Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the September 2nd, 2026 Wilmington Planning Commission meeting to order and ask that everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. I believe we have a full dais tonight. Mr. Attorney, do we have a quorum?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. The 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 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. 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 ten minute time limit will be allowed for public comment in favor of an item and a ten minute time will be allowed for public comment in opposition to an item. A staff member will track the ten minute time periods and will notify the speaker at the five minute and one minute mark and verbally call time when time expires. Ms. Painter. The chair in their discretion may extend these time periods. All groups, organizations, neighborhoods, or similar associations desiring to comment are asked to appoint one spokesperson to present their concerns or point of view to the commission on each agenda item. The public has been encouraged to submit their comments in writing via a web-based form located on the City of Wilmington's website. All comments received prior to 3 p.m. today were forwarded unedited to the Planning Commission, and all comments received will be delivered to the City Council when the item advances. Ms. Bradshaw, did we receive anything else other than what you sent us today?

Nothing since 3 p.m.

Thank you. All votes will be roll call votes 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. Rezoning 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 be tentatively be heard by City Council at its October 19th, 2026 meeting. First item of business will be approval of the July 8th meeting minutes. Do we have any comments or questions in regards to the minutes? Do I hear a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve the minutes.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you.

For item number one, we have a conditional district rezoning for properties containing 2.176 acres located at 120 and 124 Canal Street from R20L to resident, sorry, R20 residential legacy district to R7CD, medium density single dwelling conditional district for an eight unit residential development. And Mr. Cherry will be presenting.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Planning Commission. For your review tonight, I present a conditional district rezoning at 120 and 124 Canal Street. A community meeting was held in July prior to the application being filed with the city. Staff has reviewed and made the recommendation on this, and today is the first public hearing. This site is zoned R20, low density residential legacy district. The applicant is proposing to rezone this to an R7 moderate density residential conditional district. Here is a vicinity map showing the site in a broader context near Summerrest Trail, the Summerrest community, and near the intersection between Eastwood Road and Wrightsville. The existing land use is a single-family dwelling surrounded by mixed-use single-family dwelling and commercial. It's currently zoned R20, like I mentioned. To the south is O&I. To the west is community business, conditional districts. Here are photos of the subject property and views looking north, south, and west on Canal Street. As you can see to the north at Dead End, there's a road terminus there. And to the south is East Wood Road. The applicant is proposing to construct eight townhome units with associated driveways and parking. Sixteen parking spaces are provided of the 22 maximum allowed. Stormwater management permit will be required. 12 regulated and nine significant trees are proposed for removal, while five specimen trees will be retained. Here are concept elevations. This is from Canal Street looking onto the site. And here is a view from the rear from Motts Creek. The subject property is designated as an intercoastal tidewater area of opportunity on the city's growth strategy maps. Relevant policies to this are focusing on preserving character and single family compatibility, including preservation of the National Register Historic District and limit the number of driveways along parkways and loop road corridor types, encouraging shared access and a network of connected space or streets and pathways. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan offers policy guidance to shape development in 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 rezoning the site to an R7 conditional district highlight the need for compact development, transitional buffers, increasing housing supply, while protecting desired neighborhood character and tree preservation. During review, staff found one policy to not be aligned with this proposal. No comments or testimony were received in support of this proposal. And one comment, which I believe has been provided to you today, has been received in opposition. To summarize, rezoning from a low density residential district to medium density R7 conditional district on a 2.1 acre site. The stormwater management plan will be required. Five specimen trees will remain, will be retained, and policies in the comprehensive plan encourage balancing housing supply with protecting existing neighborhood character and protecting the natural environment. Staff finds this request reasonable and in public interest. And are there any questions? The applicant is here as well. I believe they have a presentation. And I'm happy to answer any questions that I can.

Thank you. Before we let you go, Commissioner Jones? Commissioner Woodruff? Commissioner Pollack? Yes, sir.

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

They may be better to address it, but I assume they will be coming, they'll be coming down. They're not shown on the site plan to be retained. Okay, that's all. Yes, sir. Okay, thanks.

Commissioner Adams.

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

So staff and the applicant did discuss alternative designs due to some constraints with natural features such as the creek and trees. This became the most feasible. The applicant may be able to speak more to specifically what those constraints were, but there were discussions.

Commissioner Collier? Commissioner Kofer? Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to invite the applicant.

Thank you very much. My name is Cindy Wolfe, and I'm here on behalf of the owners of the property, and I'm here with Nathan Singerman, who's one of the representatives from the development team. As Tucker pointed out, Canal Street is a dead-end roadway, the right-of-way stubs to the Tidal Creek. There's certainly no feasibility for future extension. We've got the four-story Grandview Apartments up on Wrightsville Avenue. It's three-story, basically over the parking deck at the rear building. We've got an existing contractor yard, which is certainly non-conforming to any of the current regulations for screening or sidewalks. And then, although the back access of Atlantic Marine Boat Service is back there, they keep a nice facility. And certainly, the mixed-use building that they have, the first of two planned back there, has given the street some character.

That's right.

But that being said, I think the zoning map is evident of what is here now. You've got the community business district across both ways, although the gray area is Wrightsville Beach, it is zoned C5, which is the heavy duty commercial as far as Wrightsville Beach zoning is. We've got the MD10, which is multifamily of Wrightsville West, and then Grandview is a mixed use in the O&I district. As shown, certainly the R20 Legacy Zoning District is still appropriate for all of Summer Haven. There is no question about that. But the Motts Creek Pond and Motts Creek that extends back here isolates the end of Canal Street from that community and more orients it towards the community that we have surrounding it, which is much more commercial. The existing conditions I just wanted to show, there are actually just two homes, Commissioner Pollack, or whoever asked that. The other building there is a garage, so it's a pretty good-sized garage. All of those existing structures would be removed. We went to a lot of... exercise in the very beginning, not only getting the survey done, all the things located, the existing utilities, all of that thing. But I think it's also important, and I wanted this exhibit to show that even though the tax records and the technical land boundary show this being a combined two acres, it really is only 1.6 acres. The blue line is basically the high water level, and so none of the lands below that or to the right of the screens in Motts Creek and along the water line of that is included in the feasible use of this area. So the blue line is where then the 75 foot COD, the Conservation Overlay District, and I don't know that that's what we call it anymore in the LDC, but that's where the setback for the more environmentally sensitive development happens. That being said, redevelopment of these two lots into two new homes would pretty much be by right, obviously, but then you negate the preservation of the requirements of the trees because neither of these lots are over an acre. So more trees could come out as single family lots. There wouldn't be any stormwater requirements specifically. And so that was one of the points that we tried to make when we had the community information meeting is Yes, we're asking for some more density, but you've got the assurity through the conditional use rezoning process of stormwater management, of preservation of trees, all of those types of things. The other that we sort of brought up that people talked about was noise, short-term rentals, those types of things where you might have two homes and two accessory dwellings that would be redeveloped here. Yes, you have eight units, but you also have seven other members of an HOA that can make sure that types of things like short-term rentals or noise or parties are much more reviewed and you know, paid attention to. Very similar to Tucker's shots, this is looking towards the end of Canal Street and the sidewalk where it ends from the Grandview project. All those trees along that right-of-way will be, are part of our plan to be saved. The sidewalk will extend because luckily the carbon gutter is already here, but the sidewalk will extend and we'll be creative in field locating that along the front yard. Same thing from the opposite direction. You can see those trees along the back of the curb that are all preserved in the plan. So again, this is the plan. I don't have the existing building footprints underneath here, but basically the lower building on 120 is slightly behind the existing house. The building at 124 is behind the existing house. this is just an exhibit, but I think then it shows all of the vegetation that is then in that 75 foot COD buffer and setback, that would be preserved. That's the house on the top end, the 124, and from the bridge over Summer Rest Road, The building we're proposing is behind where that building already is. So I think that the views from outside of it, which is certainly a concern that everyone had, are going to be softened and mitigated by the existing vegetation. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if this were redeveloped by right. Again, conceptual, it's difficult. Getting an architect involved at this point to the cost when you don't even know you're entitled, but the obvious concept that they have is a much more contemporary style of building. These are three stories where I mentioned that Grand View is four stories on the front and then two stories over parking deck on the, so it's not much different than that. across the road, the Atlantic Marine Mixed Use Building is also, once it's up there, it's a high two stories. So with that, and I apologize, this should say proposed R7, not R5. We do appreciate staff's recommendation and their research of it. One of the things that I believe the opponent to this rezoning had commented in their criteria was about stormwater management. We already have done the soils testing. We had tests done in two places all along that drive that fronts the parking pads in front of the buildings, so between the buildings and canal. That's where all the drainage would be directed. We're in the resource preservation, so there'll be low density impact. provisions is part of that design, but the groundwater depth and the infiltration rates are excellent for infiltration for our stormwater. So all of that has been sort of painstakingly reviewed ahead of time. In-field development where existing things exist is certainly one of our policies and strategies and location efficient housing where we have all the services, we have the multi-use path a lot of recreation opportunities in Wrightsville Beach and along here. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Kofer, start with you.

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

Technically, none of Neither unit, one on the bottom or four at the top, is beyond the 150 feet that fire trucks necessitate for turnaround. They technically all front on Canal Street. That being said, yes, that T-head would accommodate a fire truck if they needed to turn around on site. But the end of Canal Street has the turnaround that is measured then from Eastwood Road.

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

Yes, they're conceptual, but they're generally the style, the roof type, the character as far as being three stories with garages on the bottom, the access points facing the doors into from Canal Street. So yes, an architect will be working with that concept.

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

Absolutely, and noise ordinances, but like I said, when you have seven neighbors, you tend to have a little bit more stringent policies and guidelines for how you use your property.

Thank you, thank you. Commissioner Collier?

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

Oh, probably 15 to 20, the usual, not usual, the folks that I've been familiar with over different projects from the summer rest area.

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

That's the idea, I believe. Okay. They'll work with city engineering because there's some, what, you can't use porous pavement if you have infiltration, but we'll work that out.

Right, right. Yes.

So overall, for the size of the site, I believe we're even, I mean, this is in a more sensitive area, so low density would be just 12%, but we're less than 24% overall as far as our coverage.

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

There are some provisions for extending into that 75 foot setback and what you see crosshatched has all been calculated. So yes, we are under that threshold.

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

It was a creative plan trying to get these in here. And yes, the Xs are just regulated, the Ms are the ones that are mitigated. So it's a mixture, but we certainly didn't mess with any of the specimens.

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

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

That's correct. That works well within the R7 and the new LDC that's then allowed attached housing. The R7 has a little bit extra side setbacks. I mean, initially, that's why I had the R5 on one of those slides. It doesn't really matter. It semantics the Four units per lot are available up to 3,500 square feet per unit, and so the quadruplexes fit. The nice thing was the semantics is we could provide the side setbacks, and we only needed four units to make the project work, and so R7 was an easy option. And it doesn't just seem as bad as R5, although it still would have been just the eight units.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Pollack?

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

I just, I read it a moment ago, so I was trying to address it.

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

One of them was traffic, that it is dead end. That being said, yes, eight townhome units have slightly more trip generation than the possibility of two singles with two ADUs, but then they have a higher trip generation. I think at this point, the amount of increase is negligible to the traffic that comes and goes from the back of the businesses on the left hand side and Grandview coming out their driveway. Stormwater was one of them and the sensitivity and as I pointed out, we are paying attention to the sensitivity already, but single family development wouldn't have to at all. Got it. Tree save, again, I think we've addressed that. You've gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, but I think we've been very sensitive to that. And again, because it's a conditional use, then the restrictions of the conditions maintain that we have to preserve all the trees that are in the 75 and away from the creek side. Those were the bulk of it.

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

Absolutely.

Okay.

Because there are combined improvements for all four units on each lot, and even though these end up being individual lots, the HOA just covers everything. The LDC just provided sort of for these imaginary lines, and it works well, I believe, because it's possible to do these types of projects without how they used to be with the MD. They had to be the multi-dwelling districts, and the R5 and the R7 now, I guess to me, keep it a little cleaner. But yes, it would be a common HOA for all eight units.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Woodruff?

Commissioner Jones?

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

There are two spaces out front, and I apologize. Like I said, the AI that created the conceptual elevation doesn't have them quite as wide. But no, the intention is that the parking pad has two spaces. What you see on the site plan, however, is short for a parking pad. So the way it works out is, two cars fully in a garage and then the garage recessed underneath where you're seeing the roof line so that four cars could park very easily. Thank you. That's all I have.

In the notes of the package that we got, there was a, and you touched on this, but I just wanted short-term rentals. There was the desire for HOA covenants restricting short-term rentals. Is that, I know it's not a condition, nor do I think it could be, but is that going to be addressed?

It's certainly something that is intended, and if you want Nathan to address it, I'm sure he could, but yes. I don't believe we have any problem with a condition, a self-imposed condition.

Even though you used AI to make those sketches, I'll take your word for it. And then the last, this is really just a statement, I know the answer, but the canal in Eastwood is signalized, correct? Yes, it is. Okay. And that includes dedicated movement off of canal, left, right, or straight?

Correct.

Okay.

It is a full, yes, left, right, or straight. Of course, there was a gentleman parked in the wrong lane as I was coming down here.

And with crosswalks. That's nice.

Yeah, and there are crosswalks that are controlled.

Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, sir. Commissioner Collier.

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

It is, there is, if you basically, on the plan that's in front of you, right there is the fire hydrant. Atlantic Marine had to extend the fire hydrant down to the beginning of their first building. And so it's easily within the 400 feet. And then there is, I guess, a two-inch line generally can feed about 15 units. Right? No? No?

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

I don't think I have.

Can you point on that thing?

It is just off the lower left-hand side of this picture. So it's just before the new mixed-use building.

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

No, the drive-through is beyond. It is down here. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if that circle is the valve for it.

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

So it's within about 150 feet of our driveway.

Any other questions from the commission?

Thank you very much.

Thank you. This time we'll open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to speak in favor of item number one, please come forward. if you could state your name and make sure you speak into the microphone so Ms. Bradshaw doesn't.

I'm David Floyd and myself and my son Will are here. We own the adjoining property there across on Canal Street and we own Atlantic Marine. We feel like this would be a great use for the property. Several things tossed up in the air about what might go there, but as far as the lowest amount of use and kind of keeping with what we build on the other side of the property with the mixed-use homes and offices, I think it would kind of fit. And yes, there is a fire hydrant right on the front edge of the property there that we put in. Didn't know if you had any questions for me, but we have a space to put and approval for another building that we'll be putting up at some point in time, but not in the next few weeks by any means. I think it'd be a pleasant little addition to the end of that street.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to item number one? All right. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. And Ms. Jones, why don't we start with you? Any thoughts?

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

Commissioner Woodruff?

I think it's a great plan. I think a lot of work's gone into it. I appreciate the effort of Cindy and her clients to present it to us in the way you have. I'm all for it.

Thank you. Commissioner Pollack?

I'm good.

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

Commissioner Collier?

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

Commissioner Cofer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this one hits close to home for me from personal anecdote, personal living experience. I'm actually in that. neighborhood node to the south of these, the high impact zone and then the enter But nevertheless, I mean, I drive past that intersection several times a day, and I think that the design, as I will echo my colleagues up here's sentiments on the design and taking careful attention to tree production, the stormwater plan, of course, that's gonna come with this type of project, and just paying careful, discerning attention to the sensitivity of that area. I think when you look at the zone itself cut by Motts Creek, the tampering and the transition from Grandview down to a 35-foot structure and condensing the density into that design footprint, it's modern urban design standards that we're putting into practice, and I certainly support it. I think it's a good project. So I'm in favor.

Thank you. Being involved in the latter part of the rewrite of the LDC, this is what we asked for. So thank you. What are the wishes of the commission?

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

Second?

Second. Moved by Commissioner Cofer, seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Jones, how do you vote? Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

I can't talk. Commissioner Pollack.

I can. I'm sorry.

Aye. Mr. Adams. Yes. Commissioner Collier. Yes. Commissioner Cofer. Aye. Chair votes aye as well. Congratulations. 7-0. In favor? Agenda item number two is a conditional district rezoning modification for properties containing 12.26 acres located at 2225 Stonecrop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard from an existing O&I office institutional conditional district to a new O&I office institutional conditional district to allow for future mixed use development and Ms. Hopkins will be presenting.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of Planning Commission. For your review this evening, I present a conditional rezoning from an existing office and institutional conditional district to a new office and institutional conditional district at 2225 Stone Crop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard. Prior to submittal, a community meeting was held in June of 2026. The application was submitted in July of 2026 and reviewed by staff. And it is now here for your review and recommendation. The site is currently zoned O&ICD, Office and Institutional Conditional District, and is part of the Barclay West Master Plan development. Potential uses include professional and medical offices, places of assembly, small scale services, and commercial district mixed use, all limited to a height of 45 feet or 96 feet with a step back. Existing conditions apply to all Barclay West developments include required architectural consistency with existing and future phases of development, limits on residential density, and the prohibition of strip retail. The applicant proposes a new O&I conditional district that allows all office and institutional uses as allowed today with the exclusion of crematories, funeral homes and mortuaries, railroad facilities, and wireless telecommunication facilities. The proposed conditions maintain architectural consistency as a priority, set minimum ground floor fenestration standards and maximum building setbacks, and define locations for parking. This map shows the site and the general vicinity surrounding the request. The site is in the vicinity of The Point, Midtown YMCA, and Halliburton Park. A portion of the site to the north is an existing medical office, while the larger portion to the south is vacant. Surrounding uses include commercial to the north, multifamily to the east and south, and vacant to the west. The site is currently zoned off with an institutional conditional district. Surrounding districts include RB and RBCD to the north, MD17CD to the east and south, and RBCD to the west. These are photos of the existing site conditions. The site currently includes Wilmington Health Building 1 and a vacant property. These are views of the subject property from several viewpoints, including looking east on Gallery Park Boulevard and south on Stone Crop Drive. These are photos of the adjacent properties and land uses. There is a hotel to the north, a medical office under construction to the east, and vacant parcels to the south and west. This site is part of the Barclay West master plan development approved in 2013. Conditions and design strategies adopted at the time apply to all sites in the master planned area that have not been rezoned since 2013. A few conditions important to this site include requiring architectural consistency, prohibiting strip retail, integrating a mix of uses, providing ample open space, and preserving trees above the requirements of the LDC, and limiting residential density. In areas of the master plan zoned O&I and RB, residential density is limited to 116 units. This currently leaves the development with 44 more potential units in commercial areas. Site-specific conditions that prohibit non-compatible uses, remove the existing limit on density, maintain architectural consistency across the current and future phases of development, and set design standards for parking locations, building setbacks, and fenestration are proposed. A master TIA was completed for the planned development at the time of its approval. The conditions and the TRC process will require an updated TIA for this phase of the development. Any improvements to infrastructure recommended in this TIA would need to be completed before the development could receive its certificate of occupancy. The proposed conditional district would remove the limit on residential density included in the current conditions and it would be subject to the limits of the underlying zoning, O and I, at 17 units per acre. If the development were to commit 10% of residential units to workforce housing for a period of 15 years, there would be no limit on density. Staff has reviewed this application's alignment with relevant adopted plans. The Craig Wilmington Comprehensive Plan is the only plan that applies to this site. The comprehensive plan's growth strategies maps identifies areas of opportunity with corresponding policies to guide the look, feel, and use of new development. This site is located in a green field sites as multi-use places area of opportunity and a mixed use place. The comprehensive plan recommends moderate densities and lot coverages in mixed use places. The comprehensive plan also offers broader policy guidance to shape new development throughout the city. Staff assessed this application with relevant policies and found modest support for the application's alignment with the plan. Key policies that support this request highlight the need for well-planned mixed-use centers with a diverse mix of uses and integrated design while discouraging stripped commercial retail development. Staff finds this location to be well connected to three major roadways, 17th Street, Independence Boulevard, and Carolina Beach Road. One comment has been received in opposition noting concerns with traffic impacts and multimodal connectivity. In summary, this proposal requests to rezone the site from an existing ONI CD to a new ONI CD with new conditions that remove the existing limit on density, maintain architectural consistency, and set direction for ground floor fenestration, building setbacks, and parking locations. The comprehensive plan encourages a diverse mix of uses, moderate density, and compatible design that aligns with the existing character of this development. Staff finds the request to be consistent with the Creek Wilmington Comprehensive Plan, reasonable, and in public interest. Staff recommends approval. I am happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is present as well.

Thank you, Ms. Hopkins. Commissioner Jones?

I don't have any questions yet.

Okay. Commissioner Woodruff?

The reference to, uh, workforce housing, it's just kind of a statement that's in there. Was there discussions about that or recommendations about that or refusal of that?

Um, there was just a brief discussion that because they were looking to remove that limit on and see that that was an option that they could pursue if they chose to, but they did not indicate any interest or disinterest.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Pollitt.

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

Commissioner Adams?

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

Correct. It would be through CDMU. But they could use the existing Wilmington Health Building as that commercial component.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Collier? Commissioner Cofer.

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

Allowed in ONI or currently allowed?

In this master plan.

For this site, there are 44 units that they could build. The total limit on the Barclay West master plan is 1,375, I believe, but only 116 were able to be in commercial areas. So they have built out a lot of that 116. They have 44 left.

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

When they apply for a pre-TRC and go through the formal technical review process, that is when they will need to complete a TIA.

The TIA will be updated.

I just have, I'm sorry.

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

Minimal. We mentioned that it was an option, but they did not share interest or lack of interest.

Okay. Thank you so much.

I just had a quick question on page 17 of the handout, actually on page 16 of our package. The level of service for the adjacent roads are all As with planning capacity of 9,000 ADTs, is that? Sound familiar? Yes. Okay. So looking down at the projected difference by if this request were to be successful, I mean, in your experience, is a medical office building more impactful to traffic or an apartment building?

I wouldn't say in my experience, but looking at the numbers, you do see more trips generated from a medical office than you do from multifamily.

Okay.

Especially at this scale that they could build on this size of a site.

Okay. Yes, because one's forecasted to be 213,000 square feet.

Yes, because they can build up to 40% of the site area.

So really this is reducing the potential traffic impact if they went residential as opposed to O&I, the office buildings.

I don't know that I would say it's reducing because they could build medical offices today. They could build it with this rezoning. This just creates the opportunity for them to build more residential if they choose to.

Got it. Okay. Better said. Any other questions from the commission?

Commissioner Collier?

While we're on traffic, though, the medical office before, their intensity was 64.2. Was that a limit, or was that just how much has been built?

That's what's currently built.

Okay. So the 213, the proposed 213 change, that is a max number two, or that's a proposal, or it's just a max they could get with the ONICD?

That would be the maximum that they could get in ONI.

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

Any other questions for Ms. Hopkins? Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to invite the applicant.

Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Matt Nichols. I'm an attorney in Wilmington, and I'm here tonight representing the owner and applicant with me this evening. That's Cameron Land, excuse me, Cameron Properties Land Company. And with me here this evening is Hill Rogers with Cameron Management. And we appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal for your consideration this evening. We have a few slides that I think will help explain the request. And then we've heard some questions and we're certainly here to try to answer any questions that the commission has. This is a relatively recent drone shot of the area. And I put the movie theater on there just for reference. I think everyone generally knows where the movie theater is at the point. The subject property is shown outlined in the dotted yellow with the yellow star, and it's roughly 12 and a quarter acres. It's currently zoned ONI 1, which I don't know that that exists anymore, but it's ONI 1 CD, and that is a result of the city council's approval of the bigger Barclay West conditional rezoning in 2013. So what you're looking at here is really about half of Barclay West. Barclay West was approved as about a 302-acre multi-conditional district development. About half of it is on the south side of Independence and about half of it's on the north side. What you're looking at here is the south side of Independence. And it has obviously developed over time since 2013. But a lot has changed since 2013. Probably too long to list, but some of the main items would be you've got an entirely new land development code. When this went through the process, when we were going through the process, we were actually under the old zoning code, which I think was Chapter 18 of the city code. And then that changed in 2004-ish, I think. And then when we came before city council, we were under what was then Chapter 19, I think the zoning code. And at that time, you also didn't have your comprehensive plan, so that's a big change. That was adopted 2016. It's hard to believe that's been 10 years. But when this was adopted, I think it was the future land use plan, 2004 to 2025 was the name of the plan. And then, of course, just the changes in population growth and job growth and changes in the retail market and office demand and everything else since 2013. So really what we're here for is asking for a consideration to update these conditions from 2013 on this, what's one of the sort of more remaining parts of this portion of Barclay West. So looking at the at the property itself, the existing building will remain, that's the Wilmington Health Building, and Ms. Hopkins showed that in a number of photos. This is a little bit of an older Google Maps photo, but there's a new parking area that has since been created, and that's behind the Wilmington Health Building. And then you can see, on the upper sort of right hand corner, which is not part of the rezoning request, there is a current office building under construction. If you were to go out there today, you would see that and it's, it's well underway. The property that is undeveloped is roughly seven and a half acres, just a little bit under seven and a half acres. And we would like the opportunity to have some more flexibility with that. When you look at some of the slides Ms. Hopkins showed, I'm thinking back to 2013 and we had a number of neighborhood meetings and we had a lot of discussions about the overall development. But it's really interesting to see like back in 2013, the discussion about density. And when you fast forward ahead 13 years and all the changes, Like if you could identify a place in Wilmington where you'd want more density with all the infrastructure, and as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the A-level service of the roads, all the different intersections that have been improved, I could go through and show you things here even on this that weren't in place in 2013. But if you were wanting to increase density in Wilmington, this is exactly the place where you would want to do it. It's close to grocery stores. It's close to public parks. It has probably the best access of any large site in all of Wilmington with Independence Boulevard, 17th Street, Carolina Beach Road. Most of this is signalized, and none of that was really there in 2013. But when the when the approval, when it was approved in 2013, there was a lot more ONI space, there was a lot more RB space, a lot more commercial space. And it's really pretty interesting to see the density that was put upon what equates to 223 acres of combined ONI-1 and RB was limited to 116 units. which is about one unit for every two acres. And really what we're asking for tonight is just to sort of lift that density cap on this remaining part and allow the opportunity to have it developed just like any other ONI site. And again, the residential certainly helps the commercial component. The roadways are more than adequate for allowing some more residential on that seven and a half acres, but there's no definite plan right now. So it's really just opportunities as they sort of plan out one of these last parts of vacant property within the Barclay West development to have an opportunity to put some more residential. That's kind of how we got here today. And I would like to say we appreciate the planning staff's discussions with us. They've been very available and helpful with us and sort of walking through different ways to approach this. So I do want to say staff's been great to work with on this. And I've got a few more slides that might help elaborate on some of the questions. Part of the reason you'll see the shape of the property is because the track that's in the upper right-hand corner, Cameron Properties doesn't own that anymore. That's owned by Wilmington Health. That was recently sold in, I think, April of this year. And then Ms. Hopkins touched on the consistency with the plans, but there's not many properties you're gonna see in Wilmington that are in a higher intensity area of opportunity, a transit-oriented mixed-use center, a high-capacity transit route, and has this much access to existing commercial goods and services. You can walk to all sorts of things within the area. You're close to signalized intersections, grocery stores, and as I said, it is really where you would wanna see some more density if you can put it there. And it's gonna be very high quality, just like the entire Barclay West is. So I think that's the conclusion. Staff recommends approval. I'm sure y'all have questions, but that's sort of the long and the short of it.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Cofer, we'll start with you.

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

It's a great point. We don't have a plan, but what The residential barrier is resulting from the 2013 condition. So when the city council approved this in 2013, they limited the entire density of the 302 acres to 1,375 units. 1,259 of those units were the maximum in the multifamily zone. So the only units allowed for, again, over 223 acres to be exact of all the RB and all the ONI one was 116 units. I'm not sure why that was. I think at the time there was just different demands for different housing types. I think if you were going through this today, it would be vastly different. I would say there'd be really no reason to have a cap on the density. The code has caps. And all we're really asking for here is just to have this, what essentially amounts to seven and a half acres, just have it treated like every other O&I zoned property in the city, as far as density. So the density cap exists not because of the code. It exists because of the 2013 approval. And that's really why we're here. We're asking for consideration. Can we please go back and look at those 2013 conditions? Because frankly, they're really outdated at this point. Some of them don't even apply anymore. And there's been such a dramatic shift in population growth, job growth, demands for different types of housing. But right now we're limited to this cap on density in the commercial areas out there. So I don't know if that answers the question, and not to sound like a broken record, but I would say that again, We just want the opportunity to put the density that the code allows. We're not asking for anything above and beyond what anybody else could do on ONI property.

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

I think that was a number that staff calculated. That wasn't a number that we did. Again, there's no plan there. It's possible that no residential would go there, but we would like the opportunity to put residential there. I think it makes perfect sense to add more residential. It's needed. We need it in the city. We need it in locations exactly like Barclay West. But right now, I don't know what density is left, but there's not much left out there. And there's still property to develop. In hindsight, I think there probably would have been better to have more density in the commercial sections. And I think that's definitely what you would see today if you were developing it today. You'd have, I think, significantly more residential within the O&I and the RB zones out there.

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

Mr. Cofer? In response to your questions, the 208 units is assuming that the site for which these conditions are being applied is built out at 17 units per acre. So that's where staff did that to estimate associated traffic with that. So that assumes 17 units per acre. When we say removing the residential cap, it means they're no longer going to be restricted to that 44 units, which is in the current conditions, which is all that is left for residential development in the ONI and RB portions of Barquay West. And it would not apply to the entire Barclay project, just to the site that is shown in your packet and that the applicant outlined. As Haley mentioned, if when they develop this site, they opt to do 10% of workforce housing for 15 years, that does allow them to go above 17 units per acre, again, only on this site. And then there is no specific density cap.

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

Commissioner Collier?

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

It was 2023. I have a slide showing that here.

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

That's a good question. I don't really remember exactly how it came up. I know we were looking at this site and this was an actual rezoning. So this was ONI and MD 17 getting rezoned to RB because we thought that was a better fit for the overall development with potential commercial uses up near Independence Boulevard. So the difference here is we're not asking for any change in the underlying district. We're O&I one, excuse me, O&I now, we're asking for O&I, we're just asking for updated conditions. So it's the same zone.

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

Well, I think all you have to do is look out at what's there. The infrastructure is there. The Stone Crop Drive, Chippenham, Dusty Miller Lane, all of that is in place. I'm looking here at two traffic circles. I'm looking at at least two major full lines full movement intersections that my client installed at their cost. Here you can see how it would, I guess, I can't think of the term, but it would just be how it fits within the cohesive development of Barclay West. And my client's done a great job with Barclay West. And there's really no reason to think they would come to this last seven and a half acres and make a mess of it. The reason why we don't have a specific site plan is because when this was developed under the future land use plan, it was designated a certain higher intensity area of opportunity. And there was a specific provision in your code at the time that allowed us to essentially do a bubble plan. That bubble plan is essentially shown here. That's what was approved in 2013, all per the code. So you can see on there the O and I is the light blue, the RB is the darker blue, and you can see back in 2013, I mean, the thought was this was going to be mostly commercial. It was But again, it was a different time. Look what's happened with retail and office space since 2013. Look what's happened with it since the pandemic. And look what's happened with Wilmington's housing demand and job growth. So it makes perfect sense to say with the CDMU opportunities to try to put more housing in those commercial areas. But again, it was a, The reason why we're here is because that was limited to 116 units on everything you're seeing there in blue. And I would respectfully say that's an outdated condition. And we hope you see it that way too, that we're just trying to get more units there. But again, I'll stress, we're not asking for any extra units. We're simply asking, can we please have this property treated like any other ONI property in Wilmington as far as density if you're gonna do CDMU? We're not asking for extra units. We're just asking to lift what we think is an outdated density cap from 2013.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Pollack?

I'm still thinking.

It may take a while, I guess. Yeah.

Matt, it's, in my mind, it's no big deal, but you're talking obviously density here. I mean, that's the important thing. And it's changed, no doubt about it, over the last 10 whatever years. But I'm a little bit like mr adams about you know usually we have a plan you need you know a change to accommodate the plan but you don't have a plan you you as far as i know there's no concept but if there is we don't know about it it's just you want the ability to do something different why are we not waiting until you come up with why you need this change well again the the

The property was approved and developed and has been developed very responsibly under the 2013 approval as a quote unquote bubble plan. That was allowed. I think my clients have exceeded the sort of expectation as far as the quality of the development. the landscaping, the layout, much of what you see here from 2013, that's essentially the same sort of main arterial layout of the streets. All the traffic signals, trying to provide a mixed use center in a very sort of centralized part of the city. So there is no current plan, but in looking at folks that may want to, sort of come in and do something there. We're just asking for the opportunity to complete the project under the current framework of a bubble plan. There's no plan there today. And they could go out there and do development there without going through a conditional process because it is already conditional approved. I realize the code has changed, but we would ask for the ability just to proceed under the format that it was approved. And I think my clients have proven to the city that they have done a very responsible job in developing it and continue to do high quality. And there's no reason to believe that they're going to again go out there and do something that will um really hurt hurt the development that it's it's obviously in their in their best interest to continue to develop it in a very responsible way and that's what they're going to do and that's absolutely what their track record is and so um the the project was designed with some flexibility in mind and that flexibility um is um is still important to them thank you mr commissioner jones

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

Yes.

Is that like construction staging? There's several, it looks like, buildings right there on the bottom right?

I think she's above the words future development.

Yeah, right above future development.

Oh, yeah, so there's, I don't know if it's shown in the recent photo. Let me go back to the other one.

Is that the new Wilmington Health building?

Yeah, so the parking.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm not sure of that exact equipment, but you can see from the previous photo that there's, That parking lot really is a big benefit. It was needed. It's very helpful to have that additional parking there. I can speak to that myself. So I know that that was just recently completed. It may be part of it. But yeah, I think that's a big improvement with the availability. Because that's a doctor's office. And you want to have ample parking for folks get in and out, so I'm not sure of the specific equipment you're referencing, but there has been construction activity out there. There is ongoing construction activity.

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

I'd have to ask. I don't know the answer. Yeah, I'd have to ask. I'm sorry. No worries.

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

Commissioner Collier. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr. Nichols, I guess the one question, the overall 1,375, is that the total number or something thereabouts? That number's not changing, correct?

That's correct.

So what you're doing is you're being able to move some of the density into this one area more so than what you would have in 2013 or 2018 or 2023. Is that correct or incorrect?

Yes, sir, if I'm understanding correctly. One of the original concepts was to simply come back in and ask for the 1375 to be raised. After discussions with the city, our understanding is that would require us to rezone all 302 acres. There's multiple different owners now. it would be very sort of complicated to do that. Restarts the code, so yes. Yeah, so again, in discussions with staff, and we do appreciate staff's help and guidance on how we could potentially present this for consideration would be to have a, just have a zone sort of carved out here where it has its own conditions And most of the conditions are, again, yeah, there was like 26 or so conditions.

But his conditions would not be outside of the conditions previously, correct? Like the 1375.

Would no longer apply to this.

So you're saying 1375 in 2013 would have been a total, but today, if we agreed with this, it would be 1375 plus, I know 208 is just a number, but plus 208, correct?

I think that's one way to look at it. Yes, sir.

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

Well, a couple things I would say. This is one of the last remaining parts on this side of the street. So we're really kind of toward the end of the finish line. Not quite there, but like I said, the density has for the most part been allocated and has been... Used up, I don't know how else to say it. I don't know if that's the planning term, but we're toward the end of the allowable 2013 density. And... The 1375. The 1375, yes, sir. So... Hang on, let me ask.

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

That's all that's left for commercial areas. So for O&I and RB zoned master planned areas, they have 44 left.

Okay, sorry, I apologize. No, no, that's fine. I've lost my train of thought, but on the, as far as a density cap, again, the cap is in the code.

17 units an acre, right?

Yeah. So we're not asking for anything beyond what the code allows. And again, perhaps I'm oversimplifying it. But but again, all we're asking is in 2026, does it make sense to say you could only do 44 units there? And we respectfully contend no. Again, of all the things that you all consider and you have much sort of bigger unit counts come before you at times. I would say of all the different sites that you evaluate, this is probably, it's not my call, it's y'all's call, but this is probably one of the types of sites that you would say is ideal for more density.

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

And please keep in mind that as part of the condition through the process, there is like a T. So there's sort of an overall TIA for this that's been sort of adopted, updated, sort of renewed over time. So this will go through whatever goes there, whether there's residential or not. It's going to go through the full TRC review, the TIA analysis. You know, this isn't the approval tonight, which we certainly hope that in the commission's decision here proves it. That doesn't allow us to go out and as you know, Mr. Collier, it doesn't allow us to go out and do anything other than apply and go through the city process and meet all the requirements. And if there's additional improvements that need to be done, they certainly have to be done. But we're asking for, again, a reconsideration of a 13-year-old condition that to me was a very low cap to begin with. and we're asking to just meet what the code allows as far as density on that site.

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

That's a great point. It does. What we're asking for tonight as far as not having this 2013 density cap only applies to what you see in yellow. or a third of it which is, you already know it's there. It's an office building and a parking lot. So we're down to about seven and a half acres. And we think it would be a great opportunity to potentially have some residential there. But we do not have a plan for it. And we look forward to, you know, having an opportunity to have someone come up with something there that really fits. And they can be very selective about what they want to go there. Sure. And it's not, and my client's not going to just have something there because someone comes along with it. I mean, it's very important that it fits in with the development. and that it's cohesive with the rest of the development and fits the architecture and fits the use and all that sort of thing, so.

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

Could you say that again? Sorry.

So in your picture, you've got a big overall yellow area that is.

Yes.

I don't know what that acreage is right now, but.

It's about 12 and a quarter.

So then there's seven and a half left to be developed or thereabouts, eight acres, something like that.

Seven and a half, yes, sir.

Would that 7.5 times 17 be all that you put it on? You wouldn't try to apply 17 times the entire yellow boundary?

No. I don't, they're not doing anything with the building at all. I don't.

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

yeah i see what you say sort of like the county's version of performance residential where you can sort of i don't that's a really a question i would ask to the city i don't i've never even thought about that being being allowed or possibility i think i thought you could just do the the density on the acreage you're developing you can but by what we're approving we're approving it to be able to be on that total area not just the seven and a half acres true but i but you'd have to that if I'm not mistaken, I mean, the question sort of assumes that the building and the parking lot are going to be torn down and it'll just be vacant, but that's, there's no intent to tear the building down. The parking lot was just built. So we're talking about developing the seven and a half acres and that's it. And my understanding, and the city can correct me if I'm wrong, that the density would be based upon the acreage you're developing.

The density would be based on the total acreage of the property that's included in the CDMU, whether that be the partials that are undeveloped or if it's including the office space, which I believe was alluded to as being a potential commercial component of that.

That is true. That's true that we would want the opportunity to have the commercial building.

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

Well, I'm not going to put any limitation. I'm not going to. We want to follow the code. That's it. And that's all we're asking for is for that property to follow the code. So if I misunderstood the question or how the development process would be evaluated, then I apologize. But we're we're we're simply asking for the prior density cap to be removed from this site, the opportunity to do CDMU if that presents itself with a development that my clients think makes sense there and will fit well and, you know, meets the, meets their, what they would like to see there. But whatever density the city allows us to put there, we do not want to limit that. Nor do I think it should be limited. I don't, what would be the reason to limit the density there?

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

Okay. I understand. And I'm certainly not arguing with you or anybody up here, but I'm trying to understand what's the concern with putting density, as much density as you can on that site under the code.

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

It's two parcels now.

Out of the yellow and the end of the yellow?

No, sir. This is based upon the subdivision map that was recorded in April of this year. The property, I'm just going to call it the block, which is bordered by Gallery Park, Stone Crop, Chippenham on the bottom, and Dusty Miller Lane. that block has been subdivided into three tracks. Track one, you can see faintly is track C1R1 is roughly seven and a half acres roughly. The bottom track is track 3R, that's seven and a half acres roughly. And then the track C1R2 in the corner That is not owned by my clients. That's owned by Wilmington Health, and that's also roughly 4.7 acres or something like that. So of the dotted yellow area, the 12 acres that's under your consideration this evening, it is two separate tracks. It's two separate tracks.

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

It would be 45 unless they chose to do a step back and that would be 96.

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

Mr. Collier, if I may? Yes, ma'am. The 208 units was calculated based on the full 12.26 acres, yes. So they can go, again, they can go above the 208 if they do the workforce housing component. But if they do not do workforce housing, 208 units is calculated, the 17 units an acre for the full parcel size.

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

And if I seemed argumentative, I do apologize, sir. You're not. You never argument. The staff report, we understand, is correct on the unit count. But that was a staff calculation, and we're fine with that. No worries.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

You good? Yes, sir. Commissioner Pollack?

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

Yes, sir.

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

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

Okay. Unless I'm misreading something now. You know, Matt, I guess the only question I would really have is, and it's been asked two or three times here, is, you know, at some pieces along this discussion, this has felt like a discussion for a general rezoning versus a conditional rezoning. I mean, it's kind of just the way the discussion's gone on. but I clearly understand the conditional piece. So I guess I'm okay with directionally because obviously your clients have demonstrated over the years, the quality and the building. So it was a little confusing to me as I was trying to, visualize what you were asking for around this because this is the way the boxes are drawn, but I'm gonna make an assumptive statement and then please validate or tell me I'm wrong. The reason this is drawn this way is because the property, the upper right corner, upper right quarter, that's because that property's been sold.

That's correct. So it has no bearing here. Well, they don't own it. Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

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

So this is my last chance to do this. So please.

go ahead matt yes sir i'm going back when you first started this plan um you mentioned that the idea was to get rid of the 1300 whatever cap completely and that didn't work i mean it was too much other stuff to do that right that's correct so this effort tonight is to still get to the way you want to be but it's you were not able to eliminate the 1300 cap correct

Uh, we, we can, that's, uh, something we can't do without rezoning all 302 acres is what I'm told. So we're, we're just trying to do what we can with what we have left.

So the cap is still there. Yes.

And that's across this property. Currently.

Yes. Okay. And so you're not asking us to do anything to change that cap. Yes.

But you're going to.

you want to put 204 or whatever the number may be, which raises the cap or raises the level above the cap, right?

Well, let me try to explain it this way. And I if I'm not doing a good job explaining this, I apologize. But if you let me go back to Actually, Ms. Hopkins had a good slide that had the 2013 CD approval and then it had like a piece of a puzzle. It had the 12 acres we're talking about. while that's being pulled up. Essentially what we're asking for with regard to the density is we understand that when the 302 acres was rezoned, there was a density cap on the entire puzzle or piece. We're asking for that piece to be lifted out of that and be considered independent of that cap for purposes of development under the code as allowed today. But I would keep in mind that we're putting in additional conditions. So we're not just asking for a general O&I zoning. We do have a number of conditions that are completely agreeable on this site. I can go through each of those, they're in your packet. And most of those are architectural related, and I think they probably exceed what was the specificity.

Matt, let me stop you. I understand completely. Like Richard, I think it's a great plan. It's how we're getting there. And I don't want to say it's bothering me, but it seems to me to be staring us in the face. The cap is $1,300 something. You want to put the potential to build more, whatever it is that takes you above the cap. You tried to get rid of, attempted to deal with the city about getting rid of the cap, but you said it's too much work, we don't want to go that way, so we're going to try this. And it just seems to me we're making an end run to get where you want to be. And I understand you want to go the best way and I don't have a problem getting there. It's just how you're attempting to get there. I'm looking at again the sheet that we've got and I brought up the first time this came around with this workforce housing and I mean it says you know the cap on residential density which is the 1300 may be eliminated by the 10 percent workforce and I'm wondering is that what the city threw out to you to say instead of doing the you know you can you can raise this cap By doing this. No, sir.

Okay. And I'm sorry to interrupt. No, no, no. But I do want to comment. This is not an end around in any way. Parcels have been sold out there such that we don't have ownership to submit a rezoning application for all the property. Like in 2013, my client owned all of it. It was all owned by Cameron Properties. all 302 acres, so we could submit the rezoning application. We can't submit a rezoning application. It's not that we're shying away from hard work and that sort of thing. We would have to go and get, I understand, everybody out there's signature I don't know if they got to talk to their lenders, there's loans out there, we don't know. But in any event, so this is definitely not an end around. All we're trying to do, and it boils down to sort of your right to petition the government. which we all talk about in civics class and that sort of thing. We're trying to get in front of this commission and ultimately get in front of city council and say, could you please look back at that condition you did in 2013? Does it make sense today? If you think it does, then we'll go home. If you think that it doesn't make sense in 2026 to limit everything you see there in blue to 116 residential units, please just lift the cap from what we have left. That's all we're asking. And we're gonna follow everything in your code. We're not asking for any special treatment. And on top of that, put all these different conditions we are agreeable to, which I think should be noted, which are all the, they're in your report. It'll go above and beyond your O&I ordinance because we're going to, there's 12 of them. We've agreed to additional, we're gonna follow the architectural consistency of Barclay West. We're going to do the TIA updates. We're not gonna do linear strip retail development. We're gonna put the off-street parking behind the buildings, unless we do the traffic circle or the roundabout, which looks great out there. um we're going to modify the setbacks to be consistent with the rest of the development and then we've got all internal street facing facades on gallery park and stone crop and include a minimum ground floor fenestration of 30 percent for office 15, this stuff I don't really understand, an architect wrote this, but what it's gonna, what it's gonna, and I'm gonna, I'm gonna look to Mr. Adams to explain the fenestration, but we, but what I understand is that's gonna assure you that this is not gonna be your sort of, you know, 1990s strip mall in the middle of Barclay West, and it would never happen anyway, but we're glad to put that into the condition that you're gonna have very high quality development out there on what's remaining this seven and a half acres. So again, all this came about because we think that the density limitation needs to get revisited and this is the way that, I think the only way we can reasonably do it is to come in and ask that this be taken out and we're glad to do everything else out there. But we just want to be evaluated treated going forward on that property just like you would any other ONI property subject to all the other conditions. And if we can put more density out there, we think that's great. I think it's a great place to put more density. And again, no extra density. Whatever the code would allow, and the code has a lot of stringent provisions in there on your density and your CDMU requirements. If we could meet it, please let us do it and we're gonna meet all these other architectural requirements. And that's what it boils down to. I hope I didn't make it more confusing, Mr. Woodruff. But this is not an end around in any way. We're not trying to get around the code.

I'm not accusing you of end around. What I'm saying is you're doing a different method than you thought you were going to do in the beginning. And I'm questioning just simply, is this what we can do? to just close our eyes to that 1300 cap and say you now can go out there and put another 200 and some houses or units on it. I understand.

But we're not we're certainly not asking anyone to close their eyes to it. We're asking you to look at it plainly on its paper and just tell us if you think it's still reasonable to have that cap there in 2026. And we say absolutely not. There's no reason to have that density cap on that property. And that's what it's about.

Um, bear with me a second. Ms. Painter, I'm going to ask Mr. Chambers this just because of his decades of service to the city of Wilmington. How many large scale mixed use or planned development projects have you seen in your time in the planning department here?

Large scale? Let's define large scale. More than... Just a handful. This would be one of them. Autumn Hall, Mayfair, those types of things.

Fairfield Park. Okay. And how many of those have come back in to revise their original bubble plan or master plan?

None of those have because they're MX and they have a different zoning category that doesn't apply this restriction to it.

Okay, so Fairfield Park did because I was involved in Fairfield Park and that was supposed to be Harris Teeter. and residential behind, and now you have residential everywhere, a church, and apartments.

Fair enough, but that was brought in to allow for another set of mixed use, another mixed use project that the same rules would still apply.

The point I'm trying to make is, can you go back to the bubble plan for a second? Whoever's driving, I don't know who's driving now. So,

I'm driving, but I'm not sure if that's in Mr. Nichols' presentation or if that is in staff's presentation.

It's fine. Thank you, Ms. Bradshaw. I'm sorry. I was wondering where that voice was coming from. I guess, Mr. Nichols, for you, the question is, in 2013, why do a plan like this, a bubble plan? Expand on that a little bit.

Well, it's certainly on the larger size of development for Wilmington. And in 2013, weren't really sure exactly what was going to go there. There were some bigger concepts and there was a lot of conditions, a framework set up to develop the property in a way that would be, again, cohesive, have architectural consistency. There'd be a broad circulation pattern, but it was to provide flexibility because, you know, here we are 13 years later and we're still developing it. It's a large project.

Is the housing market different than it was 13 years ago?

It is absolutely different.

Is the office market different than it was 13 years ago?

I'm not an expert, but it is a lot different. Okay. It is a lot different. And the retail space is a lot different.

OK. In all the conversation about density, I'll save the last part for my comment. That's really the only question I had. Commissioner Pollack?

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

That is correct.

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

I think that's correct.

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

I think that's one way to look at it. But I didn't want to confuse and say that we were asking for the number to be raised from 1375 because we were told we can't do that without rezoning the whole thing. I understand. Which, frankly, I disagreed with, but I respect with the city staff, and we didn't want to have a big argument with them. But to me, the easiest thing to do would have been a one line condition request. Can't we just take the cap off and follow the code? But I get it, they're saying we can't do that and I'm not gonna argue with them. So we said, well, we're really only talking about seven and a half acres here. of that's sort of vacant. And if we add the office space in, because we own it and it makes sense, it's in the same block. If we add that in, then that would allow us to do CDMU if that opportunity presents itself. And we will follow the code. We will follow your code. in addition to all the other conditions that we've said we're fine with.

Yeah. All things being equal.

Yeah, we'll just follow the code. Again, we're not asking for any extra density or any special treatment. We're just asking that the Commission and ultimately the City Council please look back at a condition that was placed on this 13 years ago. Does it make sense today? We respectfully contend it does not make sense today.

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

That's it in a nutshell. We're here because of that. I'm not going to call it arbitrary because there was certainly a reason for it, and I'm not saying it's some random number. I think it had to probably do with the overall density, and they were calculating things, and I don't know how that number came to, but that was the number that was put on there.

It's probably relevant at this point.

I think 13 years later, it's outdated. It's outdated.

I'm just trying to simplify the ask. Yes. In my mind so that, you know, to consider it. And I think you've answered my first question that says, you know, separate O and I for this as you've cordoned off. Right. And I want to develop the tree, the pieces that are, you know, these in your picture that are treed. want to have the ability to do residential within the city code, which is the 17 times 12 point something, 208. and could get bigger if you do the different calculations. So that's the first ask. And I think what's confused us is without a plan, without a site plan, the second piece, at least as I've heard, has caused some confusion. And the other piece of the confusion is, again, I'm struggling personally with, it's the second piece, it's the 1375. And I don't mean this to say, I don't know that I care. about 1375 at this point. That's kind of where I'm at a little bit because we're talking about a limited, bound by conditions, bound by city code, I'm not sure that I care that that's going to change, because it's not going to change any of the other pieces of the 1375 and any of the other residential pieces that are there. It's not changing any of that at all, correct?

We're not changing anything outside of that yellow dotted area.

We're saying the same thing.

We're not changing, we're not proposing that anything change outside of that.

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

We're not proposing there be any change to anything out of that yellow dotted area.

Okay.

And we're... And we're proposing a number of conditions on top of your code. We'll follow your code. And almost, I guess, everything, well, not everything, because some of this is outside of Barclay, but was not developed with a specific site plan anyway. As far as a CD plan, it was to allow flexibility with the development. And I think my clients have proven that they've been very responsible with that flexibility. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that they're going to come in there and do something to hurt their own development. They have done all of that around it. It's in the middle of this mixed-use development. And it's sort of the last little piece of the puzzle. And we were trying to get some more density in there because the city needs it. There's a demand for it. I can go on and on. But I think it's an ideal place to put density. You're not going to find a better established infrastructure of roadways, access to signalized intersections, center of the city. People could walk to work. People can walk to a restaurant. They can walk to the movie theater. There's sidewalks out there. It's where you want to put density. If you're going to concentrate density, it's where you want to put it.

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

Please. Matt, you're doing great. You really are. And I understand. And I will shut up after this one. But quite frankly, it's not directed to you. It's directed to staff. So if I'm out of line doing that, somebody tell me. But is there any aspect of this proposal that's been before us in violation of that cap that originated back on whatever year that was of 1300. Is there any aspect of what's being asked to do here, which is obviously gonna make a higher number, is that a problem to staff? Because if you guys got it worked out, I got it worked out.

If this property is rezoned to a new CD and for all intents and purposes removed from that original master plan, then it would be compliant on its own and it would not be in conflict with the original master plan.

Okay. And I understand that, but you use the word if. Is that what we're doing?

That's exactly what you're doing.

Okay. Thank you.

Does anyone have any more questions?

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

Well, we would have the opportunity to do residential on the O&I property. It's zoned O&I now. We're asking for that to stay the same. But we would have the opportunity to do the CDMU with the existing commercial that would be within the district that you're considering, the 12 and a half or 12 and a quarter acres.

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

If this is rezoned to a new O&I CD, the CDMU would be an option for development under the new conditional district.

With a cap of 208 residential units?

It would be capped at 17 units per acre, which I believe works out to 208 units.

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

The CDMU requirements, there's a minimum commercial component, there's a minimum parking requirement, there's a minimum open space requirement, and then there's the 17 units per acre on the density.

Okay. Thank you, Brian. Yes, sir. We've talked a little bit about the 1375 from 2013, and maybe it was arbitrary. I'm sure it had some kind of purpose. But if you do the math on 302 acres, it looks like it's about 4.5 units per acre. And this 208 addition would make you at around 5.5 units per acre, which kind of lends itself into somewhere between R7 and R10. If we were to rezone the whole site today, 302 acres, between R7 and R10 it would be this calculation if we applied it to the whole project. I just wanted to make that little comment and see if you, I guess part of why this feels a little disjointed is because we don't have the full history of that file. We weren't there, part of this thread that's evolved and I get the flexibility that needs to be injected into a project like this. But the chairman also brought up other communities, projects of this magnitude and you know that obviously I'm just one person but you know okay well what if we plop 208 units in the middle of autumn hall just because it's a local family that has great you know good faith and fair dealings with the community um so you know one question in that line of thought would be that Wilmington health parcel that was sold off was that building completed when it was sold or was it um it's being constructed now So they are, Wilmington Health is building it?

Yes, they own the property.

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

I'm not sure I understand the question, but my client, as anybody, could sell their property at any time. I don't mean that to be, I'm not sure I understand, but yeah, they can sell the property.

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

Well, that's true, but that's true. All zoning can control is land use. You absolutely have no control over ownership. Right. You can own the property. You can put in a condo. But the assurances you have here are the conditions. So it has to be consistent with Barclay West. That's in the conditions. Again, I didn't really go through each of the conditions, but I do think it's significant that the conditions are going to require it that it be consistent with what you have out there. I mean, my clients are going to do that anyway, but they have no problem at all putting that as a condition because they're going to mandate it, zoning or not. Again, they're not gonna have anything that's not consistent with very high quality mixed use development. They have an extremely high level of investment in this property. And you can see that from, just look at the roadway improvements alone. So regardless of who owns it, it's gonna have to be consistent with Barclay West and you can see that with conditions, Nine, for example, linear strip retail and service development shall be prohibited unless proposed architectural design is compatible and consistent with the existing phases of the Barclay West development. And then we go through 10, 11, and 12, which is going to assure you that it's going to meet the sort of the community standard, if you will, out there with what you see and sidewalks, the parking, the landscaping. So whether they do it or not, they're going to have control over it. Right.

And those conditions will follow the property.

Absolutely. Run with the land. So it could be sold 10 times over. And whoever does it, it's going to have to, it's not going to be sold 10 times over. But I'm just saying, whoever has it has to meet all these conditions as well as the code. Right.

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

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate it. Thank you.

This time I'd like to open the public hearing. If there's anyone wishing to speak in favor of agenda item number two, please come up. Anyone wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to agenda item two? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? And we did receive one written comment, which I think everybody got today.

The same person on all three.

Yes, yes. But I believe, I think we and Mr. Nichols addressed some of the items that were brought up in that. Hearing no further individuals wishing to speak, I'll close the public hearing and we'll start Commissioner Jones with you. Any thoughts, comments?

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

Commissioner Woodruff. I'm going to vote in favor based upon staff's statement that this was pulling this tract out of the original agreement and that the 1300 number is not applicable to this anymore. So therefore I find it to be a great project. Good luck. Commissioner Pollitt.

Nothing further to add. Commissioner Adams.

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

Yeah, all the properties out there are subject to that regional plan. Okay. On this side of the road, yes.

Okay. It took me a while to get comfortable with this because, again, as a rule of principle, I like seeing a site plan generally, so we have some accountability around design, but knowing the design guidelines of the Barclay-West master plan, the ONI, the CDMU site plan guidelines, It took me a little bit also just to, I had to put my brain around what could go there because we're not seeing what a specific proposal would be. And the napkin sketch to me says, if you take Wilmington Health's building and parking, you're going to wind up with plus or minus eight-ish acres of developable land and you divide that by 208 and you get a density of about 22, 23 units per acre, which is three-story garden-style apartments in my mind. So I agree this is the right place for more density, and I'll support this project. Thank you. Commissioner Collier?

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

Commissioner Cofer. Thank you.

I think the... I mean, it's... It's just the approach and it's the procedure and it's having these come up before us in different cases outside of a bubble plan, outside of a master plan. How do you inject it inside the master plan but still evaluate it the same way you would others? I think the applicant asked several times or the counselor asked, what is your concern about putting this much density on that site? Well, I don't think you've heard, not a whole lot, but it's procedural, it's process. not to say that you're establishing some sort of odd precedent, but 208 in this site within other Mayfair, other master plans, without a site plan and without additional questioning, I mean, it could be concerning elsewhere, but I don't think there is a whole lot of concern here in this particular site, so yes, I'm in favor of this project or this rezoning.

I think this project has all the buzzwords to get people fired up, density, apartments, change. The agenda review, this item took 90 seconds, maybe two minutes to talk about. And so Ms. Hopkins, in no way, my suggestion given what transpired here tonight is that when this goes to council, there be a more comprehensive explanation of kind of where we got to versus how long it took us to get there, meaning the large master plan, this is a piece of that master plan, this is what they're asking for, this is the outcome, and P.S., this is the perfect place to do it. because I think it would go twice as long as it did tonight otherwise. So you did a great job. I think just big picture going through this experience, a suggestion is to maybe think about changing that up a little bit. Everybody said everything the right way. To me, this is a no-brainer, so... Commissioner Cofer, how would you vote? Oh, I'm sorry. It might help if somebody made a motion first. What is the will of the commission?

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

Is that the correct one? Yes.

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

Commissioner Kofor, I want to stop you for a second. What is that address? On our paperwork, Ms. Painter, it says 524 South College Road.

That address should be 2225 Stone Crop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard.

Okay, so just a point of order. Can I write that on the?

Yes, you can. Yeah.

Okay.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Cofer.

I just wanted to correct that. Do I need to read that address? Are you okay with the right? Sir?

Please read it again with that address.

Okay, can somebody write that down for me? I couldn't hear.

Hang on just one second.

It should be on the agenda in your pack, in your folder.

I got it right here. The address is going to be 2225 Stone Crop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard. Okay, let's start over. I make a motion to approve agenda item number two, the request to rezone 2225 Stone Crop Drive and 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard from an existing ONICD office and institutional conditional district to a new ONICD office and institutional conditional district. The Planning Commission finds this request is consistent with the objectives and policies of the following plans adopted by the City of Wilmington. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission considers its approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal allows for additional residential density and an appropriate mix of uses and proximity to services. while remaining compatible with existing character and conditions in the staff report. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request.

Thank you, Commissioner Kofer. Do we have a second?

Second.

Commissioner Jones has seconded Commissioner Kofer's motion. Commissioner Kofer? Aye. Commissioner Collier? Aye. Commissioner Adams? Yes. Commissioner Pollack? Aye. Commissioner Woodruff? Aye. Commissioner Jones? Aye. The Chair votes aye, passes seven to zero. Thank you very much. Agenda item number three is a request for 3301 Burnt Mill Drive to rezone from light industrial to O&I office institutional. And our presenter is Ms. Taylor.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Planning Commission. For your review, I present a general rezoning from LI Light Industry to ONI Office and Institutional District at 3301 Burnt Mill Drive. This application was submitted in mid-July, has been reviewed by staff, and is now at the first public hearing. The site is currently zoned LI light industry and is occupied by a single story multi-tenant office building. The allowable applicable uses in the LI district include professional offices, light manufacturing, wholesale retail, and warehouse and distribution centers. The maximum height is 45 feet with an additional height of up to 96 feet allowed with a step back. The allowable applicable uses in the proposed ONI district include professional and medical offices, personal services, studios, and colleges and universities. The maximum height is again 45 feet with an additional height of up to 96 feet allowed with a step back. The site is located on Burnt Mill Drive between Emerson Street and Randall Parkway and consists of approximately 2.02 acres. The site is located within the Burnt Mill Business Park and is in the vicinity of Reserve at Forest Hills, Avalon Apartments, and Aspire 349 apartment complexes, as well as Anne McCrary Park. These are views of the property looking north and northwest from Burnt Mill Drive. The site is currently zoned LI Light Industry. Zoning districts neighboring the site include MD 17 High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential District to the north and northwest, and ONI Office and Institutional District to the northeast, east, south, and southwest. For context, in June of 2002, approximately 42 acres of the Burnt Mill Business Park were rezoned from LM Light Manufacturing and HM Heavy Manufacturing to ONI to better reflect the office-oriented character of the business park. The owner of the subject property requested not to be included in the rezoning application since the LM district was appropriate for the site's use at the time as the corporate headquarters of an automotive oil and gas company. The site is currently occupied by a single story multi-tenant office building. Uses of the surrounding properties include educational services to the northeast, a K-8 school and construction company office to the southeast, social and healthcare services to the southwest, and healthcare services to the west. Staff has reviewed this application's alignment with relevant adopted plans. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan is the only adopted plan that applies to this site. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan's growth strategies maps identifies areas of opportunity with corresponding policies to guide the look, feel, and use of new development. The site is located within a live work innovation zones area of opportunity and an employment academic center and along a special character street and conceptual green connection. The Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan also offers broader policy guidance to shape new development throughout the city. Staff assessed this application with the relevant policies and found modest and strong support for the application's alignment with the plan. Key policies that support rezoning the site at 3301 Burnt Mill Drive from LI Light Industry to ONI Office and Institutional District promote compatible mixed-use development in appropriate areas. and the redevelopment of industrial land for non-industrial uses where industrial activity is no longer viable or appropriate. Comments from the community are accepted leading up to the public hearing. Staff received one comment in support of this application, noting that updating the zoning to ONI will bring the parcel into conformity with the business park's existing character. Staff did not receive any comments in opposition to this request. To summarize the application and staff's findings, rezoning the site located at 3301 Burnt Mill Drive from LI Light Industry to ONI Office and Institutional District would create the opportunity for office, institutional, and studio and personal services uses with potential to enhance access to neighborhood goods and services in the vicinity. Commercial district mixed use, or CDMU, is also permitted in ONI, which could further allow for residential uses in the mix. Staff finds this application to align with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, particularly policies that promote office and academic development while integrating residential uses within mixed use development areas. Staff finds this request to be reasonable in the public interest and consistent with the relevant policies in the Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here as well, and she has a presentation as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jones, any questions?

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

Yes, with an optional step back. So it's 45 feet, and if they do a step back, they can build it up to 96 feet.

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

They're mostly single-story office buildings.

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

Commissioner Jones? Just for the record, they could do that height today under the existing LI zoning. So going to ONI does not change the height limit that's allowed.

Commissioner Woodruff? Commissioner Pollack? Commissioner Adams?

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

The uses today are there's an office for a custom deck and fence company, so I believe that is allowed in ONI. But say a tenant comes in with a request to develop or to have a studio or a personal service use and that would not be allowed. whereas it is compatible with the surrounding character. So in a sense, rezoning to O&I would allow for these additional uses that would serve the neighborhood to come in to the building.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Collier? Commissioner Kofer? Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to invite the applicant to come up.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Commission. I'm Andy Van Trite. I'm an attorney with Merks & Taylor & Gibson, appearing tonight on behalf of the property owner, KEA Properties LLC. We're here in support of our general rezoning application for 3301 through 3305, Burnt Mill Drive and Burnt Mill Business Park. As Hilary just presented to you, we're requesting the rezoning of a single two acre parcel from the Light Industrial District to Austin Institutional. The subject properties are already fully developed with an existing single story multi-tenant commercial building. I'm going to probably shorten my spiel because, frankly, this is a straightforward request. Its purpose isn't to permit any new construction or intensify its permitted uses, but rather to better align the property zoning with its existing and anticipated tenant uses, which are essentially the uses that are allowed in the ONI, which are also the uses that are in most of the surrounding properties in this business park. Hillary also talked about the history, and it is actually helpful in understanding how we got here. So like she said, in 2002, the city rezoned the majority of the other parcels in Burnt Mill Business Park from the former manufacturing districts to O&I. My client's property was not included in that rezoning and therefore retained its former light manufacturing zoning, which is now LI. And that made sense initially because, again, it was the headquarters for GOGAS, an automotive oil and gas company, which at the time it was an appropriately industrial use for an industrial zoning district. But today the circumstances are different. GOGAS was sold in 2015. Its former owner, who together with his wife, Debbie Austin, who's here with me tonight, owns KEA properties and has since maintained office space at this property while it evolved over the last several years into a multi-tenant commercial building serving office and service-oriented tenants like those occupying the surrounding properties in the business park, the vast majority of which are already O&I. Recently, Debbie undertook a comprehensive review of the property's zoning when evaluating a proposed lease of space for use as a new dance studio. That review brought into focus the fact that as neither a dance studio nor other similar uses would likely be permitted in the LI district, that zoning designation is no longer the best fit. The owner then decided to proactively address the issue and seek the zoning classification that is most appropriate for the property over the long term, which in our opinion, and I believe the opinion of staff, is O and I. As noted in the staff report, the ONI district is intended to accommodate professional and medical offices, institutional and assembly uses, and complimentary service uses, including performing arts and dance studios, without the additional intensity associated with broad commercial and retail development. The requested rezoning is a logical, modest adjustment that brings the property's zoning into conformity with its current commercial function and the character of the surrounding development. THE REZONING IS ALSO WELL GROUNDED IN THE CITY'S OWN PLANNING POLICY AND I WON'T BELABOR THAT POINT. STAFF CONCLUDED THAT GENERALLY THE REQUESTED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPRENSIVE PLAN. The requested rezoning will not introduce a new or incompatible development pattern into Burnt Mill Business Park. It essentially does the opposite by bringing this remaining LI parcel into a zoning district that better reflects the property's current function and the O&I district that's applied to the surrounding properties for more than 20 years at this point. We also believe the impact of the requested rezoning will be minimal. All necessary utilities and transportation infrastructure is already in place sufficient to accommodate the current and anticipated O&I uses. The owner is pursuing this rezoning in good faith in order to establish an appropriate long-term zoning classification for the property, provide greater certainty for its tenants, and ensure that the property is managed and used consistently with the city's land use regulations and planning objectives. The rezoning will also promote the continued productive use and reinvestment of an existing commercial building, support local businesses, and make efficient use of existing public infrastructure, all without adversely affecting neighborhood properties or public facilities. For all these reasons and for the reasons outlined in our application and in the staff report, we respectfully ask the commission to recommend approval of the requested rezoning. Thank you, and I'm certainly here to try to answer any questions you may have about this request.

Thank you. Commissioner Cofer? I do not have any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Collier? Commissioner Adams? Commissioner Pollack?

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

Well, that's essentially what we're asking to better align the zoning with the existing uses, which are also the uses that are most appropriate. So this is sort of, the reason that the history is helpful is that in the last several years, I think I said 2015 is when GoGas was sold. It was a few years after that that one tenant came in and then another. And it's been kind of a slow transition to a building that was really only used by the owner. to becoming a multi-tenant commercial building. Only recently has Debbie stepped in to handle a lot of the management and operation of the, of KEA properties including property management. And in the course of that transition has had occasion to look a little bit more into the current zoning and existing uses as well as obviously evaluating other tenants that are coming to her wanting to lease the open space in the building. So it sort of all just came about within the last, I mean, certainly this year, very recently. And as you discovered that, that's why we brought this to you and trying to correct this because I think it's clear to everybody that O&I is the most appropriate district for the property, not just because of the existing uses, but also because it just is, because of the way that the overall park is operated now.

OK, thank you.

Commissioner Jones, you have anything? OK. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone wishing to speak in favor of agenda item number three. Anyone wishing to speak in favor? Hearing none, is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to agenda item number three? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? For the record, as noted, we did have one submittal via the website, which was distributed to the Planning Commission today in favor of this request. So hearing no further comments, I will close the public hearing. And Commissioner Jones, any comments, thoughts?

No, I'm good.

Commissioner Pollack, Commissioner Adams.

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

Commissioner Collier, Commissioner Kovar. For me, all I had to do was look at the map with the gray square in the middle of the blue, and that kind of, okay. What is the will of the commission?

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

I have a motion from Commissioner Adams. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second. Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Yes.

Commissioner Adams?

I'm going to go with aye at this time.

Okay. Commissioner Collier? Aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Passes unanimously, seven to zero. Thank you. All right. That concludes our items of business. Do we have any items from the commissioner? Commissioner Cofer, start with you.

My little mic here is coming on and off, I got it.

This may not be my last meeting from what I've heard from staff, so I'll save any of those comments for the next one. But for those of our peers and colleagues and friends here on the commission, that this will be your last meeting. I've most enjoyed our time together. What a great think tank that this body is. I think it's just so well-rounded. I like the fact that we uh we don't all agree and even when we do agree we come at the discussion from so many different angles that it's just i think a think tank is the best way to put it i think it's a great service to the city council Hopefully, the citizens of Wilmington think the same way. I feel like everyone here that shares their comments, shares their thoughts, and how they got to yes or how they got to no just instills more of that public trust and transparency in the land use process and how we go about zoning. A special thanks to John Lennon, the chair, who's done a remarkable job leading this group on several occasions. And Mr. Commissioner Woodruff, farewell. That's my only comment.

Thank you. Commissioner Collier?

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

Thank you, Commissioner Adams.

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

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

We'll have to take a look to see where the three o'clock comes from. Yeah, please. To determine that.

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

We'll cover that under staff reports. Okay. Okay.

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

I've really welcomed everybody, great people, great staff, but I know this is not gonna be what I watch on TV on Tuesday nights. My mother's still watching.

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

Thank you all. This has been awesome. This has been a fantastic group. Shout out to J.C. Lyle who sort of prepared me for all this. I think I would leave you with this thought. No, it's not a lesson. It's just an opinion. I wake up every morning, thank God I live in a place that is growing, that is thriving economically, where our biggest worry is what our bridge is gonna look like, because we even get to build a bridge. So that comes at a cost, and that cost is growth. But I would just ask that we constantly remember this is the planning commission, not the reaction commission, not the public opinion commission. It's the planning commission. So we take the city's codes and restrictions and regulations and we look at a project based on that, period. um and i think if we do that then we've all done our job as a as a planning commission so it's been an honor to the staff thank you very much and um probably we'll never you never know all right and items from staff miss painter

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And before we go into our items, I do want to thank both you and Ron for your service to the community and to the city. It's a very important job that you guys undertake, and we understand how much it takes of your time to spend it here with us on these lovely evenings. So moving on from that, we did provide you with your annual report for FY2026. I know that there are probably fewer cases on here. The charts show that you had fewer applications than you have in the past, but I think you should celebrate some of the big things you did, including the adoption of the Greater Downtown Plan, because that was a big item for the city to bring forward. Some other things that are happening, the Tree Commission has established a tree ordinance subcommittee that will be working on identifying amendments to, proposed amendments to the city's tree ordinance. So they will be inviting subject matter experts as well as various stakeholders including the Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, the development community to participate in that process. We are staffing that committee and we have also recommended that before they get to the point where they are finalizing their proposal, we would actually like to do a meeting with the commission or if you want to appoint a subcommittee to look at this so that we have the two groups working together before we bring you a formal proposal at a public hearing. We also, since the chair mentioned it, the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Environmental Assessment was published and is open for public comment through October 15th. There are two public hearings coming up on September 14th and 15th, and you can find more information about the project on the city's website. There is actually, if you go to WilmingtonNC.gov, there is a large banner that will take you to a webpage that was created to help the public understand the project. And then as Commissioner Pollack alluded to, we do have a new community planning and design manager who will be joining us officially on Tuesday. So you will be seeing them at your next meeting and we are very excited to have them. So with that.

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

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

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

Very good. Anything else from staff? Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned.