University Drive.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Pawlik?

Yeah. Excuse me. Haley, just a couple questions. If you can flip back to the, I think it's the slide that had the, keep going and I'll stop you. keep going. Right there, that's good right there. In a lot of the different pictures, you know, it talks about, you know, rezoning and it has like the green grid goes around the main body of this, but what seems to be left out of this is the easement. And my question to staff and applicant is, does the rezoning request also include the easement? Is the easement already zoned? I mean, can you clear that up for the commission?

Yes, this would include that access easement from University Drive.

Okay, so,

Is that easement part of the property today? Or is, or you're?

I do not believe so. That would be a separate easement that then connects the properties. They would not be joined.

Yeah, so it's not owned by Wawa. But you're applying for the rezoning of that easement in this particular application?

No. Pat, can you?

Or is it even necessary, I guess, is the question.

Yes, yes. Yes, that would not be necessary to be part of the rezoning. Okay. All right. And it's not part of the rezoning.

That's what I needed. Thank you. And you answered the question about a TIA, so I suspect the applicant will get into that a little bit. The only question I would really have was, As I look, again, look at the picture that you have up is, you know, you have a proposed, you know, right in, right out. Was there any discussion about having a second right in, right out, or was it just deemed that a single right in, right out was all that was required off of college?

I am not confident, but I can assume that only one in and out would be required along College Road.

Okay. And we can dig back into that as we go along. So that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Woodruff. Just real quick. The access to the university over there, is any part of an analysis done with regard to traffic on that road?

It is attempted when streets don't have enough traffic to generate the numbers that we use to calculate that. They are often left out of that analysis.

So the conclusion is there's not enough traffic to generate the need for a... Correct. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jones?

I really just look at traffic coming in from College Road coming south, you've got the gas station at the corner of New Center. Wawa is a whole different product, and in the markets that I work in, it's a very favorable product, and we need it in that area. We have so much influx from Brunswick and Pender and you have people coming in on college, there's not a lot of gas stations that can provide what Wawa does. And to me, it's a perfect location. I'm very familiar with Furniture Fair and what it was. And I don't see any problem with it. I like the connectivity discussions in the rear. But traffic-wise, people coming in on College Road need somewhere on the right-hand side of the road to get gas and to have services. There's quite a few going outside of town. We really don't have that coming into Wilmington. So I don't see a problem with it. Thank you.

I just had two quick questions. You made a comment about drive alignment. In the picture that we're looking at right now, I understand they got a variance for the longleaf pine to be removed. The three trees that are shown on College Road, is this driveway that reflect what's happening? You threw me when you said drive. I wanna make sure we're looking at what's.

Yes, where you see these three crepe myrtles right here is where the new driveway would land.

So those three trees are going away?

I believe two is their expected removal.

OK. All right. I'll wait for the applicant on the other part of that. And then going to the trip generation or the traffic analysis that's provided in our packet, table 353B, The existing condition is based on the furniture store, right? Not the maximum that could be built within O&I zone property.

Correct, it's what's existing.

Okay, so is it fair to say that that increase of 3,500 trips is a little bit off based on what somebody could do by right on the existing site?

Correct, I have. a few other uses that are allowed in ONI here that might look a little different than a furniture store, such as a fast food restaurant or a medical office, which you see much higher trips generated.

Okay. And then my other question is, does the traffic count, and I'll ask the applicant the same thing, but on the gas station, how does the city or the reference manual that you referred to for this handle drive-by traffic? In other words, I get in my car and I drive to the doctor. I don't necessarily get in my car and drive to Wawa, no offense. But I go to Wawa on my way home or Shell or Gulf or whatever it is. I'm dating myself with Gulf, but yeah.

Pass-by trips are included. They're not separated in the analysis. So these are just the amount of visits to this site that we can expect, whether they're pulling off a road that they were already expecting to drive on or they're viewing it as a destination.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Commissioner Adams. Talking about your comment just now is, as much as I travel across North and South Carolina, I look for nice restrooms. and amenities when you go in that you can grab a lunch. There's other things instead of just going and filling up your gas tank.

Right, and my point to that really question slash statement was just you're already on the road as I would be, so are you necessarily generating a new trip? So that was the point I was trying to make. Commissioner Adams, do you have a follow-up? No.

Could you go back to your site plan that has the, I'm going to call it the dogleg to university easement? So when I look at the GIS maps, the public right-of-way of university coming off college doesn't look like it extends all the way to where this easement would be. Is an additional easement required to... connect from I guess that parcel that is back. It's a big parcel, 16 acres. Because looking at this exhibit, connection to public right-of-way, I don't quite understand how that works yet.

So your question is, is the easement shown here connecting to the existing right-of-way of University Drive?

Yes.

Yes, from my understanding, it does currently connect.

Okay, based on the parcel map, it doesn't look like it.

There we go. I've been doing the site review. I'm the site planner for this project. In discussions with Wawa, they have been talking to the folks who are proposing the projects that's under review in the back, and they have been in discussions or have already worked out easements that would be granted to them across University Drive that would get them all the way out to college. So you'd have the easement coming off of the, what, 524 College, and then you would connect back up with University Drive, there'd be an easement there, which would connect up to, back into College Road, until such time that that project got developed and that became a public or private right-of-way as their development necessitated.

If I might, just, because this is CD, right? Correct. So if it ain't this site plan, they can't do it.

Correct.

Okay, so this site plan shows that they're somehow getting access to University Drive. Okay, I think that's, yeah. Commissioner Pollack.

Yeah, I just comment on the table 3.5.3B. And I always, these are the things that I probably hate on these packages more than anything else is You're, you're effectively the 3,500 is an increase over zero because there is nothing coming out there today. I mean, it doesn't matter to me what by right could be there today is zero. So that's 3,500 increase above, you know, the current value of zero. Is that fair to say that?

I'm going to defer until we hear from the applicant, because some of those are pass-by trips.

I understand. I want us to drill down on that a little more. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Woodruff. Just real quick again. On this back easement, to my understanding, Wawa does not own that property. It's somebody else. Is that a contractual done deal? that there's, the easement has been granted?

I will defer to the applicant on that question, on their ownership of that property.

All right. And then the other point was, I want to ask, I mean, that, is the city requiring that easement to be there?

No, I do not believe so.

Hang on a second. That's contrary to what The answer was to my question. The TIA, correct. Well, no, no, no, because so the site plan is part of the conditional district approval.

Yes, but regarding our requirements for development, not necessarily this district, like if they were just to develop the site by right, I do not believe that connection would be required.

Right. But if they could do it by right, we wouldn't.

We wouldn't be here.

We wouldn't be here. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Jones, did you have something else?

Okay.

Anybody else?

Commissioner Koffer? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Hopkins, just two quick questions. One would be, when I did a site study, I ran south to north, and our packets are kind of small. So just to confirm that the right in, right out is utilizing an existing turning lane going into effectively the stoplight at University?

Correct.

Okay, and then can you go back to the adjacent parcel zoning screen? Okay, so the Bojangles is zoned ONI. Do we know what the BP station on the southern corner of college and university is zoned? There's a gas station just south of the blue box in the southern part of this picture.

I believe it's ONI, but I cannot confirm off the top of my head.

It is zoned ONI? Yes. Okay, thank you. That was my only questions. Okay.

Thank you. I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman Lennon, Vice Chairman Adams, commissioners. My name is Sam Frank. I represent the applicant. Several folks with me this evening that I'd like to identify to you and encourage you to ask me to bring up if you have questions you think better answered by someone other than the attorney. First, Jeff Lewin, who's with the applicant and developer. Second, Paymon Ndimi. Paymon is with the developer and the ultimate operator of the site. And also our civil engineer, Jeremy Yee with Kimley Horn. I'm going to break my protocol and respond to some of your really good questions before I get into my presentation, if that would be all right. That's going to make my presentation less interesting and I'll do my best to gloss over those items when we get to it. First, Commissioner Adams, there are a number of uses in the immediate vicinity that are currently zoned O and I. but would not be permitted under the current ONI zoning. They are pre-existing permitted non-conforming uses. To your point, Commissioner Kofor, one of those is the existing fuel station and retail store that's located two doors down to the south. Second, with regard to the parcel that we'll call the access road that runs north to south from the subject site to the University Drive, that is owned by the applicant. That is, from our perspective, part of the rezoning application. We acknowledge that it is a separate parcel. It's a parcel that would not be useful for any other purpose. I think it's 32 feet wide. We acknowledge that that use in itself as a drive lane probably doesn't require rezoning, but it seemed the more transparent and appropriate thing to do to include it in our conditional rezoning approval. So it is reflected on our site plan. From our perspective, we are compelled to comply with the condition to use that as contemplated on the site plan, and it is indeed part of the rezoning. Commissioner Adams, you're exactly right. The University Drive public right of way stops short of where that point of connection would come in. It's about, I think it's about 75 feet short. There is an existing private road in that location. It is 100% our risk, to your point, Chairman Lennon, is 100% our risk to make sure that we figure out how we establish our right to use that section of the road to get to what is now the public section of University Drive. Sitting here today, I don't know whether that will be through private arrangement or if it will be an extension of the public right of way. But one way or another, we acknowledge that that has to be done, have been in good conversation with the developer of the multifamily site immediately to the west, understand that there will be a significant level of cooperation as we will both use that section of the future University Drive, and have every confidence that that's going to come together in an appropriate manner. But most importantly, acknowledge that that is on us. If we are, for whatever reason, unable to achieve access over that section of private land, we would not comply with the conditions of this proposed zoning and therefore would not be able to build the proposed store. Commissioner Pollack, you raised the question, in addition to asking about that separate parcel, you also asked about the right in, right out to College Road. Today there are two. There's one at each end of the furniture fair store site. Our proposal will eliminate one of those. And so we'll get rid of an additional curb cut that already exists on College Road, which is a benefit to traffic flow. It gets the distance between the next site to the north and our right in right out to be a greater distance. It is part of the requirements of the TIA that we extend that decel lane going into our new right in, well, our improvement of the existing right in right out near the southern end of our site. Commissioner Woodruff, you asked about whether the TIA took into account traffic over University Drive. It absolutely does. I've got a slide on this that'll show you the breakdown. But what was settled on between the traffic engineer and the MPO was a 60-40 split with 40% of the traffic going out and over University Drive or in and over University Drive. and 60% of the traffic going in and out for the right in right out directly off of College Road. The required improvements, recommended improvements, excuse me, reflected in the TIA absolutely take into account the reality that traffic will be utilizing University Drive. spoke about extending the de-cell lane. Chairman Lennon, you asked a question about those trees up front. Proposed condition number five is the only proposed condition from staff that we can't agree to as it's written. And the reason we can't agree to it is because it would be impossible. The three trees that are those crepe myrtles that you referred to, they would conflict with improvements that are required on the site plan. So the expansion and adjustment to the location of the right in right out and the inclusion of the sidewalk on the front of this site both are inconsistent with preservation of two out of three of those trees. And so instead, what we have discussed with staff is agreement to an obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to relocate those trees if they cannot be preserved in their current location elsewhere on the site, which we're certainly amenable to do. Chairman Lennon, I've got a slide on this too, but I'll go ahead and address it up front. The TIA takes into account an appropriate pass-by factor for this use. And what was settled on there was 75% for this use is anticipated to be pass-by trips. So the numbers that you see in the staff report do not reflect that. They reflect the total number of trips, including those pass-by trips. I'll share a chart with you in a little bit that addresses the number that's reflected in the TIA, which is the number of new trips after you take into account that pass-by factor and phenomenon. Commissioner Pollack, the chart that I share will show a comparison to buy right redevelopment of the site for ONI uses. That is certainly meant as no disrespect to you. I understand your position that the site is, and I agree with you, the site is empty today. It's not generating any traffic today. When the MPO and when the traffic engineers evaluate this, they compare the most intense uses available by right under the existing zoning. Because fundamentally, the question here is, will you allow us to change the zoning on the property? We all recognize that eventually that property will be used. The chart that I share will include that comparison. And I openly acknowledge that today the store is not in operation. From my perspective, that means that this is a redevelopment site. It's, to your point, Vice Chairman Adams, the existing or prior use was not, would not be permitted under the current zoning. They've been closed for a period of time. I'm not sure if they even tried to reopen the doors today if they'd be allowed to do it as a furniture store in that location and in that design.

but at any rate a similar similar business would not would not be permitted all right mr frank yes sir without objection because he just spent time answering our questions your timer starts now oh we'd either spend this time after your presentation so thank you thank you uh that's kind of you i'll do my best nonetheless to be as brief as i can

All right, subject site, you understand, you're familiar with the location, busy section of College Road, right across from the university. Fantastic site for the availability of a commercial use, a high demand commercial use. One of the most significant factors, although staff ultimately concluded this is consistent on balance with the comprehensive plan, the most significant factor that was noted as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan was the absence of mixed use. And in that context, I encourage you to consider mixed use beyond the boundary of a one and a half acre site. It's not Practically realistic to incorporate an interesting mix of uses on a site this small. That's not an uncommon phenomenon for you. You see it all the time. But in this case, the area where we want to see mixed use is broader than just this site. It's inclusive of the land immediately to the west and the other land that's along College Road. And by incorporating a commercial use here to complement the pending residential use immediately to the west, we are in fact achieving mixed use. We're just doing so on a scale that's greater than the boundaries of this specific lot. This is the surrounding zoning. You're familiar with this already, although I've zoomed out a little bit further than what you saw in the staff report. Again, Commissioner Kofer, the existing fuel store retail site on College Road is also ONI, as is several of the other sites nearby. There are several nonconforming uses there that of course are permitted. They just predated the date of the current UDO or the date of the current zoning. There are some other examples of CB and more intense RB in the immediate area. Give you just perspective on what some of those neighboring businesses are. You've got a drive-through Bojangles located to the north, a Little Caesars restaurant with a pickup window located to the south and a bank located to the south. The next lot located to the south beyond University Drive is also a fuel store. This is the site plan that's included with the zoning application. You can see here, it's faint, but you can see the second right in, right out curb cut that's being removed at the north end of the site on College Road there. And of course, this also shows you the orientation of the site, the fuel canopy not being located along the frontage, which is what is preferred and now required under our UDO. The TIA approval date that led to the traffic improvements, that's been approved for about a year now. These are some elevations also included in the application, also part of the conditional approval. We sometimes do not include the architectural detail on these because the intent is just to give an idea of massing height and location. In this case, we were willing to include the architectural detail. There's a disclaimer in the bottom corner that makes it clear that those are provided for concept purposes only. Nonetheless, this gives you a very good idea of exactly what the store on that site will look like. A couple of variance requests. Ms. Hopkins covered these well, and so I won't belabor them. We needed to remove a specimen tree in that narrow parcel that provides the access to University Drive. There was no way around that to use that for any road, let alone a road that's the width that's required by the city. That tree unfortunately needed to be removed. And then the fly-through window, so this store incorporates what's the equivalent of a pickup window. You order online, you get a time, you show up at the window to pick up. So there's no speaker, there's no outside menu. It's literally just an opening at the store, perhaps several of you have experienced using before. Because of that nature of use, you don't have nearly the same level of queuing, and you also don't have anywhere near the same level of interference with neighboring residential. There's no verbal interaction over a loudspeaker or light coming from a menu or the like. Nonetheless, our code requires that such things be located at least 200 feet from residential use or zoned property. Ours is 138 feet away. Therefore, we needed an exception from the city in order to be allowed to use that fly-through window. We've incorporated and accepted as a condition the inclusion of a landscape and fence buffer along the back of the site. Either one of those things would satisfy the requirement under the LDC. We are accepting a voluntary obligation to include both. You also might have noticed that there's a proposed condition that contemplates an opening somewhere in this buffer line to allow pedestrian ingress and egress from the future development to the west. The location is not yet determined, therefore it's not shown on the site plan, but there is in verbiage a condition that contemplates our cooperation with that connection sometime in the future. On the trip gen, so the top line here is what we are proposing. This is the peak hour trips in the a.m. and the p.m. after you take into account the appropriate pass by percentage as vetted out by the MPO and the engineer in the TIA process. We also included a couple examples of by right trip gen 4 a.m. p.m. peak hours. As you can see, a strip retail plaza would generate more trips in the evening than what's proposed. A high turnover restaurant would produce a similar number of trips in the morning and almost a similar number of trips in the afternoon. Note that the high turnover restaurant is also a use that has a pass by factor that has been applied on this chart. So you are comparing apples to apples on what I'm showing to you. Again, for our proposed use, those are different peak numbers than you see in the staff report. The reason being the numbers that are reflected in the staff report do not yet take into account the pass by factor, which has been concluded appropriate by the MPO and the engineers. Commissioner Woodruff, this is the slide I alluded to earlier that shows you the traffic breakdown for use of the two points of access. Of course, ultimately, all of this goes to College Road or comes from College Road, but this shows you the breakdown of the vehicles that would utilize University Drive and those that would utilize the direct point of access, again, based on the traffic engineer and MPO assumptions. The percentages you see there, we were trying to give you some perspective on what this means, Commissioner Pollack, relative to the zero that it is today. This is a heavily traveled road. You're talking about over 60,000 cars per day. And so with the new trips contemplated for this use, again, compared to zero, not compared to the by right use, but compared to zero, you're talking about about a 1% increase in that traffic generated by this use. And as I showed a moment ago, the buy right uses that would be permitted without rezoning would create a similar impact. We are not in a deliberate growth area, but goodness knows we sure are nestled right in between three of them. So as you can see, this again is a little bit broader view of the map than you saw in the staff report. And I wanted to demonstrate that to you that not only is this an area of opportunity adjacent to three areas of opportunity, but it's also consistent with the proposed use of this land under the comprehensive plan. Because staff has reached the conclusion that we are ultimately consistent with the comp plan and for the reasons that I alluded to earlier regarding mixed use, I'm not going to walk through each of those criteria, though I am certainly ready to talk to you about any of those policies that you're inclined to discuss. Based on all of these things, I respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the council. I and we are here and eager to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Frank. Commissioner Jones, you want to start? Any questions?

We can come back. Well, I mean, I kind of stated as much as I travel, there is a lack of good quality places when you're coming into town. There are several when you're heading out of town on the right. And I pay attention to where I'm stopping to make sure it's safe, that if I want food, et cetera. And I think it's a great location. My only question, it's not even really a concern, I know the Glen, the residential community behind there, are you, I guess, banking on that or how far along are y'all with that easement to provide between y'all and them?

I think you asked two separate questions there. One, our plan of development does not depend on the timeline for the development immediately adjacent to us. And two, we recognize that cooperation with that developer is a necessary component of establishing our connection between the end of our land and what is currently the public right-of-way of University Drive.

And it's beneficial to everybody that's coming in and out of there. I just wanted to understand where that was. I don't have any problems with it. I think it's a good use of that property. Great. I'm a YY fan. Thank you.

Commissioner Woodruff? Sam, is there any either requirement or discussion even about improvement or enhancement of Independence Drive? I mean, more lanes so that, I mean, I don't mean independence, university, I'm sorry. Oh, college. Yeah, well, not college. I'm not worried about college. College is college. But I'm talking about the university drive. With people coming out of Wawa and the development behind, is there any discussion or even requirement by the city with enhancing that?

So I need to address that in two pieces because there's a piece of university drive that's currently a public right-of-way. And I'm going to ask our engineer to confirm whether there were any recommendations in the TIA associated with that. We don't get to decide with regard to the public right-of-way. Oh, I understand. We're told via the TIA. And I don't think there were, but I'm going to ask him to confirm that. With regard to the privates, what is now a private section, it will certainly be improved. Whether it's improved to continue to be a private stub of right-of-way that leads to the public stub of right-of-way or ultimately dedicated to the city as public has not yet been determined.

Okay.

Okay. Just confirming that the TIA did not ultimately recommend any specific improvements to University Drive public.

Mr. Pollack?

Yeah, Sam, you know, as I look at the different pictures and that, you know, the visual, you've got the proposed Wawa store, you've got the Little Caesars, right? And it just occurs to me, you're right across the street from the university. Is there any, and this is as much to the city as it is to the applicant, any thoughts, discussions about about potentially you draw student traffic, foot traffic walking across the street. Is there any ability to ensure that those crosswalks are you know, time to, you know, to, to accept what I would imagine would be improved foot traffic coming across the street. Because given the services that Wawa offers, I can see that being very attractive to, it's been a while since I've been a student, but it's not been far enough that I don't appreciate what it is. So any discussion, any thoughts?

So easy for me to say that we are absolutely in favor of any and all improvements to pedestrian connectivity from the east side of College Road to the west side of College Road. I'm going to turn around and look at Jeremy about the TIA. I don't think that it contemplated any improvements to pedestrian in connection with our curb cut.

Yeah. So can I turn it to the yeah to the city for same question to the city while you guys are both talking about it.

Yeah, that was something that was contemplated during the pre-TRC conversations. I believe Chris Urteco from our traffic engineering department did mention or recommend, even though it couldn't be required, potentially extending sidewalk in front of the Wells Fargo structure to get it to the intersection, to where the crosswalks are to help improve that. pedestrian connectivity that was put out there. It's not something we can condition or require them to do, but it is something that we have been discussing during our numerous pre-TRCs and would certainly love any improvements that we can get to the pedestrian infrastructure is 100% encouraged.

College is a state road, right?

That is correct.

So you'd have to, that discussion would have to include the state DOT?

That's right, it would require some encroachment agreements and permits from the state.

Okay, I'm gonna let this one go in the sense that you're convincing me there's discussions going on and somebody's thinking about it.

Yes, sir, that's correct. Okay.

There's been discussions for years. I was on the UNCW board They own the property across the street where the movie theater used to be. And yes, a crossover would be great. I don't think it's up to this development to create that. But if that property gets developed, I think for safety reasons, if you look at what's happened on Randall College in the past, I think safety-wise it's a great thing.

Yeah, I'm not implying that it's the applicant's responsibility. I'm just wondering, for point of clarification, given what the obvious foot traffic is probably gonna happen, is anybody talking about it? And the answer I'm getting is a resounding yes, and that's all I wanted to be sure of.

For 10, 15 years, yeah, it's been, especially with the developments of student housing, it would be a great safety feature.

If there is a proposal to build a Skyway, you will have our vote, no question.

Commissioner Adams? Sam, when you brought up a little bit of heartburn over condition number five in the trees that we talked about, made me look at all the others that are listed here by staff. Can you elaborate on how the Wawa prototype will address item number six about street-facing pedestrian improvements? So that will be elevation number four, I believe. Yes, sir.

Yes, it is. And so you can see on the elevation that's in the bottom right corner, the door, this is the view facing the street. The vestibule, the front foyer entrance has been adapted to move out further into the site to make room for an entryway that faces the street into the primary entry vestibule of the building. Um, that's the best that I can do as the lawyer. Uh, if you would like the designer though, to, to provide more explanation, uh, as to how the doors located on the street facing facade shall be designed to present an inviting and pedestrian oriented appearance. Uh, I'm glad to invite him up here to do so.

Overall, your strategy for that is to do it at the vestibule as opposed to the closest facade associated with relative to College Road?

That's correct. The site constraints being what they are and the obligation to keep the fuel canopy further back than the building means that there's only but so much we can do. And this design ultimately incorporates that leading edge door that you see also in elevation number four as that serves a utility purpose for loading and unloading goods that is not intended as the pedestrian-friendly entrance. And really, it doesn't create as good of an experience as we're able to achieve with the by-design vestibule in the middle of the left facade of the building.

Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Cofer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Frank, my only question really would be the sidewalk piece that we've discussed a little bit. The sidewalk in front of your parcel, is that on your property or in the right-of-way?

That's a good question. The sidewalk that we're committing to install, is that on our land or is that in the right-of-way?

Right now, what you're seeing here is in the right of way. However, talking to staff, there's an option to place the sidewalk in the private property as needed.

The reason I ask is partially because of the conversation that's evolved during this discussion. Basically, from university drive north to Randall, these two sites are the only ones lacking a sidewalk. So once you implement your sidewalk, then we'll have sidewalks all the way running north to Randall. So is there any goodwill, altruistic effort on behalf of the applicant to take it upon yourselves to just go ahead and connect the sidewalk to University even though that's not your property?

Lots of goodwill, no ability. Yeah, that's beyond our control. So and really off site from this this proposed zoning. Right. Eventually that will get built in connection with the redevelopment or otherwise for the for the neighboring site. And we can and certainly want to do our part. the ability to shift that a little bit onto the property and into the right of way that you already just alluded to, we hope to take advantage of to do the best we can to save the tree that won't be in the ingress, egress point. But the answer to your question is that's a, we look forward also to having that level of pedestrian connectivity and consider it beyond our control to install a sidewalk from our site south to University Drive.

Okay, fair enough, thank you.

Yes, sir.

I just had a couple. Do you know how many units used to be in the Glen?

I have no idea, sir. I'm sorry.

Okay. But there was a bunch?

Yes, sir. Several hundred? Yes.

Okay. And University was a primary ingress, egress for that?

Yes, sir. That's my understanding. Okay. It might be the only, yeah.

Yeah, and that was torn down in 19, maybe something like that, after Florence, right, okay. Can you go to the site plan that, oh, never mind, there it is. So the hatched area, I guess that'd be to the east, right, is, that's loading? Yes, sir. Okay, and what are those three, I'm getting at the buffering. What kind of buffering have you got there? And this, I'm also trying to address Commissioner Adams' point about what that side of that.

Yes, sir. That's a good question and a good point. Something that we've given some consideration to, but also something that the LDC frankly addresses. So what you see there is the landscaping, some of which is required by the streetscape requirements and some of which is us going a little bit above and beyond there to incorporate a meaningful vegetated visual I don't know whether we got that on the yeah so in this elevation you don't see that um but it is reflected on the site plan uh and we'll make that um that wall that's got the fenestration in it but also is shown in the the brown to the right of the words wawa on the on elevation number four, that'll make that cushion in a more substantial way to have that vegetation between that facade and the street.

And I'm embarrassed to say you probably know this part of the LDC better than I do, but are there size requirements for the, particularly the three larger trees that are noted there?

I don't know well enough to answer, but I can defer to either our engineer or staff to help us on that.

Okay. I guess before you do that, this is just me talking out loud, but as to condition five, I think you said that was difficult in commercially best efforts. From my perspective, I'd love to see that buffered even more if possible, if indeed you need to lose the third crape myrtle. Sure.

So is your suggestion when we transplant the trees that have to be relocated that we consider moving them to this area that you're referring to?

Yes. I like it. And that's, that's, that's my opinion to be clear. There's six of us up here right now. Um, but also I think just to, I appreciate the applicant's best efforts. That is not the most attractive side of a building for along college road. So I think anything we can do to break that up would be beneficial.

Would you like me to invite our engineer to talk about some of those details or do you feel like, uh, We understand your point and conceptually are on board with it. But if you wanted me to be more specific about what a condition would say, I will need the help of my engineer.

Can I ask my other ones real quick? Yeah. So on, and this is more of just kind of to educate people. You mentioned that the MPO indicated a pass by rate of 75%. Yes, sir. So I know you know the answer to this and I know the answer to this, but for the benefit of people listening, that is not simply something the applicant comes up with, right? That is negotiated between Metropolitan Planning Organization and the engineer, the traffic engineer.

That's correct.

Okay.

Engineers on both sides getting to the answer that they both believe is correct.

And in your experience doing this, is it always the same percentage given the site and the type of product?

No, not even close. I mean, the use drives the concept primarily, but they take into account the details of the location of the site, the specific ingress and egress, the surrounding uses, the proximity to residential uses.

The traffic on that road.

Yes, sir. All those kinds of things. All of these are factors, yes.

Okay.

And they still came up with 25 original trips to a gas station with retail, which is remarkable. In my experience also, I'll offer that the engineers tend to be conservative. And so even though common sense might suggest to us that even 25% of users are unlikely to leave their house simply to drive to the gas station, that's a conservative conclusion that results in a higher number on the trip gen, which is the more conservative approach that the engineers typically take.

Conservative meaning erring on the side of caution.

Erring on the side of more cars. More cars.

Okay. I for one would like to hear the engineer talk about the buffering.

Everybody good with that?

Thank you for the questions. I think we will be, we'll consider if we can relocate those three crepe models to onsite, the private property, if allowed by the city. Because those three trees, they are public trees. So not sure how that works with the city. You take in the public trees and put a private property, would that be something that allowed That's something we had to go through the sub-plan review process to understand that. I do know that City has buffer requirements along that corridor, so we intend to go, you know, to provide what required and to Sam's point, we will go above and beyond in that corner, give you, you know, more landscaping. Maybe we can incorporate burns. That's one way to make it a little more, I guess, attractive to the public view. We have done something like that in the past. It worked out very well. So we definitely can work with staff and come up with a concept that, you know, acceptable to a city.

Did you all have to pay a mitigation for any of these trees?

I doubt it because the site is currently covered in asphalt in a building. Okay. So I don't believe we're taking any out that would require mitigation. If I may, the specimen tree removal will require mitigation.

Oh, good point, Pat.

I'm sorry. I wasn't thinking about the access path.

The whole site.

Yeah, and there may be, in addition to the specimen tree, there may be others, smaller trees that are in the access parcel that we also have to pay a mitigation fee related to. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody have any other questions? The engineer winds up here.

Sorry, Mr. Frank, one last question. I read in the packet that there's going to be some type of parking plan because you'll exceed maybe what the parking requirements are for the city, or did I misinterpret that?

I need your help again, Jeremy, please.

Yeah, that's a requirement about when you have more than what the code require. We will have to do a pervious pavement for the surface instead of impervious, meaning, you know, if you let's say concrete impervious, you can have a pervious concrete where a lot of water like when you rain, water can get through the pavement and we had to provide, you know, draining system, like drainage system underneath that pervious pavement to collect the runoff. So it is, you know, material that you can dry and park on it, but you also allow water to get through it to the system.

Yeah. And so

Correct. There will be, there's some maximum, you know, parking spaces. Anything beyond that, we will have to provide pervious paper.

Okay. Thank you.

There was, in one of the public comments, there was a question or concern expressed the way they wrote it. It made it sound like this could potentially be a truck stop. For 18 wheelers and semis, I don't want to misspeak, but I'm trying to find the comment. Historically, how many 18 wheelers utilize a Wawa of this configuration?

Almost none. As you can see by the parking layout, it's not designed to accommodate that long-term parking of a large truck. certainly wouldn't forego the possibility that larger vehicles might use the fuel stop, um, to, to fuel from time to time, but nothing about the design of the retail store nor the design of the parking is intended to encourage what I would characterize as truck stop use.

Um, now my, my words, not, not the concerned citizen, but the description made me think of that.

No, I did read, A comment, and we may be talking about two different ones. I want to be careful not to confuse them, but I did read a comment that had questions about the truck movements throughout the site. And I understood that not to refer to customer trucks, but to refer to the fuel trucks that come in to refill the tanks and the large vehicle that comes in to restock the store. and we can provide more information on those truck movements if that's important to you. It's internal to the site, so it doesn't really have any traffic impact on the roads.

Reading again, I will concede that your interpretation of that is better than mine. Got you.

Fair enough. Do you want to see truck movements? I'm good, personally. I'm fine.

Anybody else have any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you.

All right, this time we'd like to open the public hearing for item number one. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this item, please come forward. Anyone wishing to speak in favor? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition to this item, please come forward. Anybody else? And for the record, we did receive two comments from the public which will be available to the public and provided to city council at the time this moves forward if it does. So at this point, hearing no comments, I will close the public hearing and... Let's see, I started down here last time. Commissioner Cofer, any thoughts before we go ahead? Sure, thank you, Mr.

Chair. I mean, my thoughts are typically just in line with kind of common sense site visits. I found myself today all the way south as far as Independence and Carolina Beach Road, you know, driving north doing site visits, and I probably start, you know, thinking about South College around Holly Tree drifting north through Oleander continuing to drift north towards University in this subject area and there's really few I mean there's there's a handful of gas stations but they're they're too for pump it's congested if you did really want a peaceful stop to to fill up or to take it take a break There's not really a really attractive option in that whole zone until you really get to, and people out there may correct me because I'm not a complete student at this, but from my observation, Carr and Market Street, there's a new, I think, 7-Eleven or something like that there that sort of stands out in my mind of where to break. But nevertheless, I think the need is there from a practical approach. I like the applicant's way of framing it, that no, it's not mixed use, site specific, but in the area of this section of college, it is sort of a needed service. There is a mix of uses. So collectively, I think it does meet the spirit of that. And we're going to community business. I think as the city's evolved and this section has changed from churches and institutions like the university, it makes more sense to have services in this zone. Of course, there is a gas station right on the corner, so I think the precedent's already set. Just a couple things, you know, the D cell lane, the traffic light, the existing BP station on the corner, you know, and how this site will interact with the network for ingress and egress, you know, the double right with the through street or through easement to university. I mean, it just, it all just seems to fit from form, function, scale, concept. So, I mean, I'm a yes for this project.

Thank you. Commissioner Adams?

I have no comments.

Commissioner Pollack?

Yeah, just for all of us, are we, because Condition 5 was brought up again, is there any rewording of that that's required? Are we going to leave that, does it stand as is?

Mr. Chair, if we can just chime in on this. Please. We did have a revised condition number five, and I believe we presented that, that the trees would be relocated unless existing utilities prevent that from occurring. And I think we can get that pulled up on the screen, and if there's any concerns with that, we're happy to... to talk about that I also wanted to to speak on a couple of things that were brought up during the the question and answer session the parking exceeds the maximum allowed so a parking study is required the impervious coverage and the pervious pavement that is related to stormwater requirements so they're they're two separate things so you'll have to have a parking study based on code requirements, and it spells out what conditions are required to allow for that to occur, but then the pervious bases are actually related to the stormwater. And those trees are actually in the DOT right of way, so there would not be mitigation for those trees, but we think it's important to relocate on site if possible. And I also wanted to point out that condition number six would apply to all doors on that side of the building, not just the entrance door on the, I guess, the east side of the entrance vestibule.

Okay. So they're not really the city's trees to give away?

They are not. They are in the DOT right away, and they have been planted there by the DOT many, many years ago.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

I'm good.

That answers my question.

No questions. Mr. Jones? I don't have really anything. other than I do think there was a valid point brought up about the sidewalk, but I'm looking back, the bank property that's there right now is zoned O and I, and historically at some point, that's probably gonna get redeveloped to a more commercial use that would then at that point require a sidewalk, correct, Mr. Chambers?

a change of use would require a sidewalk.

Right. Okay. So maybe in my lifetime there'll be a sidewalk there. All right. Hearing no other comments or have any other questions, what are the wishes of the Commission?

I'm prepared to make a motion. Go ahead. But just with a couple clarifying questions. So anything that needs to be added for conditions with regards to the parking plan or is that already embedded? You're good there.

That's a code requirement. Okay, thank you. So it's already in the LDC covers that.

And as written with number five, basically as written in our packet, all of these conditions are the Senate structures the way, we don't need to make any edits?

We don't believe you do. Okay.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a minute. I thought we were making edits.

No, the, what you see on the screen is, are, are the edited conditions. We did edit condition number five. Uh, instead of saying the trees had to be retained, we're saying that the trees had to be located on site if the utilities allow. And I believe the applicant is amenable to that. If, if, if he's not, then I'll let him speak to that.

Please forgive the lawyer for being a lawyer. They're the DOTs trees. And so we would love to relocate them and use them on our property, but I recognize that there's a third party who's not here who has to agree to allow us to do that. Could we adapt that language a little bit further to contemplate commercially reasonable efforts or subject to the cooperation of the owner of said trees, just to make sure that we don't create an impossible condition?

The staff is okay with including as DOT would allow in some form or another in that condition.

The other one with initials behind his name is, I think, contributing something here. Yeah. Everybody's good with the intent of the way this is rewritten.

Okay. Some insight from our engineer that's appropriate, and forgive me for continuing to talk about a relatively minor point, but we want to get it right. Again, we want to relocate these trees. We need the DOT to cooperate with that. We can't cut through any electric lines in the process of spading the trees. But we also need to verify that they can, in fact, be spaded, that subject to the size of the root ball and the other intervening factors. And so to the extent possible, to the extent reasonably practicable, use all commercially reasonable efforts to achieve any three of these would be okay with me to cover the bases there. But I want to make sure, again, that we don't, inadvertently agree to something that's not possible for us to achieve.

So I think the utilities are covered in the way this has been rewritten. And I do see your point because you may not be able to stick a spade in the ground there because you don't know what you're going to come up with.

Yes, sir. Even if the DOT says.

But what about if that's the case, what about replacing I don't remember how big they are. They're pretty big, so I don't think it's, you can't say existing size, but.

Well, they're almost so big that you wouldn't want them to be replaced with anything bigger, right? In the nature of a crape myrtle is the foliage is high and we're trying to achieve a visual from the streetscape at a lower level. To block it. Yeah, and so.

I'm sorry to jump in, but has it become moot at the fact that they're not your trees and you're not supposed to remove them anyway?

I mean, the spirit is willing. To the extent that the DOT says yes and our contractor says, yep, we've got a spade that big, we can do it, and we're not cutting through any utility lines in the process, we are glad to relocate those trees onto our site. It would be a benefit to our site. My concern is just making sure that we don't inadvertently agree to a condition that we cannot achieve.

The last point is that they would thrive. There's a lot of trees that cannot be moved because of their root ball and et cetera. I don't think that's been examined and that's not a decision for us. That's a good point.

It's not just the spade being big enough, but the arborist identifying it being suitable to be relocated.

I think because, and this is just my opinion, but I think because I hate the lawyer term commercial best efforts. But I think, given that the applicant previously stated that they are going to make an effort to go above and beyond to screen the east side of that building from College Road, maybe even a berm, I think I heard him say, I feel comfortable that the intent is there in commercially reasonable efforts, is that it? Yes, sir.

Yeah, I mean, that seems good, right?

Yeah, I think me personally, I'd be okay with that.

Commercially reasonable efforts. Simple and easy to remember.

Mr. Chambers, is that?

What am I responding to? Commercially reasonable?

For the relocation of any tree within right of way.

I don't know what that means.

That's why I don't like it.

I would like language that we could apply. I don't know what that means.

I don't know how you would apply that. Would this not work, Mr. Frank? Any existing trees removed by the applicant within the right of way must be relocated on site unless existing utilities prevent relocation. You don't necessarily own the trees. You don't necessarily have the right to remove the trees, but if you decide to remove the trees, you're going to have to relocate them on the site.

Here's the other thing, Commissioner Kofler, picking up on that. It says, unless existing utilities prevent relocation. Well, those utilities may exist underneath those trees, which means you can't dig them up.

Yes, sir. And I think we've covered that risk, that concern. OK. The two concerns we haven't covered are, one, will the DOT allow us to do so? And two, if the DOT does allow us to do so and there aren't any utilities in the way, will it work? Is it financially reasonable to do it? And is the tree going to survive if we do it? And so Mr. Chambers, what commercially reasonable means to me is if it's economically reasonable and practically viable for the tree to be moved and survive in its new location, then the obligation endures.

Let me suggest a phrase here. Any existing trees removed within the right-of-way must be relocated onsite unless, and this is kind of like colon, unless number one, existing utilities prevent relocation, number two, Moving the trees could cause irreparable damage to the tree. The most important clause, and number three, current owner does not allow for relocation. Those are the three points. The English, you can play with it, but that's kind of the three points that's amenable to the applicant.

I think that works for staff.

Did somebody write that down?

I'm going to walk back on making the motion. Commissioner Pollack, would you make the motion with that?

Okay, you're asking me to repeat what I just said?

Commissioner Pollack, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I will make a motion. Please. Okay.

I make a motion on agenda item number one, which is case number CD-6-226, that I recommend approval of the application. I think it creates its Commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides compatible infill, introduces additional goods and services, and maintains the existing character of the surrounding area. What's the word I'm looking for? This motion also includes the verbiage on condition number five that says Any existing trees removed within the right-of-way must be relocated onsite unless, one, existing utilities prevent relocation, two, moving the trees would cause irreparable damage to the trees, and number three, removal of the trees is not agreed to by the current owner. Is that close to what I just said a minute ago?

It was exactly, except you said and instead of or before number three. Oh, okay. All right.

And Mr. Pollack, just to clarify, since you only mentioned condition five, you're accepting all of the other conditions as recommended by staff?

And accepting the other edits as proposed by staff. Thanks, Linda.

Someone please second. Second. We have a motion and a second. We'll do voice or roll call vote.

Commissioner Koffer? Aye. Commissioner Adams? Aye. Aye. Commissioner Pollock? Aye. Commissioner Woodruff? Aye.

Commissioner?

Aye.

And the Chair votes aye. Thank you. It's unanimous. Congratulations. On a side note, for anyone listening, this has been a great example of how trees involve a lot more than a developer trying to do a project. We've got utilities, we've got city ordinances, we've got right away owned by others and we've got private easements that all play a factor in whether trees can stay or go.

Well, and John, the other, to take one more point and amplify, probably the biggest misunderstanding a lot of people have is that the city owns streets. And you've got such a combination of city and state roads in our city, and there's no such thing as county roads. So that relationship in and of itself, I can only imagine, prevents a lot of heartache for staff at times trying to work through issues and with applicants. So your point, yeah, I agree.

Well, the biggest thing too is the root system of moving large trees and having them succeed and thrive. It's difficult.

All right, congratulations. Good luck with your project. All right, moving on to item number two is a conditional district rezoning for property containing 0.45 acres. located at 1415 and 1417 42nd Street, modifying an existing regional business conditional district to include additional uses. And Mr. Cherry is the planner presenting. Good evening, Chairman, Vice Chair, and members of the Planning Commission.

Excuse me. For your review, I present a conditional district modification from RV Regional Business Conditional District at 1415 and 1417 42nd Street. This application was submitted in May and has been reviewed by staff and is now at their first public hearing. The site is zoned RB Conditional District, Regional Business Conditional District, excuse me. The existing permitted uses in the CD are nightclub, personal service, and retail plant shop. The proposed modification is to allow additional commercial uses which are in bold on the right side of the screen. They include restaurant, food catering services, artisan food and beverage production, small scale, general retail, offices, studios, performing arts, fine arts, dance, martial arts, and recreation facility. Here is the site in the area context. This is located on 42nd Street between Oleander Drive and Park Avenue, Peachtree Avenue, sorry, and is approximately 0.45 acres. The site is in the vicinity of Capitol Fort of Wilmington, Trolley Stop Park, and the Audubon Community. The site is zoned RBCD like I've mentioned. Zoning districts neighboring this site include R10 medium density single dwelling district to the northwest and east and RB to the south. Here is a view of the subject property, an aerial view on the right and views of the building from north and south looking on 42nd Street. And here is the existing zoning map. This site is currently occupied by Reggie's 42nd Street Tavern, 42nd Street Barbershop, and Reggie's Veggies and Plants, and an associated parking lot. Uses of the surrounding properties include commercial businesses to the south on either side of Oleander Drive, and single family homes to the north and east. Here are the adjacent properties south towards Oleander, north towards Petrie and Park. into the east and west are single family and more commercial. Staff has reviewed this application's alignment with the Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan as it applies to this site. The Comprehensive Plan's growth strategies map identifies areas of opportunity with corresponding policies to guide new development. This is located within a suburban commercial retrofit and neighborhood scale infill development area of opportunity in between two mixed use place centers. Staff assessed this application with relevant policies and found modest support for the application's alignment with the plan. Key policies that support the conditional district modification promote compatible infill commercial development and a mix of uses that will improve access to goods, services, and amenities. There were no comments or testimony in support or opposition of this. Along with the previously approved conditions from the 2020 rezoning to a conditional district, staff is proposing the following change, which would read permitted uses shall be limited to the nightclub, retail garden shop, restaurant, food catering services, artisan food and beverage production, small scale general retail, general personal services, offices, studios, performing arts, fine arts, dance, martial arts, and recreation facilities, private. To summarize the application and staff's findings, the site located at 1415 and 1417 42nd Street is currently zoned RB, Conditional District, Regional Business Conditional District. The application requests to modify the previously approved conditional district to allow additional uses. The uses would be applicable to the existing tavern, barbershop, and retail plant shop provided all other Applicable land development code requirements are met. This would create neighborhood scale commercial opportunities with minimal adverse impacts on the existing built environment. No site plan changes are proposed as a part of this request. Staff finds this application to align with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, particularly policies encouraging compatible infill, commercial development, and a mix of uses along major corridors that will help improve access to good services and amenities. And staff finds this request to be reasonable in public interest and consistent with the relevant policies in the Wilmington comprehensive plan. So staff recommends approval and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or go back over any slides. And I believe the applicant is here as well to answer any questions.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Jones, do you have any questions about this one?

Not at this point.

Commissioner Woodruff.

Simple question, why?

Why? To add the extra uses. When this was approved, the conditional district was approved in 2022, I believe. They were limited to three uses. Right. Right, these uses. This allows, sorry, trying to find these. This allows more flexibility.

Well, it's a multitude of new things. I understand that completely. True. Is something planned?

I would defer to the applicant. This is just to give them flexibility for the future. Okay. And anything that comes up. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you.

I do have one question and just curiosity. The nightclub hours, have there been any, any incidences, amplified music or issues?

I'm not aware of any notices of violations. Commissioner Powell.

Yeah, I, I'm, I'm kind of where Commissioner Woodruff is. I mean, when in 2022, the discussion around the three uses was, they were kind of already doing that, and then the case came in front of us. So I'm really, you know, to the applicant, I'm just being honest, I really want to understand how you're going to pull this out. Well, let's wait until you come up. So, yeah, I have probably more questions for the applicant. Okay.

Commissioner Adams? I think I understand this, but I want to just clarify, because there's no modification to the site plan, which would be an alteration of buildings, parkings, the proposed uses would basically be limited to the buildings and configuration of the site as is today and would not additional conditions to allow building expansion or something beyond the parking and the building footprint would have to come back as a separate modification?

Correct. This is just allowing new uses within the city. There's no proposed site plan change or building expansion or anything. That would have to go through the proper avenues and receive approval at that time.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Kover? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll share the sentiments with the rest of them. Members of the commission, so just to walk me through the mechanics of how all this works. So we have tables of uses, permitted, special use permitting, which we've gone through here. When you have a conditional district rezoning, then it becomes use specific and therefore they need to increase like general uses that we might would find if you had a general rezoning, then they would just be permitted, a big table of permitted uses and we wouldn't be going through this, is that? Is the CD part of this why they have to come back and be so prescriptive to the uses they want to use?

Yes sir, because the original CD limited this to the three uses that were approved, they have to go through this process to allow additional uses. Where as opposed, by right development, they could just meet this code and have whatever use the code prescribes.

okay that's it so because it's got the cd component and in 2022 it was very prescriptive to three uses then they have to rebuild their table of uses that's what they're trying to achieve here essentially yes sir okay thank you so much so said another way when this was done in 2022 we said yes to a nightclub personal services and a retail plane shop the barber shop closed

the only thing they could put back into that building would be a nightclub, personal services provider, or a retail plant shop.

Correct, provided each thing met code standards.

Okay, and they realized that the market reality of that was challenging, so therefore proposed to expand the uses to these defined on the screen.

Correct, yes, sir.

Okay.

I got it right.

All right, anybody have any other questions right now? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Would the applicant like to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name's Matt Hearn.

Sir, if you could, I'm sorry, but the young lady over there yells at us if we don't speak into the microphone.

Thank you all for your consideration tonight. I appreciate your time. I just wanted to add that our goal with this request is simply to provide long-term flexibility for the property while keeping it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We're not proposing any expansion or major redevelopment of the site. We want to be able to accommodate small scale commercial uses if tenants need to change in the future, rather than having to come back here each time for rezoning. We have a barber that's currently there right now, and he's talking about leaving, and it might be hard to find another barber to fill that spot. We just want to be able to use some compatible businesses to go into our tenant spaces. That's pretty much it.

Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Pollack?

So don't get frustrated when I'm kind of picking at words. You said you had no major, I'll use my words, no major changes to the facility. So I'm going to ask you point blank, do you have, is there in this, are you asking to make any physical changes to the current makeup of your property?

No, we're not. Keep it the same.

So it's going to look the same. The plant shop is still going to have the the wired fence around, you know, the outside section. So is this this is really talking about incorporating these additional uses probably into that barbershop that you may not get a.

Right. The nightclub is going to be there for forever and the plant shop is pretty much going to be there forever. But the barbershop is the one in question. But we just want to be able to do different things if the need arises.

So no physical change to the parking, no physical change to the fence. You have two new neighbors on the other side of the fence now. OK. All right.

And just to jump piggyback, I apologize. Commissioner Adams, I usually go next. But if I understood Mr. Cherry correctly, the site plan that was approved in 2022 is not changing. That's correct. Yes, sir. Right.

So that that's what I'm asking. Okay. All right.

Correct. Okay. Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Cofer. I do have one question. I almost hate to bring this up, but it was, um, I just remember being surprised in 2022 when this came up the first time, um, there were a lot of people who had a lot of opinions and tonight there's nobody. What refresh my memory? What was the issue in 2022?

Jeff Dobbins is the gentleman that owns all the other businesses on that street, the muffler shop and all that stuff. He was just really concerned about what we were gonna do. He didn't know what our plan was and he's got residential behind it. He was just protecting his interests.

But I think a lot of people were there supporting what you all wanted to do too. So, okay. We remembered that people showed up.

I just couldn't remember exactly what the issue was.

Okay. Anyone have any other? Yes, sir.

I would just say, I think it's a testament, too, if they went through that in 2022 and had done a good job of not offending other neighbors, et cetera, it shows they didn't show up to oppose this.

Commissioner Woodruff? Quick question. Curiosity. Where did you get this list from? All these uses. I mean, it's extensive.

Right, right. Just all the small, low-impact businesses I could think of.

Set the bar for a while and sit there. I was just curious. I mean, I don't have any problem. It's how you deal with it in a small space, obviously. All right. Thank you.

Anybody else? Thank you. Thank you. Very well, at this point, we'll open up the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to speak in favor of agenda item number two, please come forward. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Hearing none, anyone wishing to speak in opposition to agenda item number two? Anybody else? Hearing none, we will close the public hearing. And Ms. Painter, were you... okay i was worried by that look so um what is the wishes of the commission make a

Quick comment, then I'll motion if you guys are ready. But I would say that adding flexibility to this site for community business, low impact flexibility with nightclub as the benchmark of impact and no one here in objection, no one online objecting, I think that's a testament to what you guys are doing over there. And we certainly want to support it. We don't want you to have to come back each and every time. tenant changes. So with that, I would be prepared to make a motion unless anyone else has some comments.

I apologize. Did anybody else have any other comments before we do that? Okay. Mr. Cofer. Okay.

I make a motion to approve agenda item number two, the request to modify an existing RBCD conditional district at 1415 and 1417 42nd Street. 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 considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because this proposal introduces additional goods and services while maintaining the existing character of the surrounding area, and therefore the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request.

Second. Mr. Kofler, I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's subject to the additional staff conditions.

Subject to the conditions as outlined in the case summary.

Okay.

Second?

We have a motion and a second.

We'll start down here. Commissioner Jones, how do you vote?

Yes.

Yes? Yay. Commissioner Woodruff? Yes. Commissioner Pollack? Yes. Commissioner Adams? Yes. Commissioner Coffin? Aye. Chair votes aye. Passes six to zero. Congratulations. Very well, we're at that point where any items from the commissioner, commission, Commissioner Cofer, do you have anything? Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Pollack?

No.

Very well, thank you all for being here. Items from the staff, I didn't forget.

So staff, we're very excited to tell you that at the June 16th council meeting, the city council unanimously adopted the greater downtown plan. So we are starting on our implementation plans for that project. So thank you all for your work on that. They also adopted or approved the land development code amendments that you had also heard in May. So that is our report. Your item from last month, the military cutoff rezoning. We'll be heard on July 21st. So the reason that they don't, they only have one meeting in July. So that's why they haven't taken that up yet.

Very good. Thank you very much.

Anything else?

Hearing nothing else, do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Thank you for watching.