[0:51] i

[0:53] d like to call the SEPTEMBER

[0:57] 2nd, 2026 Wilmington Planning

[0:58] Commission meeting to order and

[0:59] ask that everyone please rise

[1:03] for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[1:06] Thank you for the United States

[1:08] of America, the republic for

[1:11] which it stands. One nation

[1:21] under GOD, indivisible, with.

[1:23] Thank you. I believe we have a

[1:25] full dais tonight. MR. Tierney,

[1:27] do we have a quorum? Yes.

[1:28] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[1:30] Thank you very much. The

[1:31] Planning Commission advises

[1:32] City Council on applications

[1:34] for rezoning, land Development

[1:35] Code amendments, street

[1:37] closures and long range plans

[1:39] and policies. A commission

[1:40] holds legislative hearings,

[1:41] meaning that anyone wishing to

[1:43] speak on a request MAY do so.

[1:44] The Commission issues a

[1:45] recommendation based on

[1:47] consistency of the request,

[1:48] with the intent and purpose of

[1:50] the Land Development Code and

[1:52] consistency of a request with

[1:53] the Create Wilmington

[1:55] Comprehensive Plan and other

[1:56] relevant adopted plans and

[1:58] policies. All matters requiring

[2:00] commission action shall be

[2:01] presented to the Planning

[2:02] Commission by the Planning

[2:04] Staff and the applicant. In

[2:06] situations where planning staff

[2:07] is the applicant, there will

[2:09] only be one presentation. City

[2:11] staff will make the first

[2:12] presentation. The applicant

[2:13] will make the second

[2:15] presentation to maintain an

[2:16] orderly meeting. All

[2:17] presentations shall proceed

[2:19] without interruption unless the

[2:21] Commission desires to intervene

[2:22] with questions or comments. The

[2:24] chair will open the public

[2:25] hearing for those physically

[2:26] present wishing to speak about

[2:28] an item. Those in favor of an

[2:30] item shall be heard first,

[2:31] followed by those opposed to an

[2:33] item. A ten minute time limit

[2:34] will be allowed for public

[2:35] comment in favor of an item,

[2:37] and a ten minute time will be

[2:39] allowed for public comment. In

[2:41] opposition to an item. A staff

[2:42] member will track the ten

[2:43] minute time periods, and we

[2:43] ll

[2:45] notify the speaker at the five

[2:47] minute, one and one minute mark

[2:48] and verbally call time when

[2:52] time expires. MISS Painter, the

[2:54] chair, in their discretion, MAY

[2:55] extend these time periods. All

[2:57] groups, organizations,

[2:58] neighborhoods, or similar

[3:00] associations desiring to

[3:01] comment are asked to appoint

[3:03] one spokesperson to present

[3:05] their concerns or point of view

[3:06] to the Commission on each

[3:08] agenda item. The public has

[3:09] been encouraged to submit their

[3:11] comments in writing via a web

[3:12] based form located on the City

[3:13] of Wilmington

[3:15] s website. All

[3:16] comments received prior to 3

[3:18] P.M. Today were forwarded,

[3:20] unedited to the Planning

[3:21] Commission, and all comments

[3:23] received will be delivered to

[3:26] the City Council. When the item

[3:28] advances. MISS Bradshaw, do we

[3:29] receive anything else other

[3:31] than what you sent us today?

[3:34] Nothing for since 3 P.M..

[3:38] Thank you. All votes will be

[3:39] roll call votes after the

[3:41] proper motions are made and

[3:42] consistency statements read

[3:44] into the record. The chair will

[3:45] state the outcome of the vote

[3:47] and the action. Rezoning

[3:48] requests that receive an

[3:50] unfavorable recommendation from

[3:51] the Planning Commission MAY be

[3:53] appealed by the applicant to

[3:55] the Wilmington City Council.

[3:56] Appeals should be in the form

[3:57] of a letter submitted to the

[3:59] City Clerk within ten days of

[4:01] this hearing. Any item that is

[4:03] appealed will be tentatively be

[4:06] heard by City Council at its

[4:09] OCTOBER 19th, 2026 meeting.

[4:12] First item of business will be

[4:14] approval of the JULY 8th

[4:16] meeting minutes. Do we have any

[4:18] comments or questions in

[4:21] regards to the minutes? Did I

[4:23] hear a motion to approve?

[4:24] I make a motion to approve the

[4:24] minutes.

[4:27] All those in favor? Aye. Any

[4:31] opposed? Thank you for item

[4:32] number one. We have a

[4:35] conditional district rezoning

[4:38] for properties containing 2.176

[4:41] acres located at 120 and 124

[4:44] Canal Street from our 20 l to

[4:46] resident. Sorry, our 20

[4:48] residential legacy district to

[4:50] our seven cd medium density

[4:51] single dwelling conditional

[4:53] district for an eight unit

[4:55] residential development and MR.

[5:01] Cherry will be presenting.

[5:03] Good evening, chair, Vice Chair

[5:04] and members of the Planning

[5:08] Commission. After your review

[5:09] tonight, I present a

[5:10] conditional district rezoning

[5:14] at 120 and 124 Canal Street.

[5:15] Um, a community community

[5:17] meeting was held in JULY prior

[5:19] to the application being filed

[5:20] with the city staff has

[5:22] reviewed and made the

[5:24] recommendation on this. And

[5:25] today is the first public

[5:28] hearing. This site is zoned r

[5:31] 20, a low density residential

[5:32] legacy district. Um, the

[5:33] applicant is proposing to

[5:36] rezone this to an ar seven

[5:37] moderate density residential

[5:42] conditional district. Here is a

[5:44] vicinity map showing the site

[5:46] in a broader context. Near a

[5:47] summer rest trail. The summer

[5:51] rest community and near the

[5:52] right to the intersection

[5:54] between Eastwood Road and

[5:57] Wrightsville. The existing land

[5:59] use is a single, single family

[6:01] dwelling surrounded by mixed

[6:04] use, single family dwelling and

[6:05] commercial, but it

[6:06] s currently

[6:08] zoned r 20, like I mentioned.

[6:10] To the south is o and I, to the

[6:12] west is community business,

[6:15] conditional districts. Here are

[6:19] photos of the subject property.

[6:21] And views. Looking north, south

[6:24] and west on Canal Street. As

[6:26] you can see to the north at

[6:26] dead ends, there

[6:27] s a road

[6:30] terminus there. Um, and to the

[6:34] south is, uh, Eastwood Road.

[6:38] The applicant is proposing to.

[6:40] Construct eight townhome units

[6:42] with associated driveways and

[6:45] parking. Um, 16 parking spaces

[6:48] are provided of the 22 maximum

[6:49] allowed. Uh Stormwater

[6:51] Management permit will be

[6:53] required. Um 12 regulated and

[6:55] nine significant trees are

[6:56] proposed for removal, while

[6:58] five specimen trees will be

[7:01] retained. Here are concept

[7:03] elevations. This is from Canal

[7:06] Street looking onto the site.

[7:07] And here is a view from the

[7:17] rear from Motts Creek. The

[7:19] subject property is designated

[7:20] as an Intracoastal Tidewater

[7:22] Area of Opportunity on the

[7:22] city

[7:24] s growth strategy maps.

[7:26] Relevant policies to this are,

[7:28] um, focusing on preserving

[7:29] character and single family

[7:31] compatibility, including

[7:32] preservation of the National

[7:34] Register Historic District, and

[7:35] limit the number of driveways

[7:37] along parkways and loop road

[7:39] corridor types, encouraging

[7:41] shared access and a network of

[7:43] connected space, streets and

[7:45] pathways to create Wilmington

[7:47] Comprehensive Plan offers

[7:48] policy guidance to shape

[7:51] development in the city. Staff

[7:52] sets this application with

[7:53] relevant policies and found

[7:54] modest support for the

[7:54] application

[7:55] s alignment with

[7:57] the plan. Key policies that

[7:59] support rezoning the site to an

[8:00] r-7 conditional district

[8:02] highlight the need for compact

[8:03] development. Transitional

[8:05] buffers, increasing housing

[8:07] supply while protecting desired

[8:09] neighborhood character and tree

[8:11] preservation. Uh. During

[8:12] review, staff found one policy

[8:14] to not be aligned with this

[8:19] proposal. No comments or

[8:21] testimony were received in

[8:22] support of this proposal, and

[8:24] one comment which I believe has

[8:26] been provided to you today, uh,

[8:29] has been received in opposition.

[8:33] To summarize, rezoning from a

[8:35] low density residential

[8:37] district to medium density r-7

[8:40] conditional district on a 2.1

[8:42] acre site. Um stormwater

[8:43] management plan will be

[8:45] required. Five specimen trees

[8:47] will remain, will be retained,

[8:49] and policies in the

[8:51] Comprehensive plan encourage

[8:52] balancing housing supply with

[8:53] protecting existing

[8:54] neighborhood character and

[8:55] protecting the natural

[8:57] environment. Staff finds this

[8:58] request reasonable and in

[9:01] public interest, and are there

[9:03] any questions? The applicant is

[9:04] here as well. I believe they

[9:06] have a presentation and happy

[9:07] to answer any questions that I

[9:08] can.

[9:09] Thank you. Before we let you

[9:12] go. Commissioner Jones.

[9:13] Commissioner Woodruff.

[9:14] Commissioner Pollack.

[9:14] Yes.

[9:16] Sir.

[9:17] Uh, you don

[9:18] t have to flip

[9:19] back, but will you show the

[9:21] three pictures of the property?

[9:21] I

[9:23] m sorry. Where you showed the

[9:24] three pictures of the property.

[9:24] You don

[9:25] t need to scroll back.

[9:27] Um, are all three of those

[9:29] homes that you showed coming?

[9:30] Going to be coming down, or is

[9:32] that something the applicant

[9:33] would better address?

[9:34] Uh, they MAY be better to

[9:35] address it, but I assume they

[9:35] will be coming. They

[9:36] ll be

[9:36] coming down. They

[9:37] re not shown

[9:37] on the site. Plan to be

[9:39] retained.

[9:39] Okay.

[9:39] That

[9:40] s all. Yes, sir.

[9:41] Okay, thanks.

[9:44] Commissioner Adams.

[9:46] Were there any.

[9:48] Significant design changes for

[9:50] the layout or density following

[9:52] either the community meeting or

[9:54] the technical review with

[9:55] staff?

[9:57] Um, so staff in the applicant

[9:59] did discuss alternative designs

[10:01] due to some constraints with

[10:02] natural features such as the

[10:05] creek and trees. Um, this

[10:08] became the most feasible. Um,

[10:08] the applicant MAY be able to

[10:10] speak more to um, specifically

[10:12] what those constraints were.

[10:17] Um, but there were discussions.

[10:18] Commissioner Collier.

[10:21] Commissioner Cooper, thank you

[10:22] very much. Thank you. I

[10:22] d like

[10:26] to invite the applicant.

[10:26] I

[10:30] ll get that for you. Yes,

[10:31] ma

[10:31] am.

[10:32] Thank you very much. My name is

[10:33] Cindy Wolfe, and I

[10:34] m here on

[10:35] behalf of the owners of the

[10:36] property. And I

[10:37] m here with

[10:38] Nathan Sangamon, who

[10:39] s, um, one

[10:41] of the representatives from the

[10:44] development team. As Tucker

[10:47] Tucker pointed out. Canal

[10:49] Street is a dead end roadway.

[10:50] The right of way stub stubs to

[10:51] the tidal creek. There

[10:51] s

[10:53] certainly no feasibility for

[10:55] future extension. Um, we

[10:56] ve got

[10:58] the four story Grandview

[10:59] apartments up on Wrightsville

[11:00] Avenue. It

[11:01] s three story,

[11:03] basically over the parking deck

[11:05] at the rear building. We

[11:05] ve got

[11:07] an existing contractor yard,

[11:09] which is certainly non

[11:10] conforming to any of the

[11:11] current regulations for

[11:14] screening or sidewalks. And

[11:15] then although the back access

[11:17] of Atlantic Marine Boat Service

[11:20] is back there, they keep a

[11:22] nice, you know, facility. And

[11:23] certainly the mixed use

[11:24] building that they have the

[11:26] first of two planned back

[11:28] there. Um, has given the street

[11:31] some character, uh that

[11:31] s

[11:34] right. But that being said, I

[11:36] think the zoning map is, is

[11:39] evident of what is here. Now

[11:39] you

[11:40] ve got the community

[11:42] business district across both

[11:45] ways. Although the gray areas,

[11:46] Wrightsville Beach, it is zoned

[11:48] c-5, which is the heavy duty

[11:49] commercial as far as

[11:51] Wrightsville Beach zoning is.

[11:51] We

[11:53] ve got the md ten, which is

[11:55] multifamily of Wrightsville

[11:57] West, and then Grandview is a

[11:58] mixed use in the oh and I

[12:01] district, as shown. Certainly

[12:03] the our 20 legacy zoning

[12:05] district is still appropriate

[12:06] for all of Summer Haven. There

[12:08] is no question about that. But

[12:09] the Mott

[12:10] s Creek pond and

[12:10] Mott

[12:11] s Creek that extends back

[12:15] here isolates the end of Canal

[12:17] Street from that community and

[12:19] more orients it towards the

[12:20] community that we have

[12:21] surrounding it, which is much

[12:25] more commercial. The existing

[12:27] conditions. I just wanted to

[12:28] show there are actually just

[12:29] two homes, Commissioner

[12:32] Pollock, that um, or whoever

[12:34] asked that, uh, the other

[12:36] building there is a garage, so

[12:36] it

[12:37] s a pretty good sized

[12:39] garage. All of those existing

[12:42] structures would be removed.

[12:46] Um, we went to a lot of, uh,

[12:48] exercise in the very beginning,

[12:50] not only getting the survey

[12:52] done, you know, all the things

[12:54] located, the existing, uh,

[12:56] utilities, all of that thing.

[12:56] But I think it

[12:57] s also

[12:58] important. And I wanted this

[13:00] exhibit to to show that even

[13:03] though the tax records and the

[13:06] technical land boundary show

[13:08] this being a combined two

[13:10] acres, it really is only 1.6

[13:12] acres. The blue line is

[13:14] basically the high water level.

[13:16] And so none of the lands below

[13:18] that, or to the right of the

[13:19] screens in Mott

[13:19] s Creek and

[13:22] along the waterline of that, is

[13:25] included in the feasible use of

[13:27] this area. So the blue line is

[13:29] where then the 75 foot cod, the

[13:31] conservation overlay district.

[13:31] And I don

[13:32] t know that that

[13:32] s

[13:33] what we call it anymore in the

[13:34] ldc, but that

[13:35] s where the

[13:37] setback for the more

[13:38] environmentally sensitive

[13:41] development happens. That being

[13:43] said, um, redevelopment of

[13:45] these two lots into two new

[13:49] homes would pretty much be by

[13:51] right, obviously. But then you

[13:53] negate the preservation of the

[13:55] requirements of the trees

[13:57] because neither of these lots

[14:00] are over an acre. Um, so more

[14:02] trees could come out as single

[14:03] family lots. There wouldn

[14:03] t be

[14:06] any stormwater requirements

[14:08] specifically. And so that was

[14:11] one of the press. The points

[14:12] that we tried to make when we

[14:13] had the community information

[14:15] meeting is, yes, we

[14:16] re asking

[14:17] for some more density, but

[14:18] you

[14:19] ve got the surety through

[14:22] the conditional use rezoning

[14:24] process of stormwater

[14:26] management of preservation of

[14:28] trees, all of those types of

[14:29] things. The other that we

[14:29] ve

[14:30] sort of brought up that people

[14:34] talked about was, uh, noise,

[14:35] uh, short term rentals, those

[14:37] types of things where you might

[14:39] have two homes and two

[14:40] accessory dwellings that would

[14:42] be redeveloped here. Yes, you

[14:44] have eight units, but you also

[14:46] have seven other members of an

[14:49] hoa that can make sure that

[14:50] types of things like short term

[14:52] rentals or noise or parties are

[14:56] much more reviewed and, um, you

[14:58] know, paid attention to very

[15:00] similar to, uh, Tucker

[15:02] s shots.

[15:04] This is looking towards the end

[15:06] of Canal Street and the

[15:08] sidewalk where it ends from the

[15:10] Grandview project. All those

[15:12] trees along that right away

[15:14] will be are part of our plan to

[15:16] be saved. Um, the sidewalk will

[15:18] extend because luckily, the

[15:20] carbon gutter is already here,

[15:21] but the sidewalk will extend

[15:24] and will be creative in field.

[15:26] Locating that along the front

[15:28] yard. Same thing from the

[15:30] opposite direction. Um, you can

[15:31] see those trees along the back

[15:33] of the curb that are all

[15:35] preserved in the plan. So

[15:38] again, this is the plan. Um, I

[15:38] don

[15:39] t have the existing

[15:43] building footprints. Um,

[15:45] underneath here, but basically

[15:47] the lower building on 120 is

[15:49] slightly behind the existing

[15:52] house. The building at 124 is

[15:54] behind the existing house. Uh,

[15:56] this is just an exhibit, but I

[15:58] think then it shows all of the

[16:01] vegetation that is then in that

[16:04] 75 foot cod buffer and setback.

[16:06] That would be preserved. That

[16:06] s

[16:08] the house on the top end, the

[16:10] 124. And from the bridge over

[16:13] Summer road, uh, the building

[16:13] we

[16:15] re proposing is behind where

[16:18] that building already is. So I

[16:20] think that the views from

[16:21] outside of it, which is

[16:22] certainly a concern that

[16:24] everyone had, are going to be

[16:26] softened and mitigated by the

[16:28] existing vegetation. That

[16:28] wouldn

[16:29] t necessarily be the

[16:30] case if this were redeveloped

[16:34] by. Right. Again, a conceptual

[16:35] you know, it

[16:36] s difficult

[16:37] getting an architect involved

[16:39] at this point to the cost when

[16:40] you don

[16:40] t even know you

[16:40] re

[16:44] entitled. But the obvious, um,

[16:46] concept that they have is a

[16:48] much more contemporary style of

[16:50] building. These are three

[16:51] stories where I mentioned that

[16:53] Grandview is four stories on

[16:54] the front, and then two stories

[16:56] over parking deck on the. So

[16:56] it

[16:58] s not much different than

[17:01] that. Uh, across the road, the

[17:02] Atlantic Marine mixed use

[17:04] building is also once it

[17:05] s up

[17:05] there, it

[17:07] s a high two stories.

[17:10] So with that, and I apologize,

[17:12] this should say proposed r7,

[17:15] not r5. We do appreciate

[17:15] staff

[17:17] s recommendation and

[17:19] their research of it. Um, one

[17:21] of the things that I believe

[17:25] the opponent to this rezoning

[17:28] had commented in their criteria

[17:29] was about stormwater

[17:31] management. Uh, we already have

[17:33] done the soils testing. We had

[17:35] tests done in two places all

[17:36] along that drive that fronts

[17:38] the parking pads in front of

[17:40] the building. So between the

[17:41] buildings and canal, that

[17:41] s

[17:42] where all the drainage would be

[17:44] directed. Uh, we

[17:44] re in the

[17:48] resource preservation, so

[17:48] there

[17:50] ll be low density impact,

[17:52] provisions as part of that

[17:54] design. But the groundwater

[17:56] depth and the infiltration

[17:57] rates are excellent for

[17:59] infiltration for our

[18:01] stormwater. So all of that has

[18:03] been sort of painstakingly

[18:05] reviewed ahead of time. Um,

[18:07] infill development where

[18:09] existing things exist is

[18:12] certainly one of our policies

[18:14] and strategies and location

[18:15] efficient housing where we have

[18:17] all the services, we have the

[18:19] multi-use path and a lot of

[18:20] recreation opportunities in

[18:22] Wrightsville Beach. And along

[18:22] here. I

[18:23] d be happy to answer

[18:24] your questions.

[18:26] Thank you very much,

[18:28] Commissioner coffer, start with

[18:29] you.

[18:31] Thank you, MISTER Chair. Um,

[18:33] MISS Wolfe, the only question I

[18:36] had would be the, um, access on

[18:38] Canal and then going into your

[18:41] site. Is that a hammerhead for

[18:43] fire truck for internal to your

[18:45] site? Or is it at the end of

[18:47] canal, or how does that.

[18:49] Technically, none of neither

[18:51] unit one on the bottom or four

[18:55] at the top is beyond the 150ft

[18:57] that fire trucks necessitate

[18:59] for turnaround, that they

[19:00] technically all front on Canal

[19:02] Street. That being said, yes,

[19:04] that t head would accommodate a

[19:05] fire truck if they needed to

[19:08] turn around on site. But the

[19:10] end of Canal Street has the

[19:12] turnaround that, uh, is

[19:13] measured. Then from Eastward

[19:14] Road.

[19:17] Okay.

[19:20] And are you in the applicant? I

[19:22] mean, I think at the end in our

[19:24] conditions, it mentioned, um,

[19:26] acceptance of the site plan, of

[19:28] course, but then the elevations

[19:30] is that accurate?

[19:32] Yes. There is there conceptual,

[19:33] but they

[19:34] re generally the

[19:37] style, the roof type, the the

[19:38] character. As far as being

[19:40] three storeys with garages on

[19:43] the bottom. Um, the access

[19:46] points facing the doors into

[19:49] from Canal Street. So, yes, an

[19:50] architect will be working with

[19:52] that concept.

[19:53] Okay. And I

[19:54] m assuming I think

[19:55] I probably know the answer, but

[19:57] just for the public good at all

[19:58] lighting ordinances and things

[20:00] that would apply by right, our

[20:02] 20 would apply to your site as

[20:02] well.

[20:04] Absolutely. And noise

[20:05] ordinances. But like I said,

[20:07] when you have seven neighbors,

[20:08] you tend to have a little bit

[20:11] more stringent policies and

[20:13] guidelines for how you use your

[20:13] property.

[20:14] Thank you.

[20:15] Thank you.

[20:19] Commissioner Collier. MISS

[20:22] Wolfe, um, I saw that. Or heard

[20:23] you had a community meeting. Is

[20:24] that correct? Yes. About how

[20:26] many folks were at that?

[20:29] Oh, probably 15 to 20. The

[20:31] usual? Not usual. The folks

[20:31] that I

[20:32] ve been familiar with

[20:34] vary over different projects

[20:36] from the summer rest area.

[20:36] They

[20:37] re all from summer rest.

[20:37] That

[20:38] s pretty much yes.

[20:41] Um, and so the drainage I heard

[20:42] you say you have good

[20:44] infiltration and seasonal high,

[20:46] which is great. Um, well, some

[20:46] it

[20:47] s underground. Are you going

[20:49] to put some level of, uh,

[20:51] pervious concrete or pervious

[20:51] pavers?

[20:51] That

[20:53] s the idea. I believe

[20:53] they

[20:54] ll work with City

[20:55] Engineering because there

[20:55] s

[20:57] some. What you can

[20:58] t use porous

[20:59] pavement. If you have

[21:00] infiltration. But we

[21:00] ll work

[21:02] that out. Right, right. Yes.

[21:04] Okay. Um, so overall for the

[21:06] size of the site, I believe

[21:06] we

[21:08] re even. I mean, this is in

[21:10] a more sensitive area, so low

[21:12] density would be just 12%. But

[21:12] we

[21:12] re we

[21:14] re less than 24%

[21:16] overall as far as our coverage.

[21:17] Right.

[21:22] Um, I see that 75 foot cod

[21:23] marked and you

[21:23] ve got the

[21:24] building area. So you

[21:25] re, I

[21:26] presume, under all of the

[21:29] square footages for the 75ft.

[21:31] There are some provisions for

[21:34] extending into that 75 foot

[21:36] setback. And what you see,

[21:37] crosshatch has all been

[21:39] calculated. So yes, we are

[21:41] under that threshold.

[21:42] And I

[21:43] m certainly glad to see

[21:44] that you

[21:45] ve saved as many trees

[21:46] as you did. It seems that the

[21:47] the bulk of what you

[21:47] re, you

[21:48] re

[21:49] taking down are really right in

[21:51] the, in the apex of the

[21:53] driveway. Um, I don

[21:54] t know what

[21:55] size those are, but.

[21:56] Uh.

[21:59] It was a creative plan trying

[22:00] to get these in here. And yes,

[22:01] the x

[22:02] s are just regulated. The

[22:03] m

[22:04] s are the ones that are

[22:05] mitigated. So it

[22:05] s it

[22:05] s a

[22:07] mixture. But we certainly

[22:07] didn

[22:09] t mess with any of the

[22:10] specimens.

[22:12] Okay, great. All right. Thank

[22:13] you very much, Commissioner.

[22:15] Adams.

[22:18] I think Richard answered, or

[22:18] you addressed one of my

[22:19] questions, which was going to

[22:22] be tree safe considerations.

[22:22] Um, you

[22:24] re going to recombine

[22:27] or recombine and then newly

[22:28] subdivide this so that it

[22:29] s a

[22:31] lot a parcel for each building.

[22:31] That

[22:33] s correct. That works well

[22:35] within the r-7 and the new ldc.

[22:35] That

[22:37] s then allowed attached

[22:41] housing. Um, the r7 has a

[22:42] little bit extra side setbacks.

[22:43] I mean, initially that

[22:44] s why I

[22:47] had had the r5 on one of those

[22:48] slides. It doesn

[22:49] t really

[22:49] matter. It

[22:51] s semantics. The

[22:53] four units per lot are

[22:57] available up to 3500ft per

[22:59] unit. And so the quadruplex is

[23:01] fit. The nice thing was the

[23:03] semantics is we could provide

[23:05] the side setbacks and we only

[23:07] needed four units to make the

[23:10] project work. And so r7 was our

[23:12] an easy option. And it doesn

[23:13] t

[23:15] just seem as bad as r5,

[23:15] although it still would have

[23:17] been just the eight units.

[23:17] Okay, thank.

[23:22] You. Commissioner Pawlak.

[23:23] Unfortunately, I didn

[23:24] t get a

[23:26] chance to, um, look at what you

[23:28] know, the document that was

[23:30] sent in, shared with us at

[23:30] three. And that that

[23:31] s on me.

[23:31] That

[23:31] s not.

[23:33] I just I read it a moment ago,

[23:34] so I was trying.

[23:35] To. Yeah. Could you.

[23:37] Kind of, you know, uh, you

[23:40] know, uh, crib notes. What what

[23:41] were the concerns that the

[23:43] person sent in and how would

[23:44] you how would you address them?

[23:45] I just, you know, just for the

[23:47] record, I just like I said, I

[23:47] didn

[23:48] t get a chance to look at

[23:49] it.

[23:51] One of them was traffic. That

[23:53] it is dead end. That being

[23:56] said, yes, eight townhome units

[23:57] have slightly more trip

[23:59] generation than the possibility

[24:02] of two singles, with two ADUs,

[24:04] but then they have a higher

[24:07] trip generation, so I think at

[24:10] this point the amount of

[24:12] increase is negligible to the

[24:14] traffic that comes and goes

[24:16] from the back of, uh, the

[24:18] businesses on the left hand

[24:19] side and Grandview coming out

[24:22] their driveway. Stormwater was

[24:23] one of them in the sensitivity.

[24:25] And as I pointed out, not we

[24:26] are paying attention to the

[24:29] sensitivity already, but single

[24:30] family development wouldn

[24:30] t

[24:32] have to at all. Got it. Um,

[24:34] tree save again. I think we

[24:35] ve

[24:35] we

[24:37] ve addressed that. You know,

[24:37] you

[24:38] ve got to break some eggs

[24:40] to make an omelet, but I think

[24:40] we

[24:41] ve been very sensitive to

[24:45] that. And again, um, because

[24:45] it

[24:47] s a conditional use, then

[24:49] the restrictions of the

[24:51] conditions maintain that we

[24:52] have to preserve all the trees

[24:54] that are in the 75 and away

[24:57] from the creekside. That

[24:57] s

[24:59] those were the bulk of it.

[24:59] Okay.

[25:01] The other question I have is,

[25:02] and I want to make sure I

[25:03] understood because I think my

[25:04] fellow commissioners couple

[25:06] have brought up there is going

[25:08] to be an hoa here.

[25:09] Absolutely.

[25:10] Okay.

[25:12] Because there are combined

[25:14] improvements for all four units

[25:17] on each lot. And even though

[25:19] these end up being individual

[25:21] lots, the hoa just covers

[25:24] everything. Um, the ldc just

[25:25] provided sort of for these

[25:27] imaginary lines and it works

[25:29] well, I believe, because it

[25:30] s

[25:31] possible to do these types of

[25:34] projects without how they used

[25:36] to be was the md. They had to

[25:38] be the multi dwelling districts

[25:41] and the r5 and the r7. Now, I

[25:43] guess to me keep it a little

[25:44] cleaner.

[25:44] Okay.

[25:46] But yes, it would be a common

[25:48] hoa for all eight units.

[25:48] Okay.

[25:50] Thank you, Commissioner

[25:54] Woodruff. Commissioner Jones.

[25:54] Yeah.

[25:56] Several of my questions were

[25:57] already covered by the other

[25:59] end. Um, the only thing I had a

[26:01] question about was a parking.

[26:03] Is it the garage and one space

[26:03] out front?

[26:05] There are two spaces out front,

[26:07] and I apologize. Like I said,

[26:09] the ai that creates the concept

[26:12] that created the conceptual,

[26:13] elevation doesn

[26:14] t have them

[26:16] quite as wide. But no, the

[26:17] intention is that the parking

[26:20] pad has two spaces. What you

[26:21] see on the site plan, however,

[26:23] is short for a parking pad, so

[26:25] the way it works out is two

[26:27] cars fully in a garage and then

[26:30] the garage recessed underneath

[26:30] where you

[26:31] re seeing the

[26:33] roofline so that four cars

[26:35] could park very easily. Okay.

[26:36] Thank you. That

[26:39] s all I have.

[26:40] Um.

[26:42] In the notes, the package that

[26:45] we got there was a, uh. And you

[26:46] touched on this, but I just

[26:49] wanted short term rentals.

[26:51] There was the desire for hoa

[26:52] covenants. Restricting short

[26:54] term rentals is that I know

[26:54] it

[26:55] s not a condition, nor do I

[26:57] think it could be. But is that

[26:57] going.

[26:58] To be certainly something that

[27:00] is intended? And if you want

[27:02] Nathan to address it, I

[27:02] m sure

[27:04] he could. But yes, I don

[27:04] t

[27:06] believe we have any problem

[27:08] with a condition that.

[27:08] Even though.

[27:10] You self-imposed condition.

[27:11] Even though. I know.

[27:12] The guy to make those sketches,

[27:12] I

[27:13] ll, I

[27:13] ll I

[27:14] ll take your word

[27:15] for it. Um, and then the last.

[27:17] This is really just a

[27:18] statement. I know the answer,

[27:20] but the canal in Eastwood is

[27:21] signalized, correct?

[27:21] Yes.

[27:24] It is. Okay. And that includes,

[27:25] um.

[27:25] I don

[27:25] t.

[27:27] Have a dedicated movement off

[27:29] of canal left, right or

[27:31] straight.

[27:32] Correct.

[27:32] Okay.

[27:35] It is a full. Yes. Left, right

[27:36] or straight?

[27:37] Yeah. Okay.

[27:37] Of course. There was a

[27:39] gentleman parked in the wrong

[27:43] lane as I was coming down here.

[27:45] And with crosswalks.

[27:45] That

[27:46] s nice. Yeah. And there

[27:48] are crosswalks that are, uh,

[27:49] controlled.

[27:51] Okay, great. Thank you. Any

[27:52] other questions? Yes, sir.

[27:55] Commissioner Collier, Cindy.

[27:57] The only question I really that

[27:58] I saw just a second ago,

[28:00] flipping through it now, uh,

[28:02] the water main on Canal Street

[28:04] is a two inch main. How would

[28:06] you how are we providing fire

[28:07] flow?

[28:11] Um, it is, there is. And if you

[28:13] basically on the plan that

[28:13] s in

[28:15] front of you, right there is

[28:17] the fire hydrant. Atlantic

[28:19] Marine had to extend the fire

[28:20] hydrant down to the beginning

[28:23] of their first building. And so

[28:23] it

[28:25] s easily within the 400ft.

[28:28] And then there is, I guess, a

[28:30] two inch line generally can

[28:35] feed about 15 units. And right

[28:36] now.

[28:36] But I

[28:37] m not the engineer.

[28:38] So okay.

[28:39] I understand.

[28:40] But no, there is a fire.

[28:42] Hi, where is the hydrant at? I

[28:42] don

[28:43] t know, I

[28:44] m assuming it

[28:44] s

[28:44] on the color.

[28:44] The.

[28:45] Let

[28:45] s see.

[28:46] The aerial picture.

[28:47] I don

[28:48] t think I have.

[28:50] Can you point on that thing?

[28:53] It is just off the lower left

[28:56] hand side of this picture. So

[28:56] it

[28:57] s just before the new.

[28:58] Mixed use building past the

[28:59] buildings and the drive

[29:00] through, or just before the

[29:03] mixed use building.

[29:05] No, the drive through is

[29:07] beyond. It is down here. I

[29:08] mean, I wouldn

[29:08] t be surprised

[29:10] if that circle is the valve for

[29:11] it.

[29:20] Okay.

[29:22] All right. Thank you.

[29:23] So it

[29:26] s within about 150ft of

[29:28] our driveway.

[29:29] Any other questions from the

[29:31] commission?

[29:32] Thank you very much.

[29:34] Thank you. This time, we

[29:34] ll

[29:35] open the public hearing and

[29:37] invite anyone wishing to speak

[29:39] in favor of item number one.

[29:45] Please come forward. If you

[29:46] could state your name and make

[29:47] sure you speak into the

[29:49] microphone. So MISS Bradshaw

[29:49] isn

[29:50] t surely I

[29:51] m David Floyd

[29:53] and myself and my son Will are

[29:55] here. We own the joint

[29:56] adjoining property. They are

[29:58] across on Canal Street and we

[30:00] owned Atlantic Marine. And, um,

[30:01] we feel like this would be a

[30:02] great use for the property.

[30:03] There

[30:04] s been several things

[30:05] tossed up in the air about what

[30:06] might go there, but as far as

[30:08] the lowest amount of use and

[30:10] kind of keeping with what we

[30:10] ve

[30:11] built on the other side of the

[30:13] property, with the mixed use

[30:14] homes and offices, I think it

[30:16] would kind of fit. And yes,

[30:17] there is a fire hydrant right

[30:18] on the front edge of the

[30:19] property there that we put in.

[30:20] So, um, didn

[30:21] t if you have any

[30:23] questions for me, but, um, we

[30:25] have a space to put an approval

[30:26] for another building that will

[30:27] be putting up at some point in

[30:29] time and not in the next few

[30:31] weeks by any means. But, um,

[30:32] um, I think it

[30:33] d be a pleasant

[30:34] little addition to the end of

[30:36] that street. Thank you very

[30:39] much. Anyone else? Anyone else

[30:43] wishing to speak in favor?

[30:45] Anyone wishing to speak in

[30:47] opposition to item number.

[30:50] One?

[30:52] All right. Hearing none, I will

[30:53] close the public.

[30:56] Hearing. And, MISS Jones, why

[30:56] don

[30:59] t we start with you any

[31:00] thoughts?

[31:01] Um. I

[31:02] m good. I

[31:02] m very familiar

[31:03] with the street. I think it

[31:04] s a

[31:06] good use, um, for what

[31:08] s there.

[31:09] And, um, with what

[31:10] s happening

[31:11] there, especially with having

[31:12] the light at the end of the

[31:13] street. So I

[31:15] m good.

[31:16] Commissioner Woodruff.

[31:17] I think it

[31:17] s.

[31:18] A great plan. I think a lot of

[31:19] work has gone into it. I

[31:21] appreciate the effort of Cindy

[31:22] and her clients to present it

[31:24] to us in the way you have. I

[31:24] m

[31:26] all for it.

[31:27] Thank you, Commissioner Pawlak.

[31:27] i

[31:29] m good.

[31:30] Commissioner Adams.

[31:33] I appreciate the site plan. Um,

[31:34] seeing the tree save and

[31:36] looking at how this was

[31:38] subdivided. Um, tale of

[31:40] caution, though. Relying on,

[31:43] uh, artificial intelligence and

[31:45] not architectural intelligence.

[31:46] I mean, we need to be a little

[31:48] careful about that, because you

[31:49] could box yourself into

[31:51] something that, uh, MAY be

[31:53] overly specific, but I. I

[31:55] support this project.

[31:57] Commissioner Collier.

[31:58] Thank you. Yeah, I support the

[31:59] project, too. I think it

[31:59] s a

[32:01] good use in this area. I MAY

[32:02] would have had a different

[32:04] opinion if a lot of the summer

[32:06] Somerset summers rest folks had

[32:09] come out. Um, but seeing that

[32:11] they are not, um, uh, I am fine

[32:12] with it. I think it is really

[32:14] nice. Really good use. Thank

[32:15] you.

[32:18] Commissioner Coffer.

[32:19] Thank you, MR. Chair. Yes. This

[32:21] one. Um, hits close to home for

[32:23] me. From personal anecdote,

[32:25] personal living experience. I

[32:25] m

[32:28] actually in that neighborhood.

[32:31] No, to the south of, um, these

[32:32] the the the high impact zone

[32:35] and then the inner tidal zone,

[32:37] but nevertheless, I mean, I

[32:39] drive past that intersection

[32:41] several times a day. And, um, I

[32:44] think that, um, the design, as

[32:44] I

[32:44] m I

[32:46] ll echo my colleagues up

[32:47] here as sentiments on the

[32:49] design and taking careful

[32:51] attention to tree protection,

[32:52] um, the stormwater plan, of

[32:53] course, it

[32:53] s going to come with

[32:56] this type of project. Um, and

[32:58] just paying careful, discerning

[33:00] attention to the sensitivity of

[33:03] the, of that area. Um, I think

[33:06] when you look at, um, the, the

[33:08] zone itself cut by Mott

[33:09] s

[33:11] Creek, you know, the tampering,

[33:14] um, and the transition from

[33:18] Grand View down to a 35 foot

[33:19] structure, you know, and

[33:20] condensing the density into

[33:22] that design footprint, you

[33:23] know, it

[33:23] s just it

[33:24] s modern

[33:27] urban design standards that

[33:27] we

[33:28] re putting into practice.

[33:30] And I certainly, um, certainly

[33:30] support it. I think it

[33:31] s a it

[33:31] s

[33:32] a good project. So I

[33:32] m in

[33:33] favor.

[33:37] Thank you. Um.

[33:39] Being involved in the latter

[33:41] part of the rewrite of the ldc,

[33:42] this is what we asked for. So

[33:44] thank you. What are the wishes

[33:48] of the commission?

[33:48] I

[33:52] ll make a motion to approve.

[33:52] Uh, let

[34:02] s see here. MR.

[34:02] CHAIRMAN, I

[34:03] d like to make a

[34:04] motion to approve agenda item

[34:06] number one. The request to

[34:08] rezone 120 and 124 Canal Street

[34:11] from our 20 legacy residential

[34:12] district to our seven

[34:13] conditional district. Moderate

[34:16] density residential. Um, the

[34:17] Planning Commission deems this

[34:19] request is consistent with the

[34:21] objectives and policies of the

[34:23] following plans adopted by the

[34:24] City of Wilmington. The Create

[34:27] Wilmington Comprehensive Plan,

[34:28] the Planning Commission

[34:29] considers its approval to be

[34:30] reasonable and in the public

[34:32] interest. Because the proposal

[34:34] provides greater environmental

[34:36] protection, expands housing

[34:38] opportunities, and serves as an

[34:39] appropriate transition between

[34:40] existing commercial and

[34:42] residential areas. Therefore,

[34:43] the Planning Commission

[34:44] recommends approval of this

[34:46] request.

[34:49] Of second. Second move by

[34:50] Commissioner Coffer, seconded

[34:52] by. Excuse me, Commissioner

[34:54] Adams. Commissioner Jones, how

[34:56] do you vote? I.

[34:57] I.

[34:58] , I.

[34:59] Can

[34:59] t talk.

[35:01] Commissioner Pawlak.

[35:03] I can I

[35:05] m sorry, I..

[35:06] MR. Adams. Yes, Commissioner.

[35:08] Collier. Yes, Commissioner

[35:10] Kupfer, a chair votes I as

[35:12] well. Congratulations. Seven

[35:26] zero. In favor? Agenda item

[35:27] number two is a conditional

[35:31] district rezoning modification

[35:33] for properties containing 12.26

[35:36] acres located at 2225 Stonecrop

[35:39] Drive and 1124 Gallery Park

[35:41] Boulevard, from an existing oh

[35:42] and office institutional

[35:44] conditional district to a new

[35:46] Odni offices. Institutional

[35:48] conditional district to allow

[35:49] for a future mixed use

[35:51] development in MISS Hopkins

[35:52] will be presenting..

[35:54] Good evening chair, Vice Chair

[35:55] and members of the Planning

[35:57] Commission for your review.

[35:58] This evening I present a

[35:59] conditional rezoning from an

[36:00] existing office and

[36:01] institutional conditional

[36:03] district to a new office and

[36:04] institutional conditional

[36:08] district at 2225 Stonecrop

[36:10] Drive and 1124 Gallery Park

[36:14] Boulevard. Prior to submittal,

[36:15] a community meeting was held in

[36:19] JUNE of 2026. The application

[36:20] was submitted in JULY of 2026

[36:22] and reviewed by staff, and it

[36:24] is now here for your review and

[36:27] recommendation. The site is

[36:30] currently zoned o and I cd

[36:31] Office and Institutional

[36:32] Conditional District, and is

[36:33] part of the Berkeley West

[36:35] Master Plan. Development.

[36:36] Potential uses include

[36:37] professional and medical

[36:40] offices, places of assembly,

[36:41] small scale services and

[36:43] commercial district mixed use,

[36:46] all limited to a height of 45ft

[36:49] or 96ft with a step back.

[36:50] Existing conditions apply to

[36:52] all Berkeley West. Developments

[36:53] include required architectural

[36:55] consistency with existing and

[36:57] future phases of development.

[36:59] Limits on residential density,

[37:00] and the prohibition of strip

[37:02] retail. The applicant proposes

[37:04] a new owned conditional

[37:06] district that allows all office

[37:08] and institutional uses as

[37:09] allowed today, with the

[37:11] exclusion of crematory, funeral

[37:13] homes and mortuaries, railroad

[37:14] facilities, and wireless

[37:16] telecommunication facilities.

[37:17] The proposed conditions

[37:19] maintain architectural

[37:21] consistency as a priority set.

[37:22] Minimum ground floor

[37:23] fenestration standards, and

[37:25] maximum building setbacks, and

[37:31] define locations for parking.

[37:32] This map shows the site and the

[37:34] general vicinity surrounding

[37:35] the request. The site is in the

[37:38] vicinity of the Point Midtown

[37:44] ymca and Halliburton Park. A

[37:45] portion of the site to the

[37:47] north is an existing medical

[37:48] office, while the larger

[37:51] portion to the south is vacant.

[37:52] Surrounding uses include

[37:54] commercial to the north,

[37:55] multifamily to the east and

[38:01] south, and vacant to the west.

[38:02] The site is currently zoned

[38:03] Office and Institutional

[38:05] conditional district.

[38:06] Surrounding districts include

[38:10] rb and rb, cd to the north, emd

[38:12] 17 cd to the east and south,

[38:19] and rb cd to the west. These

[38:20] are photos of the existing site

[38:22] conditions. The site currently

[38:23] includes Wilmington Health

[38:24] Building one and a vacant

[38:28] property. These are views of

[38:29] the subject property from

[38:31] several viewpoints, including

[38:32] looking east on Gallery Park

[38:34] Boulevard and south on

[38:38] Stonecrop Drive. These are

[38:39] photos of the adjacent

[38:41] properties and land uses. There

[38:43] is a hotel to the north, a

[38:44] medical office under

[38:45] construction to the east, and

[38:47] vacant parcels to the south and

[38:55] west. This site is part of the

[38:56] Berkeley West Master Plan

[38:59] development, approved in 2013.

[39:00] Conditions and design

[39:01] strategies adopted at the time

[39:02] apply to all sites in the

[39:04] master planned area that have

[39:06] not been rezoned since 2013. A

[39:07] few conditions important to

[39:09] this site include requiring

[39:10] architectural consistency,

[39:12] prohibiting strip retail,

[39:14] integratg a mix of uses,

[39:16] providing ample open space, and

[39:17] preserving trees above the

[39:19] requirements of the ldc, and

[39:22] limiting residential density in

[39:23] areas of the master plan zoned

[39:26] o and I and rb. Residential

[39:28] density is limited to 116

[39:30] units. This currently leaves

[39:31] the development with 44 more

[39:33] potential units in commercial

[39:38] areas. Site specific conditions

[39:40] that prohibit non compatible

[39:42] uses remove the existing limit

[39:43] on density. Maintain

[39:45] architectural consistency

[39:46] across the current and future

[39:48] phases of development, and set

[39:49] design standards for parking

[39:51] locations, building setbacks

[39:53] and fenestration are proposed.

[39:55] A master Tia was completed for

[39:56] the planned development. At the

[39:58] time of its approval, the

[40:00] conditions and the trc process

[40:01] will require an updated Tia for

[40:03] this phase of the development.

[40:04] Any improvements to

[40:06] infrastructure recommended in

[40:07] this Tia would need to be

[40:08] completed before the

[40:09] development could receive its

[40:12] Certificate of Occupancy. The

[40:13] proposed conditional district

[40:14] would remove the limit on

[40:16] residential density included in

[40:17] the current conditions, and it

[40:19] would be subject to the limits

[40:21] of the underlying zoning only

[40:24] at 17 units per acre. If the

[40:26] development were to commit 10%

[40:27] of residential units to

[40:28] workforce housing for a period

[40:30] of 15 years, there would be no

[40:35] limit on density. Staff has

[40:36] reviewed this application

[40:36] s

[40:37] alignment with relevant adopted

[40:39] plans. The Create Wilmington

[40:40] Comprehensive Plan is the only

[40:44] plan that applies to this site.

[40:45] The comprehensive plan

[40:46] s growth

[40:48] strategies maps identifies

[40:49] areas of opportunity with

[40:50] corresponding policies to guide

[40:52] the look, feel, and use of new

[40:54] development. This site is

[40:55] located in a greenfield sites

[40:57] as multi-use places, area of

[40:58] opportunity and a mixed use

[41:00] place. The comprehensive plan

[41:01] recommends moderate densities

[41:03] and lot coverages in mixed use

[41:08] places. The comprehensive plan

[41:09] also offers broader policy

[41:10] guidance to shape new

[41:12] development throughout the

[41:14] city. Staff assess this

[41:15] application with relevant

[41:16] policies and found modest

[41:17] support for the application

[41:17] s

[41:19] alignment with the plan. Key

[41:21] policies that support this

[41:23] request highlight the need for

[41:24] well-planned, mixed use centers

[41:26] with a diverse mix of uses and

[41:28] integrated design, while

[41:29] discouraging strip commercial

[41:32] retail development. Staff finds

[41:33] this location to be well

[41:34] connected to three major

[41:35] roadways 17th Street,

[41:37] Independence Boulevard, and

[41:42] Carolina Beach Road. One

[41:44] comment has been received in

[41:45] opposition, noting concerns

[41:46] with traffic impacts and

[41:52] multimodal connectivity. In

[41:53] summary, this proposal requests

[41:54] to rezone the site from an

[41:57] existing owned icd to a new

[41:59] owned icd with new conditions

[42:00] that remove the existing limit

[42:02] on density, maintain

[42:04] architectural consistency, and

[42:05] set direction for ground floor

[42:07] fenestration, building setbacks

[42:08] and parking locations. The

[42:10] comprehensive plan encourages a

[42:12] diverse mix of uses, moderate

[42:13] density, and compatible design

[42:14] that aligns with the existing

[42:18] character of this development.

[42:19] Staff finds the request to be

[42:20] consistent with the Wilmington

[42:22] Comprehensive Plan reasonable

[42:24] and in public interest. Staff

[42:26] recommends approval. I am happy

[42:27] to answer any questions and the

[42:29] applicant is present as well.

[42:31] Thank you, MISS Hopkins.

[42:34] Commissioner Jones.

[42:34] I don

[42:36] t have any questions yet.

[42:36] Okay.

[42:40] Commissioner.

[42:43] The reference to, uh, workforce

[42:44] housing, it

[42:45] s just kind of a

[42:45] statement that

[42:46] s in there. Was

[42:49] there discussions about that or

[42:51] recommendations about that or

[42:52] refusal of that?

[42:53] Um, there was just a brief

[42:55] discussion that because they

[42:57] were looking to remove that

[42:58] limit on density, that that was

[42:59] an option that they could

[43:00] pursue if they chose to, but

[43:02] they did not indicate any

[43:04] interest or disinterest.

[43:06] All right. Thank you.

[43:09] Commissioner Pawlak.

[43:10] Nothing at this point. I

[43:10] ll

[43:12] wait for the applicant.

[43:14] Commissioner Adams.

[43:15] Could you go back a slide to

[43:17] your conditions? One more

[43:21] slide. Um, so the to reach the

[43:23] 17 units per acre in the. Oh,

[43:24] Annie density would would that

[43:27] require the cdm? You overlay

[43:29] kind of design aspect to that.

[43:30] Correct. It would be through

[43:32] cdm. Q but they could use the

[43:33] existing Wilmington Health

[43:34] Building as that commercial

[43:35] component.

[43:38] Okay. All right. Thank you..

[43:41] Commissioner Collier.

[43:42] Commissioner coffer.

[43:44] Thank you, MR. Chair. Yeah, I

[43:45] MISS Hopkins. I can

[43:46] t put my

[43:48] fingers on what exactly is the

[43:49] maximum number of residential

[43:51] units allowed?

[43:52] Allowed in? Oh, and I are

[43:53] currently.

[43:55] Allowed in this master plan. I

[43:55] mean, we

[43:56] re.

[43:59] For this site. There are 44

[44:02] units that they could build the

[44:04] total limit on. On the Berkeley

[44:08] West master plan is 1375, I

[44:11] believe, but only 116 were able

[44:13] to be in commercial areas. So

[44:14] they have built out a lot of

[44:18] that 116. They have 44 left.

[44:20] Okay. Thank you. That was what

[44:22] I was curious about. And this

[44:24] Tia update that would be

[44:27] required. Um, I mean, I just

[44:27] it

[44:28] s procedural question. Is

[44:30] that something that just comes

[44:31] down the road. When does that

[44:32] all occur?

[44:34] When they apply for a pre trc

[44:35] and go through the formal

[44:37] technical review process. That

[44:38] is when they will need to

[44:41] complete a Tia. Mm.

[44:43] I just I

[44:44] m sorry.

[44:45] And then the last question

[44:48] would just be I MAY have I MISS

[44:49] I couldn

[44:50] t quite hear MR.

[44:50] Woodruff

[44:52] s question, but I MAY

[44:55] be repeating it. Was there any

[44:57] discussion on the cap of uh,

[44:59] with the being eliminated with

[45:02] the 10%, uh, workforce housing?

[45:03] Uh, minimal? We mentioned that

[45:04] it was an option, but they did

[45:06] not share interest or lack of

[45:07] interest.

[45:09] Okay. Thank you so much.

[45:13] I just had a quick question on

[45:15] page 17 of the handout.

[45:17] Actually on page 16 of our

[45:20] package. Um, the level of

[45:22] service for the adjacent roads

[45:23] are all a

[45:25] s with planning

[45:30] capacity of 9080 ts. Is that

[45:33] sound familiar? Yes. Okay, so

[45:34] looking down at the projected

[45:36] difference by if this request

[45:38] were to be successful, I mean,

[45:40] in your experience, is a

[45:41] medical office building more

[45:42] impactful to traffic or an

[45:45] apartment building?

[45:46] Um, I wouldn

[45:47] t say in my

[45:48] experience, but looking at the

[45:50] numbers, you do see more trips

[45:52] generated from a medical office

[45:55] than you do from multifamily.

[45:55] Okay?

[45:57] Especially at the scale that

[45:58] they could build on this size

[45:59] of a site.

[46:01] Okay. Well, yeah. Yes, because

[46:02] one

[46:05] s forecasted to be

[46:08] 213,000ft.

[46:09] Okay. Because they can build up

[46:11] to 40%. Okay of the site area.

[46:14] So really this is reducing the

[46:16] potential traffic impact. If

[46:16] they

[46:17] re if they went

[46:19] residential as opposed to oh

[46:23] and I the office buildings.

[46:23] I don

[46:24] t know that I would say

[46:24] it

[46:25] s reducing because they

[46:27] could build medical offices

[46:28] today. They could build it with

[46:29] this rezoning. This just

[46:30] creates the opportunity for

[46:31] them to build more residential.

[46:32] If they choose to.

[46:36] Got it. Okay. Better said. Any

[46:37] other questions from the

[46:39] commission, Commissioner

[46:40] Collier.

[46:40] While we

[46:41] re on traffic, though,

[46:43] the medical office, before

[46:46] their intensity was 642. Was

[46:47] that a limit or was it just how

[46:48] much is it?

[46:48] That

[46:48] s what

[46:49] s currently built.

[46:52] Okay, so the 213, the proposed

[46:56] 213 change that is a max number

[46:56] two or that

[46:57] s a proposal or

[46:57] it

[46:58] s just a max. They could get

[47:00] in with the oh and icd.

[47:01] That would be the maximum that

[47:02] they could get in. Oh and.

[47:04] I and I, I agree with the uh

[47:06] with MR., with CHAIRMAN Linden

[47:08] too. It is more of a traffic

[47:09] less it

[47:10] s lessening of track it

[47:11] more than it more so than it is

[47:14] adding to it. I believe so..

[47:16] Any other questions for MISS

[47:17] Hopkins?

[47:18] Thank you. Thank you.

[47:19] I

[47:19] d like to invite the

[47:32] applicant.

[47:34] Good evening. Good evening,

[47:35] MR..

[47:36] CHAIRMAN, and members of the

[47:37] Commission. My name is Matt

[47:38] Nichols. I

[47:39] m an attorney in

[47:40] Wilmington, and I

[47:41] m here

[47:43] tonight representing the owner

[47:46] and applicant. Um, with me this

[47:47] evening. Uh, that

[47:48] s Cameron

[47:49] Land. Uh, excuse me. Cameron

[47:51] Properties land company. And

[47:53] with me here this evening is

[47:55] Hill Rodgers with Cameron

[47:57] Management. And we appreciate

[47:59] the opportunity to present this

[48:00] proposal for your consideration

[48:02] this evening. We have a few

[48:04] slides that, um, I think will

[48:06] help explain the request. And

[48:06] then we

[48:07] ve heard some

[48:08] questions, and we

[48:08] re certainly

[48:10] here to try to answer any

[48:11] questions that the Commission

[48:15] has. This is a, uh, a

[48:18] relatively recent drone shot of

[48:20] the area. And I put the movie

[48:21] theater on there just for

[48:23] reference. I think everyone

[48:24] generally knows where the movie

[48:26] theater is at the point the

[48:28] subject property is shown,

[48:30] outlined in the dotted yellow

[48:32] with the yellow star, and it

[48:33] s

[48:38] roughly 12 and 12.25 acres. Uh,

[48:38] it

[48:42] s currently zoned. Oh, and I

[48:43] one which I don

[48:43] t know that

[48:44] that exists anymore, but it

[48:44] s

[48:48] only one cd, and that is a

[48:50] result of the City Council

[48:51] s

[48:54] approval of the bigger Berkeley

[48:58] West conditional rezoning in

[49:00] 2013. So what you

[49:01] re looking at

[49:03] here is really about half of

[49:05] Berkeley, West. Berkeley West

[49:09] was approved, um, as about a

[49:12] 302 acre multi conditional

[49:16] district. Uh, development, um,

[49:17] about half of it is on the

[49:19] south side of independence, and

[49:20] about half of it

[49:21] s on the north

[49:21] side. What you

[49:22] re looking at

[49:24] here is the south side of

[49:28] independence. And, um, it has

[49:30] obviously developed over time

[49:33] since 2013, but a lot has

[49:38] changed since 2013. Um,

[49:40] probably two too long to list,

[49:41] but some of the main items

[49:42] would be you

[49:43] ve got an entirely

[49:46] new land development code. Uh,

[49:47] when this went through the

[49:49] process, when we were going

[49:50] through the process, we were

[49:53] actually under the old zoning

[49:54] code, which I think was chapter

[49:58] 18 of the city code. And then

[50:02] that changed in 2004 ish. I

[50:07] think, um, and then we when we

[50:08] when we came before City

[50:09] Council, we were under what was

[50:11] then chapter 19. I think the

[50:14] zoning code. And at that time,

[50:15] um, you also didn

[50:15] t have your,

[50:17] your comprehensive plan. So

[50:17] that

[50:19] s a big change that was

[50:22] adopted. Um, 2016. It

[50:22] s hard to

[50:22] believe that

[50:23] s been ten years.

[50:26] But, um, when this was adopted,

[50:28] I think it was the future land

[50:34] use plan 22,004 to 2025 was the

[50:37] name of the plan. Um, and then,

[50:38] of course, just the changes in

[50:40] population growth and job

[50:42] growth and changes in the

[50:45] retail market and office demand

[50:47] and everything else since 2013.

[50:49] So really what we

[50:49] re here for

[50:51] is asking for a consideration

[50:53] to update these conditions from

[50:55] 2013 on this. What

[50:57] s one of the

[50:59] sort of more remaining parts of

[51:00] this portion of Berkeley West?

[51:04] So looking at the at the

[51:07] property itself, um, the

[51:09] existing building will remain.

[51:09] That

[51:10] s the Wilmington Health

[51:12] Building. And MISS Hopkins

[51:13] showed that in a number of

[51:15] photos. Um, this is a little

[51:18] bit of an older, um, Google

[51:20] Maps photo, but the there

[51:20] s a

[51:22] new parking area that has since

[51:23] been created and that

[51:23] s behind

[51:26] the Wilmington Health Building.

[51:29] And then you can see on the

[51:30] upper sort of right hand

[51:32] corner, which is not part of

[51:35] the rezoning request, there is

[51:37] a current office building under

[51:38] construction. If you were to go

[51:39] out there today, you would see

[51:39] that. And it

[51:40] s, um, it

[51:41] s well

[51:43] underway. Um, the property

[51:46] that, um, is undeveloped is

[51:49] roughly seven and a half acres,

[51:50] just a little bit under seven

[51:52] and a half acres. And we would

[51:53] like the opportunity to have

[51:55] some more flexibility with

[51:58] that. Um, when you look at some

[52:00] of the slides, MISS Hopkins

[52:01] showed. Look, I

[52:03] m thinking back

[52:05] to 2013 and we had a number of

[52:06] neighborhood meetings and we

[52:08] had a lot of discussions about

[52:10] the overall development. But

[52:10] it

[52:12] s really interesting to see,

[52:13] like back in 2013, the

[52:15] discussion about density. And

[52:17] when you fast forward ahead 13

[52:19] years and all the changes, like

[52:20] if you could identify a place

[52:21] in Wilmington where you

[52:21] d want

[52:23] more density with all the

[52:24] infrastructure. And as you

[52:26] mentioned, MR. CHAIRMAN, the a

[52:29] level service of the roads, all

[52:30] the different intersections

[52:32] that have been improved, I

[52:33] could go through and, you know,

[52:34] show you things here even on

[52:35] this that weren

[52:36] t in place in

[52:38] 2013. But if you were wanting

[52:40] to increase density in

[52:42] Wilmington, this is exactly the

[52:43] place where you would want to

[52:43] do it. It

[52:44] s close to grocery

[52:45] stores, it

[52:46] s close to public

[52:48] parks. It has probably the best

[52:51] access of any large site and

[52:52] all of Wilmington, with

[52:53] Independence Boulevard, 17th

[52:55] Street, Carolina Beach Road,

[52:57] um, most of this is signalized.

[52:59] Signalized, and none of that

[53:02] was really there in 2013. Um,

[53:05] but, um, when the when the

[53:07] approval when it was approved

[53:10] in 2013, um, there was a lot

[53:12] more zoning space. There was a

[53:14] lot more arb space, a lot more

[53:17] commercial space. And it

[53:18] s

[53:19] really pretty interesting to

[53:21] see the density that was put

[53:28] upon what equates to. 223 acres

[53:30] of combined. Oh, and I won and

[53:33] rb was limited to 116 units,

[53:34] which is about one unit for

[53:38] every two acres. And really,

[53:38] what we

[53:39] re asking for tonight

[53:42] is can, you know, just to sort

[53:44] of lift that density cap on

[53:45] this remaining part and allow

[53:46] the opportunity to have it

[53:49] developed just like any other

[53:54] only site? And, um, again, the

[53:56] the residential certainly helps

[53:59] the commercial component. Um,

[54:01] the roadways are more than

[54:03] adequate for allowing some more

[54:04] residential on that seven and a

[54:07] half, um, acres, but there

[54:07] s no

[54:09] definite plan right now. So,

[54:10] um, it

[54:11] s really just

[54:12] opportunities as they sort of

[54:13] plan out one of these last

[54:15] parts of vacant property within

[54:16] the within the Berkeley West

[54:18] development to have an

[54:19] opportunity to put some more

[54:20] residential. So that

[54:21] s kind of

[54:23] how we got here today. And um,

[54:24] I would like to say we

[54:26] appreciate the planning

[54:26] staff

[54:28] s, um, discussions with

[54:28] us. They

[54:29] ve been very available

[54:31] and helpful with us. And, um,

[54:33] sort of walking through

[54:34] different ways to approach

[54:35] this. So I do want to say

[54:35] staff

[54:36] s been great to work with

[54:38] on this. And, um, I

[54:39] ve got a

[54:40] few more slides that might help

[54:41] elaborate on some of the

[54:43] questions. Part of the reason

[54:43] you

[54:44] ll see the shape of the

[54:46] property is because the track

[54:46] that

[54:49] s in the upper right hand

[54:51] corner. Um, uh, Cameron

[54:51] Properties doesn

[54:52] t own that

[54:52] anymore. That

[54:53] s owned by

[54:54] Wilmington Health that was

[54:56] recently sold. And I think

[54:59] APRIL of this year. And then,

[55:01] um, MISS Hopkins touched on

[55:04] the, uh, consistency with the

[55:05] plans, but there

[55:05] s not many

[55:06] properties you

[55:06] re going to see

[55:08] in Wilmington that are in a, in

[55:10] a higher intensity area of

[55:12] opportunity, a transit oriented

[55:14] mixed use center, a high

[55:16] capacity transit route, and has

[55:18] this much access to existing

[55:20] commercial goods and services.

[55:23] You can walk to all sorts of

[55:25] things within the area you

[55:25] re

[55:26] close to signalized

[55:28] intersections, grocery stores,

[55:30] and as I said, um, it is really

[55:32] where you would want to see

[55:34] some more density. Um, if we if

[55:35] you can put it there and it

[55:35] s

[55:37] going to be very high quality,

[55:38] just like the entire Berkeley

[55:40] West is. So I think that

[55:41] s the

[55:43] conclusion. Um, staff

[55:45] recommends approval. I

[55:45] m sure

[55:46] you all have questions, but

[55:47] that

[55:49] s sort of the, the the

[55:50] long and the short of it.

[55:52] Thank you very much,

[55:53] Commissioner coffer. We

[55:53] ll

[55:54] start with you.

[55:56] Thank you, MR. Chair. Um, I

[55:58] guess, MISTER Nichols, the

[55:59] first question that just pops

[56:04] off the page is why not do the.

[56:06] O the workforce piece that

[56:08] eliminates all the residential

[56:09] barriers?

[56:10] Uh, uh, it

[56:13] s a great point. We

[56:13] don

[56:16] t have a plan, but what the

[56:18] residential barrier is

[56:20] resulting from the 2013

[56:21] condition. So when the city

[56:24] council approved this in 2013,

[56:27] they limited the entire density

[56:37] of the 302 acres to 1375 units,

[56:40] 1259 of those units were the

[56:42] maximum. In the multifamily

[56:46] zone. So the only units allowed

[56:50] for again over 200 and 223

[56:52] acres to be exact. Of all the

[56:56] rb and all, the only one was

[56:58] 116 units. I

[56:59] m not sure why

[57:01] that was. I think at the time

[57:02] there was just different

[57:03] demands for different housing

[57:05] types. I think if you were

[57:06] going through this today, it

[57:09] would be vastly different. I

[57:10] would say there would be really

[57:11] no reason to have a cap on the

[57:14] density. The code has caps, and

[57:15] all we

[57:15] re really asking for

[57:18] here is just to have this, uh,

[57:19] what essentially amounts to

[57:20] seven and a half acres. Just

[57:21] have it treated like every

[57:22] other owner

[57:23] s owned property in

[57:26] the city. As far as density.

[57:29] Um, so the density cap exists

[57:31] not because of the code. It

[57:33] exists because of the 2013

[57:34] approval. And that

[57:34] s really why

[57:34] we

[57:35] re here. We

[57:36] re asking for

[57:37] consideration. Can can we

[57:38] please go back and look at

[57:41] those 2013 conditions? Because

[57:42] frankly, they

[57:43] re really

[57:45] outdated at this point. Some of

[57:45] them don

[57:47] t even apply anymore.

[57:48] Um,

[57:48] And.

[57:48] There

[57:50] s been such a dramatic

[57:52] shift in population growth, job

[57:53] growth, demands for different

[57:55] types of housing.

[57:56] But right now we

[57:57] re limited to

[58:01] this cap on density in the

[58:04] commercial areas out there. Um,

[58:04] so I don

[58:05] t know if that answers

[58:07] the question, but. And not to

[58:08] sound like a broken record, but

[58:10] I would I would say that again,

[58:13] um, we just want the

[58:15] opportunity to put the density

[58:15] that the code allows. We

[58:16] re not

[58:18] asking for anything above and

[58:19] beyond what anybody else could

[58:21] do on any property.

[58:22] And I.

[58:24] Guess a follow up question MR.

[58:25] Nichols would be then, is this,

[58:26] I mean, because it seems like a

[58:31] really specific number of 208,

[58:34] um, is that is that meeting the

[58:37] code today? Does that bring.

[58:38] I think that was a number that

[58:40] staff calculated. That wasn

[58:41] t a

[58:42] number that we did. Again,

[58:42] there

[58:44] s no plan there. It

[58:44] s

[58:46] possible that no residential

[58:48] would go there. Um, but we

[58:49] would like the opportunity to

[58:51] put residential there. I think

[58:52] it makes perfect sense to add

[58:53] more residential. It

[58:54] s needed.

[58:56] We need it in the city. We need

[58:58] it in locations exactly like

[59:00] Berkeley West. Um, but right

[59:03] now, um, I don

[59:04] t know what

[59:05] density is left, but there

[59:05] s

[59:07] not much left out there. And

[59:07] there

[59:08] s still property to

[59:11] develop. In hindsight, I think

[59:11] there

[59:13] s probably would have

[59:15] been better to have more

[59:16] density in the commercial

[59:18] sections. And I think that i

[59:18] think that

[59:19] s definitely what

[59:20] you would see today. If you

[59:21] were developing it today, you

[59:21] d

[59:23] have, I think, significantly

[59:25] more residential within the o.

[59:27] And I and the rb zones out

[59:27] there.

[59:30] And I guess the, the and this

[59:31] MAY just be a staff question

[59:33] would be because the numbers

[59:35] are so specific 208. Would that

[59:35] be what

[59:38] s allowed today under

[59:40] the non 2013 code? The updated

[59:45] 2021 ldc and comp plan um with

[59:48] 208 b you know suitable to this

[59:50] particular site. It just seems

[59:51] you know again it just seems

[59:52] specific. And then it

[59:52] s just

[59:54] curious that this

[59:56] recommendation that the whole

[59:57] all residential density for the

[59:59] whole project, it sounds like,

[1:00:00] would be eliminated, you

[1:00:01] d have

[1:00:02] a no ceiling, as many

[1:00:04] residential units as you want.

[1:00:07] If you did the 10%. Um, for the

[1:00:08] 15 years designated as

[1:00:09] workforce. So there

[1:00:09] s two

[1:00:11] things that are just kind of

[1:00:13] juxtaposing, at least in my

[1:00:14] bullets here. So but thank you

[1:00:15] for your responses. I

[1:00:16] appreciate that.

[1:00:16] Yes.

[1:00:17] Sir.

[1:00:19] MR. Kupfer,

[1:00:21] Uh, in response to your

[1:00:23] questions, the 208 units is

[1:00:26] assuming that the site for

[1:00:27] which these conditions are

[1:00:29] being applied is built out at

[1:00:30] 17 units per acre. So that

[1:00:31] s

[1:00:32] where staff did that to

[1:00:34] estimate, uh, associated

[1:00:35] traffic with that. So that

[1:00:37] assumes 17 units per acre. When

[1:00:39] we say removing the residential

[1:00:41] cap it it

[1:00:41] s it means they

[1:00:42] re no

[1:00:44] longer going to be restricted

[1:00:46] to that 44 units, which is in

[1:00:47] the current conditions, which

[1:00:49] is all that is left for

[1:00:50] residential development in the

[1:00:52] o and I and rb portions of

[1:00:54] Berkeley West. So and it would

[1:00:55] not apply to the entire

[1:00:57] Berkeley property project just

[1:00:59] to the site. Uh, that is shown

[1:01:01] in your packet and that the

[1:01:03] applicant outlined, as Hayley

[1:01:05] mentioned, if, if when they

[1:01:07] develop this site, they opt to

[1:01:10] do 10% of workforce housing for

[1:01:12] 15 years. That does allow them

[1:01:14] to go above 17 units per acre.

[1:01:16] Again, only on this site. Uh,

[1:01:18] and then there is no specific

[1:01:20] density cap.

[1:01:21] Thank you, MR. Painter. That

[1:01:23] makes sense. So you

[1:01:23] re doing

[1:01:25] the calculations based on this

[1:01:27] site and per year calculations,

[1:01:30] 208 is the maximum allowed. But

[1:01:32] if the applicant decided to on

[1:01:33] this site alone, not all the

[1:01:35] Berkeley do the workforce

[1:01:36] piece, then there would be no

[1:01:37] cap. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

[1:01:38] That

[1:01:40] s what I was looking for.

[1:01:45] Got it. Commissioner Collier.

[1:01:50] Commissioner Adams.

[1:01:52] When was the last time that we

[1:01:55] saw the site and looked at it?

[1:01:57] Amending the conditional use

[1:01:58] district, or the conditional

[1:01:59] uses?

[1:02:02] It was 2023. I have a slide

[1:02:05] showing that, um, here.

[1:02:09] So if what

[1:02:10] s so different in

[1:02:13] your mind about 20, 2013, in

[1:02:15] this original master plan, when

[1:02:17] this came before us three ish

[1:02:19] years ago, why weren

[1:02:19] t we

[1:02:21] talking about this density

[1:02:25] issue then? And we are now.

[1:02:26] Um, that

[1:02:27] s a good question. I

[1:02:28] don

[1:02:28] t I don

[1:02:29] t really remember

[1:02:30] exactly how it came up. I know

[1:02:32] we were looking at this site

[1:02:33] and this was a this was an

[1:02:36] actual rezoning. So this was

[1:02:39] oh, and I and md 17 getting

[1:02:41] rezoned to rb because we

[1:02:42] thought that was a better fit

[1:02:44] for the overall development

[1:02:46] with potential commercial use,

[1:02:48] uses up near Independence

[1:02:51] Boulevard. So the difference

[1:02:52] here is we

[1:02:52] re really we

[1:02:52] re not

[1:02:54] asking for any change in the

[1:02:56] underlying district. We

[1:02:57] re oh,

[1:03:00] and one excuse me. Oh, and I

[1:03:01] now we

[1:03:03] re asking for oh and I,

[1:03:03] we

[1:03:04] re just asking for updated

[1:03:05] conditions. So it

[1:03:06] s the same

[1:03:07] zone..

[1:03:10] Okay. Um, I did have a question

[1:03:12] about this. The number of units

[1:03:13] with the overlays. So thank you

[1:03:17] for that. Um, when the, um,

[1:03:17] it

[1:03:18] s unusual for us to see

[1:03:20] conditional requests without

[1:03:24] site plans. Um, and, you know,

[1:03:26] you talk a lot about, um,

[1:03:27] numbers of units, and you talk

[1:03:31] a lot about the ability to

[1:03:34] integrate with circulation. Um,

[1:03:36] both pedestrian as well as

[1:03:38] vehicular, but it

[1:03:40] s I mean,

[1:03:42] until you sort of see how that

[1:03:43] actually works, how are we

[1:03:46] supposed to determine that, you

[1:03:51] know, 208 441, whatever number

[1:03:53] of units that you could do is

[1:03:55] being done in a smart way from

[1:03:57] a design standpoint?

[1:03:58] Well, I think all you have to

[1:04:00] do is look out at what

[1:04:00] s there.

[1:04:03] This the infrastructure is

[1:04:07] there. Uh, the Stonecrop Drive,

[1:04:09] Chippenham, Dusty Miller Lane,

[1:04:12] all of that is in place. We

[1:04:12] ve

[1:04:13] got I

[1:04:14] m looking here at two

[1:04:15] traffic circles. I

[1:04:16] m looking

[1:04:21] at, uh, two. At least two major

[1:04:25] full, uh, full movement

[1:04:27] intersections that my client

[1:04:31] installed at their cost. Um,

[1:04:35] here you can see how it would,

[1:04:37] um, I guess I can

[1:04:38] t think of

[1:04:39] the term, but it would just be

[1:04:41] how it fits within the cohesive

[1:04:44] development of Berkeley West.

[1:04:45] And my client has done a great

[1:04:50] job with Berkeley West. Um, and

[1:04:50] there

[1:04:51] s really no reason to

[1:04:52] think they would come to this

[1:04:55] last seven and a half acres and

[1:04:57] make a mess of it. The reason

[1:04:57] why we don

[1:05:00] t have a, um,

[1:05:03] specific site plan is because

[1:05:04] when this was developed under

[1:05:07] the future land use plan, it

[1:05:09] was designated a certain higher

[1:05:11] intensity area of opportunity.

[1:05:13] And there was a specific

[1:05:14] provision in your code at the

[1:05:15] time that allowed us to

[1:05:18] essentially do a bubble plan.

[1:05:20] Uh, that bubble plan is

[1:05:24] essentially shown here. That

[1:05:25] s

[1:05:28] what was approved in 2013. All

[1:05:30] per the code. So you can see on

[1:05:33] there the oh and I is the light

[1:05:35] blue. The rv is the darker

[1:05:37] blue. And you can see back in

[1:05:39] 2013, I mean the thought was

[1:05:40] this was going to be mostly

[1:05:44] commercial. It was. But but

[1:05:45] again it was a different time.

[1:05:48] You know, look what look what

[1:05:48] s

[1:05:50] happened with retail and office

[1:05:51] space since 2013. Look, look

[1:05:52] what

[1:05:53] s happened with it since

[1:05:57] the pandemic. Um, and look

[1:05:57] what

[1:05:58] s happened with

[1:05:58] Wilmington

[1:06:00] s housing demand and

[1:06:02] job growth. So it makes perfect

[1:06:07] sense to say with the cdm,

[1:06:08] opportunities to try to put

[1:06:10] more housing in those

[1:06:12] commercial areas. But again, it

[1:06:14] was a the reason why we

[1:06:14] re here

[1:06:17] is because that was limited to

[1:06:20] 116 units on everything you

[1:06:20] re

[1:06:22] seeing there in blue. And I

[1:06:23] would respectfully say that

[1:06:23] s

[1:06:27] an outdated condition. And we

[1:06:27] that

[1:06:28] s and we hope you see it

[1:06:29] that way too, that we

[1:06:29] re just

[1:06:32] trying to get more units there.

[1:06:32] But again, I

[1:06:33] ll stress we

[1:06:33] re

[1:06:35] not asking for any extra units.

[1:06:35] We

[1:06:37] re simply asking, can we

[1:06:38] please have this property

[1:06:41] treated like any other? Oh, any

[1:06:43] property in Wilmington as far

[1:06:44] as density, if you

[1:06:45] re going to

[1:06:45] do cdm, you we

[1:06:46] re not asking

[1:06:47] for extra units. We

[1:06:48] re just

[1:06:50] asking to lift what we think is

[1:06:53] an outdated density cap from

[1:06:55] 2013.

[1:06:56] Thank you.

[1:06:57] Thank you.

[1:06:59] Commissioner Pawlak.

[1:06:59] I

[1:07:00] m still thinking.

[1:07:03] Okay.

[1:07:06] MAY take a while, I guess.

[1:07:08] Yeah, man. I it

[1:07:09] s in my mind.

[1:07:10] It

[1:07:10] s no big deal. But you

[1:07:11] re

[1:07:12] talking obviously density here.

[1:07:12] I mean that

[1:07:13] s the important

[1:07:14] thing. And it

[1:07:15] s changed no

[1:07:16] doubt about it. Over the last

[1:07:17] ten whatever years. But I

[1:07:18] m a

[1:07:20] little bit like MR. Adams

[1:07:22] about, you know, usually we

[1:07:24] have a plan. You need to, you

[1:07:27] know, a change to accommodate

[1:07:28] the plan, but you don

[1:07:28] t have a

[1:07:29] plan. As far as I know, there

[1:07:30] s

[1:07:31] no concept. But if there is, we

[1:07:32] don

[1:07:32] t know about it. It

[1:07:32] s just.

[1:07:35] You want the ability to do

[1:07:36] something different. Why are we

[1:07:39] not waiting until you come up

[1:07:42] with why you need this change?

[1:07:45] Well, again, the the the

[1:07:47] property was approved and

[1:07:48] developed and has been

[1:07:51] developed very responsibly

[1:07:54] under the 2013 approval as a

[1:07:55] quote unquote, bubble plan that

[1:07:57] was allowed. Uh, I think my

[1:08:02] clients have exceeded, uh, the,

[1:08:04] um, sort of expectation as far

[1:08:05] as the quality of the

[1:08:08] development, the landscaping,

[1:08:09] the layout, much of what you

[1:08:11] see here from 2013, that

[1:08:11] s

[1:08:13] essentially the same sort of

[1:08:15] main arterial layout of the

[1:08:17] streets. All the traffic

[1:08:20] signals, um, the trying to

[1:08:22] provide a mixed use center and

[1:08:23] a very sort of centralized part

[1:08:27] of the, of the city. So, um,

[1:08:29] there is no current plan. But

[1:08:31] in looking at folks that MAY

[1:08:34] want to sort of come in and,

[1:08:36] and do something there, um,

[1:08:36] we

[1:08:37] re just asking for the

[1:08:39] opportunity to complete the

[1:08:41] project under the current

[1:08:43] framework of a bubble plan.

[1:08:43] There

[1:08:45] s no plan there today.

[1:08:47] And they could go out there and

[1:08:48] do development there without

[1:08:49] going through a conditional

[1:08:51] process, because it is already

[1:08:54] conditional approved. So I

[1:08:56] realize the code has changed,

[1:08:58] but we would ask for the

[1:08:59] ability just to proceed under

[1:09:00] the format that it was

[1:09:02] approved. And I think my

[1:09:03] clients have proven to the city

[1:09:05] that they have done a very

[1:09:07] responsible job in developing

[1:09:09] it and continue to do high

[1:09:10] quality, and there

[1:09:11] s no reason

[1:09:11] to believe that they

[1:09:12] re going

[1:09:13] to, again, go out there and do

[1:09:16] something that will, um, really

[1:09:18] hurt or hurt the development.

[1:09:18] It

[1:09:19] s obviously in their in

[1:09:21] their best interest to continue

[1:09:22] to develop it in a very

[1:09:23] responsible way. And that

[1:09:23] s

[1:09:23] what they

[1:09:24] re going to do. And

[1:09:24] that

[1:09:25] s absolutely what their

[1:09:30] track record is. And so, um.

[1:09:32] The the project was designed

[1:09:34] with some flexibility in mind.

[1:09:36] And that flexibility, um, is

[1:09:39] um, is still important to them.

[1:09:40] Thank you.

[1:09:42] MR. Commissioner Jones.

[1:09:44] Um, yeah. Just to point out for

[1:09:47] you, his question is that

[1:09:48] number of years it

[1:09:49] s hard to

[1:09:51] project what the trends are

[1:09:52] going to be and how people are

[1:09:54] going to live and things

[1:09:56] change. And why would we would

[1:09:58] go ahead and rezone it now is

[1:10:00] because when clients come or

[1:10:01] interested in a piece of

[1:10:03] property, they factor in the

[1:10:05] time that it takes to go

[1:10:08] through the process. Um, the

[1:10:10] question I had was on the tree

[1:10:14] line behind Wilmington Health.

[1:10:15] Yes.

[1:10:16] Is that like construction?

[1:10:17] Staging? There

[1:10:18] s several looks

[1:10:20] like buildings right there on

[1:10:21] the bottom right.

[1:10:24] The.

[1:10:25] I think she

[1:10:27] s above the words

[1:10:28] future development.

[1:10:29] Right above.

[1:10:31] Oh, yeah. So there

[1:10:32] s, um I

[1:10:32] don

[1:10:33] t know if it

[1:10:33] s shown in the

[1:10:34] recent photo. Let me let me go

[1:10:35] back to the other one.

[1:10:35] Is that.

[1:10:36] The the. Yeah.

[1:10:37] That Wilmington Health

[1:10:37] building.

[1:10:39] Yeah. So the parking okay.

[1:10:39] Yeah. I

[1:10:41] m not sure that exact

[1:10:44] equipment. Um, but, um, you can

[1:10:46] see from the previous photo

[1:10:48] that, um, that parking lot

[1:10:50] really is a big benefit. Um,

[1:10:52] that it was needed. Um, there

[1:10:53] was there, um, it

[1:10:54] s very

[1:10:55] helpful to have that additional

[1:10:57] parking there. I can I can

[1:11:00] speak to that myself. Um, so I

[1:11:01] know that that was just

[1:11:03] recently completed. It MAY be

[1:11:06] part of it. Um, but, um, yeah,

[1:11:07] I think that

[1:11:09] s a big, a big,

[1:11:11] uh, improvement with the

[1:11:12] availability because that

[1:11:12] s a

[1:11:12] that

[1:11:13] s a doctor

[1:11:14] s office, and

[1:11:15] you want to have ample parking

[1:11:17] for folks to get in and out.

[1:11:19] Um, so I, I

[1:11:20] m not sure the

[1:11:22] specific equipment you were

[1:11:23] referencing, but there has been

[1:11:24] construction activity out

[1:11:27] there, and there is ongoing.

[1:11:27] I

[1:11:28] m just guessing what that is

[1:11:29] because it looks like it

[1:11:29] s a,

[1:11:32] you know, undeveloped parcel

[1:11:33] with things around the tree

[1:11:33] line. And I

[1:11:35] m guessing that

[1:11:35] Monteith or whoever

[1:11:36] s did their

[1:11:37] construction staging back

[1:11:38] there, but it

[1:11:38] s not.

[1:11:39] I

[1:11:39] d have.

[1:11:40] Not really relevant.

[1:11:40] I don

[1:11:40] t know. Yeah. I

[1:11:41] d have to

[1:11:41] ask. I

[1:11:42] m sorry.

[1:11:42] No.

[1:11:45] No worries.

[1:11:45] That

[1:11:47] s a I mean, you answered

[1:11:49] my other two questions down the

[1:11:51] line.

[1:11:52] Commissioner Collier.

[1:11:54] Thank you, MR. Chair. MR.

[1:11:55] Nichols, the I guess the one

[1:11:59] question the the overall 1375

[1:12:01] is that the total number or

[1:12:02] something thereabouts. That

[1:12:03] number is not changing.

[1:12:04] Correct?

[1:12:04] That

[1:12:05] s correct.

[1:12:05] So what you

[1:12:06] re doing is you

[1:12:07] re

[1:12:07] you

[1:12:09] re being able to move some

[1:12:10] of the density into this one

[1:12:12] area, more so than what you

[1:12:16] would have in 2013 or 20 18 or

[1:12:18] 2023. Is that correct or

[1:12:19] incorrect?

[1:12:19] I think it

[1:12:20] s yes, sir, if I

[1:12:20] m

[1:12:22] understanding correctly. So,

[1:12:26] um, the what one of the

[1:12:29] original concepts was to simply

[1:12:31] come back in and ask for the

[1:12:34] 1375 to be raised. Um, after

[1:12:35] discussions with the city, our

[1:12:37] understanding is that would

[1:12:39] require us to rezone all 302

[1:12:40] acres. There

[1:12:42] s multiple

[1:12:43] different owners now. There

[1:12:44] s

[1:12:47] it would be, um, it would be

[1:12:49] very sort of complicated to do

[1:12:49] that.

[1:12:50] Resets the code.

[1:12:52] So yes. Yeah. So and again, in

[1:12:54] discussions with staff and we

[1:12:55] do appreciate staff

[1:12:56] s help and

[1:12:59] guidance on how, how we could

[1:13:00] potentially present this for

[1:13:02] consideration would be to have

[1:13:06] a um, just have a zone sort of

[1:13:08] carved out here where it has

[1:13:11] its own conditions and most of

[1:13:13] the conditions are again, yeah,

[1:13:14] there was like 26 or so.

[1:13:16] Condition conditions would not

[1:13:19] be outside of the the

[1:13:20] conditions previously. Correct.

[1:13:24] Like the 1375.

[1:13:25] No reply to this.

[1:13:25] So you

[1:13:29] re saying 1375 in 2013

[1:13:31] would have been a total. But

[1:13:33] today if we agreed with this,

[1:13:35] it would be 1375 plus I know

[1:13:36] 208 it

[1:13:37] s just a number, but

[1:13:38] plus 208.

[1:13:39] I think that

[1:13:39] s I think that

[1:13:39] s

[1:13:40] one way to look at it. Yes,

[1:13:40] sir. That

[1:13:41] s right.

[1:13:43] All right. And I have no qualms

[1:13:43] that what

[1:13:44] s going to be built

[1:13:45] would be built in the in a

[1:13:47] professional manner that is

[1:13:48] very evident of what

[1:13:48] s out

[1:13:49] there. I think everyone

[1:13:50] s just

[1:13:52] more discussing how the how the

[1:13:53] density side of it is going to

[1:13:54] be done. And if there was a

[1:13:56] limit on if you said, okay,

[1:13:56] we

[1:13:58] re only going to go to 150,

[1:13:58] I don

[1:13:59] t know what the number

[1:14:00] is, but a number that MAY make

[1:14:02] everyone more palatable. Um,

[1:14:05] you also changed the uses to

[1:14:07] all uses in. Oh, and I accept

[1:14:09] that which ones you accepted I

[1:14:11] thought were really good, but,

[1:14:12] um, so I don

[1:14:12] t know. I don

[1:14:12] t I

[1:14:13] don

[1:14:14] t have any issues with

[1:14:14] what

[1:14:15] s going on, but I do want

[1:14:16] to know how the density is

[1:14:17] going to be done, because it

[1:14:18] sounds like we

[1:14:19] re fixing one

[1:14:20] little park, but we

[1:14:21] re adding

[1:14:23] density to the overall, which

[1:14:24] is what I thought that the city

[1:14:25] was telling you. You would have

[1:14:27] to change to do it. And I know

[1:14:27] that

[1:14:28] s not exactly right, but

[1:14:29] it

[1:14:29] s.

[1:14:30] Yeah, well, a couple of things.

[1:14:32] I would say this is one of the

[1:14:33] last remaining parts on this

[1:14:35] side of the, of the street. So

[1:14:35] it

[1:14:37] s um, we

[1:14:37] re really kind of

[1:14:39] at the toward the end of the

[1:14:41] finish line. Um, not quite

[1:14:44] there, but, um, like I said,

[1:14:45] the the density has for the

[1:14:50] most part been allocated and is

[1:14:53] been, um, used up. I don

[1:14:53] t know

[1:14:54] how else to say it. I don

[1:14:54] t

[1:14:54] know if that

[1:14:55] s the planning

[1:14:56] term, but we

[1:14:57] re toward the end

[1:15:01] of the allowable 2013 density

[1:15:02] and.

[1:15:04] The 1375.

[1:15:05] The 1375. Yes, sir.

[1:15:08] So hang on. Let me ask, is that

[1:15:09] the 44 you were talking about?

[1:15:10] Is that all that

[1:15:11] s left on the.

[1:15:11] I

[1:15:12] m sorry, Matt, I didn

[1:15:12] t mean

[1:15:14] to cut you off.

[1:15:14] That

[1:15:14] s all that

[1:15:16] s left for

[1:15:17] commercial area. So for. Oh,

[1:15:20] and I and rb zoned master

[1:15:22] planned areas, they have 44

[1:15:22] left.

[1:15:23] Okay.

[1:15:23] Right.

[1:15:24] Sorry I apologize. No that

[1:15:25] s

[1:15:27] fine. Um, I

[1:15:28] ve lost my train of

[1:15:34] thought, but, um, on the as far

[1:15:36] as the density cap, again, the

[1:15:38] cap is in the code.

[1:15:40] 17 units an acre, right?

[1:15:40] Yeah. So we

[1:15:41] re not asking for

[1:15:43] anything beyond what the code

[1:15:45] allows. And again, perhaps I

[1:15:45] m

[1:15:47] oversimplifying it, but but

[1:15:48] again, all we

[1:15:50] re asking is in

[1:15:53] 2026, does it make sense to say

[1:15:55] you could only do 44 units?

[1:15:58] There? And we respectfully

[1:16:01] contend no. Again, of all the

[1:16:02] things that you all consider

[1:16:05] and you have much sort of

[1:16:06] bigger unit counts come before

[1:16:11] you at times. Um, I would say

[1:16:12] of all the different sites that

[1:16:15] you evaluate, this is probably

[1:16:15] it

[1:16:16] s not my call, it

[1:16:16] s y

[1:16:16] all

[1:16:16] s

[1:16:18] call. But this is probably one

[1:16:20] of the types of sites that you

[1:16:23] would say is ideal for more

[1:16:25] density.

[1:16:27] And I agree it is ideal for

[1:16:29] more density. I am not

[1:16:30] absolutely not debating that

[1:16:32] one with you at all. I think

[1:16:32] it

[1:16:32] s the it

[1:16:34] s just how it seems

[1:16:34] that it

[1:16:35] s you

[1:16:36] re adding on the

[1:16:39] total that was approved in 2013

[1:16:39] and we

[1:16:40] re, we

[1:16:40] re we

[1:16:40] re adding

[1:16:41] to it. We

[1:16:41] re we

[1:16:42] re going over

[1:16:46] it artificially. Um, and site

[1:16:46] plan or not, it

[1:16:46] s we

[1:16:47] re still

[1:16:48] going up over the cap that was

[1:16:49] agreed upon. So I

[1:16:50] m not sure

[1:16:51] how to reconcile that in my

[1:16:52] mind. But you

[1:16:53] re right. This is

[1:16:55] absolutely the perfect place to

[1:16:56] put the density. You can go

[1:16:57] high if you want to. I think

[1:16:58] it

[1:16:58] s wonderful.

[1:17:01] Yeah. And and please keep in

[1:17:03] mind that as part of the

[1:17:04] condition, through the process,

[1:17:05] there is like a so there

[1:17:06] s a

[1:17:08] sort of a, an overall Tia for

[1:17:09] this that

[1:17:12] s been um, sort of

[1:17:14] adopted, updated, uh, sort of

[1:17:16] renewed over time. So this will

[1:17:18] go through whatever goes there,

[1:17:19] whether there

[1:17:19] s residential or

[1:17:19] not, it

[1:17:20] s going to go through

[1:17:24] the full trc review. The Tia

[1:17:27] analysis, um, you know, this

[1:17:27] isn

[1:17:30] t a the approval tonight,

[1:17:32] which we certainly hope that,

[1:17:35] um, in in the commission

[1:17:36] s um,

[1:17:38] decision here proves it, but

[1:17:38] that doesn

[1:17:39] t allow us to go out

[1:17:41] and, and as, as you know, MR.

[1:17:42] Collier doesn

[1:17:42] t allow us to go

[1:17:45] out and do anything other than

[1:17:46] apply and go through the city

[1:17:47] process and meet all the

[1:17:49] requirements. And if there

[1:17:49] s

[1:17:50] additional improvements that

[1:17:51] need to be done, they certainly

[1:17:53] have to be done. But we

[1:17:53] re

[1:17:53] we

[1:17:56] re asking for, again, a

[1:17:58] reconsideration of a 13 year

[1:18:01] old condition. Um, that to me

[1:18:03] was a very low cap to begin

[1:18:06] with. And we

[1:18:07] re asking to just

[1:18:09] meet what the code allows as

[1:18:11] far as density on that site.

[1:18:13] Would this be the last? In

[1:18:15] general, the last parcel that

[1:18:17] you would want to put that

[1:18:19] density on, I think is right

[1:18:19] now what we

[1:18:20] re talking about

[1:18:21] only applies in yellow. That

[1:18:21] s

[1:18:22] correct. Yellow boundary.

[1:18:23] Right. That

[1:18:23] s a great point. It

[1:18:24] does what what we

[1:18:26] re asking for

[1:18:29] tonight as far as not having

[1:18:31] this, uh, 2013 density cap only

[1:18:32] applies to what you see in

[1:18:35] yellow, uh, two thirds or a

[1:18:37] third of it, which is you

[1:18:37] already know it

[1:18:38] s there. It

[1:18:38] s a

[1:18:39] it

[1:18:39] s an office building and a

[1:18:40] parking lot. So we

[1:18:41] re down to

[1:18:43] about seven and a half acres,

[1:18:44] and we think it

[1:18:46] d be a great it

[1:18:47] would be a great opportunity to

[1:18:48] potentially have some

[1:18:51] residential there. Um, but we

[1:18:53] do not have a plan for it. And

[1:18:54] we look forward to, you know,

[1:18:57] having an opportunity to have

[1:18:58] someone come up with something

[1:19:00] there that really fits and they

[1:19:01] can be very selective about

[1:19:03] what they want to go there.

[1:19:04] Sure. And it

[1:19:07] s not, uh, and my

[1:19:07] client

[1:19:08] s not going to just have

[1:19:10] something there because someone

[1:19:11] comes along with it. I mean,

[1:19:11] it

[1:19:12] s very important that it

[1:19:15] fits in with the development

[1:19:15] and that it

[1:19:17] s cohesive with the

[1:19:18] rest of the development and

[1:19:20] fits the architecture and fits

[1:19:21] the use and all that sort of

[1:19:21] thing.

[1:19:23] So will we only apply the 17

[1:19:25] dwelling units an acre to the

[1:19:27] two green treed areas and not

[1:19:30] to the Wilmington Health parcel?

[1:19:33] Um, could you say that again?

[1:19:34] Sorry. So in the in your

[1:19:35] picture, you

[1:19:35] ve got a big

[1:19:37] overall yellow area that is.

[1:19:38] Yes. I don

[1:19:38] t know what that

[1:19:39] acreage is right now.

[1:19:39] But it

[1:19:41] s about 12.25.

[1:19:42] So then there

[1:19:43] s seven and a

[1:19:44] half left to be developed or

[1:19:46] thereabouts, 8 to 8 acres or

[1:19:47] something like that.

[1:19:48] Seven and a half. Yes, sir.

[1:19:52] Would that 7.5 times 17 be all

[1:19:53] that you put it on? You

[1:19:53] wouldn

[1:19:56] t try to apply 17 times

[1:20:00] the entire yellow boundary.

[1:20:03] Um. I don

[1:20:04] t they

[1:20:04] re not doing

[1:20:05] anything with the building at

[1:20:06] all.

[1:20:06] I understand.

[1:20:07] , yeah, I don

[1:20:08] t.

[1:20:08] But if we

[1:20:09] re talking about

[1:20:11] density, only an area, the

[1:20:13] density is calculated on either

[1:20:15] the total area or a part of it.

[1:20:17] So if you put 16, 17 units an

[1:20:19] acre on seven acres or seven

[1:20:20] and a half, that

[1:20:21] s the 208

[1:20:21] we

[1:20:22] re talking about.

[1:20:22] Yeah.

[1:20:24] Sort of. But if you do the 12.

[1:20:24] It

[1:20:25] s.

[1:20:26] Yeah, I see what you

[1:20:26] re saying.

[1:20:27] Sort of like the county

[1:20:27] s

[1:20:28] version of Performance

[1:20:30] Residential, where you can sort

[1:20:30] of that

[1:20:32] s a really a question I

[1:20:33] would ask to the city. I

[1:20:33] d

[1:20:35] never even thought about that

[1:20:36] being being allowed or

[1:20:38] possibility. I think. I thought

[1:20:39] you could just do the the

[1:20:40] density on the acreage you

[1:20:41] re

[1:20:41] developing.

[1:20:43] You can. But by what we

[1:20:44] re

[1:20:44] approving, we

[1:20:45] re approving it

[1:20:46] to be able to be on that total

[1:20:49] area, not just the seven and a

[1:20:50] half acres.

[1:20:51] True. But but you

[1:20:53] d have to

[1:20:54] that, if I

[1:20:55] m not mistaken. I

[1:20:56] mean, the question sort of

[1:20:58] assumes that the building and

[1:20:59] the parking lot are going to be

[1:21:00] torn down and it

[1:21:01] ll just be

[1:21:02] vacant, but that

[1:21:03] s there

[1:21:04] s no

[1:21:05] intent to tear the building

[1:21:07] down. The parking lot was just

[1:21:08] built. So we

[1:21:09] re talking about

[1:21:10] developing the seven and a half

[1:21:11] acres, and that

[1:21:12] s it. And my

[1:21:13] understanding in the city can

[1:21:14] correct me if I

[1:21:14] m wrong, that

[1:21:16] the density would be based upon

[1:21:17] the acreage you

[1:21:22] re developing.

[1:21:24] The density would be based on

[1:21:26] the total acreage of the

[1:21:26] property that

[1:21:27] s included in the

[1:21:29] cdm, whether that be the

[1:21:30] parcels that are undeveloped or

[1:21:30] if it

[1:21:32] s including the office

[1:21:33] space, which I believe was

[1:21:35] alluded to as being a potential

[1:21:37] commercial component of that.

[1:21:38] Yes, that

[1:21:40] s that is true, that

[1:21:40] that

[1:21:41] s true, that we would want

[1:21:42] the opportunity to have the

[1:21:43] commercial building.

[1:21:44] As long as you tell me you

[1:21:44] re

[1:21:47] going to limit it to 17 times

[1:21:48] 7.5, I

[1:21:49] m okay with that, but I

[1:21:50] don

[1:21:51] t want it to come back to

[1:21:51] bed. We

[1:21:53] re doing 17 times 12.

[1:21:53] Well, I

[1:21:54] m not going to put any

[1:21:55] limitation. I

[1:21:57] m not going to.

[1:21:59] We want to follow the code.

[1:21:59] That

[1:22:00] s it. Okay. And that

[1:22:00] s all

[1:22:00] we

[1:22:01] re asking for is for that

[1:22:03] property to follow the code.

[1:22:05] Um, so if I misunderstood the

[1:22:07] question or how the development

[1:22:09] process would be evaluated,

[1:22:10] then I apologize. But we

[1:22:10] re

[1:22:11] we

[1:22:11] re we

[1:22:13] re simply asking for

[1:22:16] the prior density cap to be

[1:22:18] removed from this site. The

[1:22:21] opportunity to do cmu, if that

[1:22:22] presents itself with the

[1:22:24] development that my clients

[1:22:25] think makes sense there and

[1:22:27] will fit well and, um, you

[1:22:30] know, meets the meets there,

[1:22:31] what they would like to see

[1:22:34] there. Uh, but whatever density

[1:22:35] the city allows us to put

[1:22:37] there, we do not want to limit

[1:22:39] that. And nor do I think it

[1:22:41] should be limited. I don

[1:22:42] t what

[1:22:43] would be the reason to limit

[1:22:46] the density? There?

[1:22:47] Well, I think what you

[1:22:47] re

[1:22:50] hearing from the from up here

[1:22:50] is everybody

[1:22:51] s expecting now

[1:22:53] 208 times 17 because it

[1:22:53] s I

[1:22:54] mean two. Yeah. Because that

[1:22:55] s

[1:22:57] seven and a half acres. But I,

[1:22:58] I know if we

[1:22:59] re approving it,

[1:23:00] it is for the entire yellow

[1:23:02] area. Correct. So but and you

[1:23:04] can put that whole density on

[1:23:05] your seven and a half acres.

[1:23:05] It

[1:23:06] s not like you couldn

[1:23:06] t.

[1:23:06] It

[1:23:07] s you can go higher. I

[1:23:08] m all

[1:23:09] about height I like it I think

[1:23:09] it

[1:23:11] s great. I just want to be

[1:23:11] clear on what we

[1:23:12] re approving

[1:23:13] and everyone else is approving

[1:23:14] understanding it too.

[1:23:16] Okay, I understand, and I

[1:23:16] m

[1:23:17] certainly not arguing with you,

[1:23:18] anybody out there, but I

[1:23:18] m

[1:23:19] trying to understand what

[1:23:19] s the

[1:23:21] concern with putting density as

[1:23:23] much density as you can on that

[1:23:25] site under the code.

[1:23:26] Where we

[1:23:26] re at, I don

[1:23:27] t have

[1:23:28] any issue with the density

[1:23:29] there, honestly. Yes, sir.

[1:23:30] What? I

[1:23:31] m just all I

[1:23:31] m saying

[1:23:32] is for everybody understands

[1:23:32] we

[1:23:34] re not talking about 208. So

[1:23:35] if everyone gets in their mind,

[1:23:37] okay, we can probably deal with

[1:23:40] that. It could be more than

[1:23:41] 208. It

[1:23:42] s all I it

[1:23:42] s all i

[1:23:42] m

[1:23:44] bringing up I think I think

[1:23:46] density there is phenomenal I

[1:23:48] do I know that the water sewer

[1:23:49] is there. I know it

[1:23:49] s the right

[1:23:51] place for it and I know the

[1:23:52] height would be okay there. I

[1:23:52] don

[1:23:53] t this isn

[1:23:53] t being

[1:23:55] subdivided out as a single

[1:23:56] parcel. Correct.

[1:23:56] It

[1:23:56] s it

[1:23:58] s two parcels. Now.

[1:23:58] It

[1:24:00] s the, the out of the yellow

[1:24:01] and the end of the yellow.

[1:24:05] Uh, no, sir. This, um, this is

[1:24:07] based upon the subdivision map

[1:24:08] that was recorded in APRIL of

[1:24:11] this year. The property I

[1:24:11] m

[1:24:12] just going to call it the the

[1:24:14] Block, which is bordered by a

[1:24:17] gallery park, stonecrop,

[1:24:20] Chippenham on the bottom and

[1:24:23] Dusty Miller Lane. That block

[1:24:25] has been subdivided into three

[1:24:27] tracks. Tract one, you can see

[1:24:30] faintly, is tract tract c, one.

[1:24:32] R one is roughly seven and a

[1:24:35] half acres, roughly, uh. The

[1:24:36] bottom track is tract three r

[1:24:37] that

[1:24:38] s seven and a half acres,

[1:24:41] roughly. And then the track one

[1:24:44] c, one r two in the corner.

[1:24:46] That is not owned by my

[1:24:46] clients, that

[1:24:47] s owned by

[1:24:48] Wilmington Health. And that

[1:24:48] s

[1:24:51] also roughly four point, I

[1:24:52] think seven seven acres or

[1:24:54] something like that. So of the

[1:24:56] dotted yellow area, the 12

[1:24:57] acres that

[1:24:57] s under your

[1:24:58] consideration this evening. It

[1:25:00] is two separate tracks. It

[1:25:00] s

[1:25:02] two separate tracks.

[1:25:04] What is the height limit on

[1:25:06] buildings in this zoning? Is it

[1:25:07] 45?

[1:25:09] I believe it is.

[1:25:11] It would be 45 unless I chose

[1:25:14] to do a step back and 96.

[1:25:15] Yeah, unless you do the step

[1:25:16] back completely. Okay.

[1:25:18] MR. Collier, if I MAY.

[1:25:20] Um, the 208 units was

[1:25:23] calculated based on the full

[1:25:26] 12.26 acres. Yes. So they can

[1:25:27] go again. They can go above the

[1:25:29] 208. If they do, the workforce

[1:25:31] housing component. But if they

[1:25:33] do not do workforce housing 208

[1:25:34] units is is calculated at the

[1:25:36] 17 units an acre for the full

[1:25:37] parcel size.

[1:25:38] Okay. Thank you. I take back

[1:25:40] the last half hour of your life

[1:25:41] while I talked about something

[1:25:42] that made no difference.

[1:25:43] And if I if I seem too

[1:25:44] argumentative, I do apologize,

[1:25:45] sir.

[1:25:46] You never argument.

[1:25:50] No, I, uh, the staff report, we

[1:25:51] understand, is correct on the

[1:25:52] unit count, but that was a

[1:25:54] staff calculation, and we

[1:25:54] re

[1:25:55] fine. No worries. Yeah.

[1:25:56] Thank you very much.

[1:25:58] Thank you.

[1:25:59] You good?

[1:26:00] Yes, sir.

[1:26:05] Commissioner Pollack.

[1:26:07] My question is actually more

[1:26:10] towards Commissioner Collier if

[1:26:12] which is. Yeah, I want because

[1:26:14] listening to your dialogue with

[1:26:17] MR. Nichols is. That was kind

[1:26:18] of what I was looking to to

[1:26:21] hear a little bit of and and

[1:26:21] i

[1:26:23] m wondering is, is it

[1:26:26] possible and mad if you could

[1:26:28] go back a couple screens? Well

[1:26:29] right there.

[1:26:30] Yes, sir.

[1:26:33] Is it possible because I

[1:26:35] understand your point. You

[1:26:38] know, in spades that says

[1:26:39] you

[1:26:41] re limiting the density to

[1:26:41] I mean, it

[1:26:42] s almost like if you

[1:26:44] draw an artificial line and

[1:26:44] I

[1:26:45] m, I don

[1:26:45] t even know what

[1:26:46] that street is there, but it

[1:26:47] s

[1:26:48] the where it says a future

[1:26:50] development. Is there a way to

[1:26:53] to put a condition in this

[1:26:56] approval that cordons off that

[1:26:58] future development block as the

[1:26:59] density? Is that what you

[1:26:59] re

[1:27:00] looking for?

[1:27:00] Well, that

[1:27:01] s what I was asking

[1:27:03] originally, because I thought

[1:27:03] that I didn

[1:27:04] t do the math well

[1:27:06] enough. In my head. I was

[1:27:08] thinking that that area times

[1:27:11] 17 was 208, and then the other

[1:27:12] corner up where the the

[1:27:14] Wilmington Health Building is,

[1:27:14] it

[1:27:15] s still in this yellow. The

[1:27:18] other 4.8 acres. I did a bad

[1:27:20] math calculation. So the 208 is

[1:27:21] the total number they could put

[1:27:23] in on this yellow block period.

[1:27:25] Period. Yeah.

[1:27:25] Okay. Unless I

[1:27:26] m misreading

[1:27:27] something now.

[1:27:29] Nope.

[1:27:31] Um, you know, Matt, I guess the

[1:27:32] only question I would really

[1:27:33] have is it

[1:27:34] s been asked 2 or 3

[1:27:37] times. Here is, you know, at

[1:27:39] sometime at some pieces along

[1:27:41] this discussion. This has felt

[1:27:43] like a discussion for a general

[1:27:45] rezoning versus a conditional

[1:27:46] rezoning. I mean, it

[1:27:46] s kind of

[1:27:48] just, just just the way the

[1:27:51] discussion has gone on. Um, but

[1:27:52] clearly understand the the

[1:27:54] conditional piece. So I guess

[1:27:54] I

[1:27:55] m, I guess I

[1:27:56] m okay with

[1:27:57] directionally because obviously

[1:27:59] your clients have demonstrated

[1:28:01] over the years the quality and

[1:28:03] the, you know, the, the

[1:28:03] building. So it

[1:28:04] s just I

[1:28:04] ve

[1:28:06] just it was a little confusing

[1:28:08] to me as I was trying to

[1:28:10] visualize what what you were

[1:28:13] asking for. Um, around this

[1:28:14] because this is the way the

[1:28:15] boxes are drawn. But I

[1:28:15] m going

[1:28:16] to I

[1:28:16] m going to make an

[1:28:17] assumptive statement and then

[1:28:19] please validate or tell me I

[1:28:19] m

[1:28:21] wrong. The reason this is drawn

[1:28:22] this way is because the

[1:28:24] property, the upper right

[1:28:26] corner, upper right quadrant.

[1:28:26] That

[1:28:27] s because that property

[1:28:28] has been sold.

[1:28:28] That

[1:28:29] s correct. My my.

[1:28:31] Saw has no no bearing here.

[1:28:32] We well they don

[1:28:34] t own it so.

[1:28:34] Yeah.

[1:28:35] Exactly. Exactly. Right. So

[1:28:35] that

[1:28:36] s why it

[1:28:36] s drawn the way

[1:28:36] it

[1:28:41] s drawn. So. Right. Okay.

[1:28:43] Um, and I appreciate my, the,

[1:28:45] my fellow commissioners. Great.

[1:28:46] You know, great questions for

[1:28:46] me as I

[1:28:47] ve been trying to

[1:28:48] listen and get my head around

[1:28:50] this thing. So, um, MR.

[1:28:50] CHAIRMAN, I

[1:28:52] m good for now.

[1:28:54] So this my last chance to do

[1:29:02] this. So. Please go ahead.

[1:29:03] Matt.

[1:29:03] Yes, sir.

[1:29:03] I

[1:29:05] m going back. When you first

[1:29:08] started this plan, um, you

[1:29:09] mentioned that the idea was to

[1:29:11] get rid of the 1300. Whatever,

[1:29:13] cap. Completely. And that

[1:29:13] didn

[1:29:14] t work. I mean, it was too

[1:29:16] much other stuff to do that,

[1:29:16] right? That

[1:29:17] s correct. So this

[1:29:19] effort tonight is to still get

[1:29:20] to the where you want to be,

[1:29:21] but it

[1:29:23] s you are not able to

[1:29:26] eliminate the 1300 cap.

[1:29:26] Correct.

[1:29:28] Uh, we we can

[1:29:28] t. That

[1:29:29] s

[1:29:30] something we can

[1:29:31] t do without

[1:29:34] rezoning all 302 acres is what

[1:29:34] I

[1:29:35] m told. So we

[1:29:35] re we

[1:29:35] re just

[1:29:36] trying to do what we can with

[1:29:36] what we.

[1:29:38] Have left. So the cap is still

[1:29:38] there?

[1:29:39] Yes.

[1:29:39] And that

[1:29:41] s across this property

[1:29:42] currently.

[1:29:42] Yes.

[1:29:43] Okay. And so you

[1:29:44] re not asking

[1:29:46] us to do anything to change

[1:29:48] that cap. Yeah. But you

[1:29:48] re

[1:29:53] going to you want to put 204 or

[1:29:55] whatever the number MAY be,

[1:29:57] which raises the cap or raises

[1:29:59] the level above the cap. Right.

[1:30:00] Well, let me try to explain it

[1:30:03] this way. Um, and I if I

[1:30:03] m not

[1:30:04] doing a good job of explaining

[1:30:07] this, I apologize. But if you

[1:30:10] let me go back to, um.

[1:30:12] Actually, MISS Hopkins had a

[1:30:18] good slide that had the 2013 cd

[1:30:20] approval, and then it had, like

[1:30:22] a piece of a puzzle. It had the

[1:30:23] 12 acres we

[1:30:25] re talking about.

[1:30:26] Um, well, that

[1:30:27] s being pulled

[1:30:28] up essentially what we

[1:30:28] re

[1:30:30] asking for with regard to the

[1:30:32] density is we understand that

[1:30:35] when the 302 acres was rezoned,

[1:30:37] there was a density cap on the

[1:30:40] entire puzzle or piece. We

[1:30:40] re

[1:30:42] asking for that piece to be

[1:30:46] lifted out of that. And be

[1:30:49] considered independent of that

[1:30:52] cap for purposes of development

[1:30:54] under the code as allowed

[1:30:56] today. But I would keep in mind

[1:30:56] that we

[1:30:57] re putting in

[1:30:59] additional conditions. So we

[1:30:59] re

[1:31:00] not just asking for a general

[1:31:02] zoning zoning. We do have a

[1:31:05] number of conditions that are

[1:31:07] completely agreeable on this

[1:31:08] site. I can go through each of

[1:31:11] those there in your packet. And

[1:31:12] most, most of those are

[1:31:14] architectural related. And I

[1:31:16] think they probably exceed what

[1:31:17] was the specificity.

[1:31:19] Let me stop you. I understand

[1:31:20] completely. Okay. Like Richard,

[1:31:20] I think it

[1:31:21] s a great plan. It

[1:31:22] s

[1:31:22] how we

[1:31:24] re getting there is and

[1:31:24] I don

[1:31:24] t want to say it

[1:31:25] s

[1:31:26] bothering me, but it

[1:31:27] s it seems

[1:31:28] to me to be staring us in the

[1:31:30] face. The cap is 1300 something.

[1:31:33] You want to put the potential

[1:31:35] to build more. Whatever it is

[1:31:36] that takes you above the cap.

[1:31:38] You tried to get rid of or

[1:31:40] tried to attempted to deal with

[1:31:42] the city about getting rid of

[1:31:44] the cap. Um, but you said it

[1:31:45] s

[1:31:45] too much work. We don

[1:31:46] t want to

[1:31:46] go that way. So we

[1:31:47] re going to

[1:31:49] try this. And it just seems to

[1:31:49] me we

[1:31:51] re making an end run to

[1:31:53] get where you want to be. And I

[1:31:54] understand you want to go the

[1:31:55] best way, and I don

[1:31:55] t have a

[1:31:56] problem getting there. It

[1:31:56] s

[1:31:57] just how you

[1:31:58] re attempting to

[1:31:59] get there. Now, I

[1:32:00] m looking at

[1:32:02] it again. The the sheet that

[1:32:02] we

[1:32:03] ve got. And I brought up the

[1:32:04] first time this came around

[1:32:05] with this workforce housing.

[1:32:07] And I mean, it says, you know,

[1:32:10] the cap on residential density,

[1:32:13] which is the 1300 maybe

[1:32:15] eliminated by the 10%

[1:32:16] workforce. And I

[1:32:17] m wondering,

[1:32:19] is that what the city threw out

[1:32:21] to you to say instead of doing

[1:32:24] the, you know, you can you can

[1:32:28] raise this cap by doing this?

[1:32:28] Okay.

[1:32:29] And I

[1:32:29] m sorry to interrupt.

[1:32:30] No, no, no.

[1:32:32] But I do want to comment. This

[1:32:33] is not an end around in any

[1:32:39] way. Um, we parcels have been

[1:32:41] sold out there, uh, such that

[1:32:41] we don

[1:32:43] t have ownership to

[1:32:45] submit a rezoning application

[1:32:47] for all the property. Like my.

[1:32:50] In 2013, my clients, my client

[1:32:52] owned all of it. It was all

[1:32:53] owned by Cameron Properties.

[1:32:56] All 302 acres. So we could

[1:32:57] submit the rezoning

[1:32:58] application. We can

[1:32:59] t submit a

[1:33:01] rezoning application. It

[1:33:01] s not

[1:33:02] that it

[1:33:02] s not that we

[1:33:03] re we

[1:33:03] re

[1:33:04] shying away from hard work and

[1:33:06] that sort of thing. We would

[1:33:09] have to go and get I understand

[1:33:12] everybody out there. Signature

[1:33:13] on it. I don

[1:33:14] t know if they got

[1:33:16] to talk to their lenders.

[1:33:16] There

[1:33:17] s loans out there we

[1:33:17] don

[1:33:20] t know. Um, but in any

[1:33:21] event. So this is definitely

[1:33:23] not an end around all we

[1:33:23] re

[1:33:26] trying to do. And it boils down

[1:33:27] to sort of your right to

[1:33:29] petition the government, which

[1:33:31] we all talk about in civics

[1:33:32] class and that sort of thing.

[1:33:33] We

[1:33:35] re trying to get in front of

[1:33:36] this commission and ultimately

[1:33:37] get in front of city Council

[1:33:39] and say, could you please look

[1:33:41] back at that condition you did

[1:33:43] in 2013? Does it make sense

[1:33:46] today? If you think it does,

[1:33:46] then we

[1:33:48] ll go home. If you

[1:33:49] think that it doesn

[1:33:50] t make

[1:33:53] sense in 2026 to limit

[1:33:54] everything you see there in

[1:33:58] blue to 116 residential units,

[1:34:01] please just lift the cap from

[1:34:02] what we have left. That

[1:34:03] s all

[1:34:03] we

[1:34:04] re asking. And we

[1:34:04] re going

[1:34:06] to follow everything in your

[1:34:07] code. We

[1:34:08] re not asking for any

[1:34:10] special treatment. And on top

[1:34:11] of that, put all these

[1:34:14] different conditions. We are

[1:34:16] agreeable to, which I think

[1:34:18] should be noted, which are all

[1:34:20] the.

[1:34:21] Um.

[1:34:21] They

[1:34:24] re in your report. So

[1:34:24] it

[1:34:25] ll go above and beyond your

[1:34:27] oh eye ordinance because we

[1:34:28] re

[1:34:30] going to, um, there

[1:34:31] s 12 of

[1:34:33] them. Where we

[1:34:34] ve agreed that

[1:34:35] additional, um, we

[1:34:36] re going to

[1:34:37] follow the architectural

[1:34:39] consistency of Berkeley West.

[1:34:39] We

[1:34:42] re going to do the Tia

[1:34:42] updates. We

[1:34:43] re not going to do

[1:34:44] linear strip retail

[1:34:45] development. We

[1:34:46] re going to put

[1:34:47] the off street parking behind

[1:34:48] the buildings. Unless we do the

[1:34:49] traffic circle or the

[1:34:51] roundabout, which looks great

[1:34:52] out there. Um, we

[1:34:53] re going to

[1:34:55] modify the setbacks to be

[1:34:57] consistent with the rest of the

[1:35:00] development. And then we

[1:35:00] ve got

[1:35:01] all internal street facing

[1:35:04] facades on Gallery Park and

[1:35:05] Stonecrop and include a minimum

[1:35:06] ground floor fenestration of

[1:35:10] 30% for office, 15. This stuff

[1:35:10] I don

[1:35:11] t really understand. An

[1:35:13] architect wrote this, but what

[1:35:13] it

[1:35:14] s going to, what it

[1:35:14] s going

[1:35:15] to and I

[1:35:16] m gonna I

[1:35:16] m going to

[1:35:18] look to MR. Adams to explain

[1:35:20] the administration. But we but

[1:35:21] what I understand is that

[1:35:22] s

[1:35:23] going to assure you that this

[1:35:25] is not going to be your sort

[1:35:30] of, you know, 1990s strip mall

[1:35:31] in the middle of Berkeley West.

[1:35:32] And it would never happen

[1:35:33] anyway. But we

[1:35:34] re glad to put

[1:35:35] that into the condition that

[1:35:35] you

[1:35:37] re going to have very high

[1:35:38] quality development out there

[1:35:38] on what

[1:35:40] s remaining this seven

[1:35:42] and a half acres. So again, all

[1:35:45] this came about because we

[1:35:46] think that the density

[1:35:48] limitation needs to get

[1:35:50] revisited. And this is the way

[1:35:52] that I think the only way we

[1:35:55] can reasonably do it is to come

[1:35:56] in and ask that this be taken

[1:35:58] out. And we

[1:35:58] re glad. We

[1:35:59] re glad

[1:36:00] to do everything else out

[1:36:02] there, but we just want to be,

[1:36:05] uh, evaluated, treated going

[1:36:06] forward on that property, just

[1:36:07] like you would any other

[1:36:08] property subject to all the

[1:36:10] other conditions. And if we can

[1:36:12] put more density out there, we

[1:36:12] think that

[1:36:13] s great. I think

[1:36:13] it

[1:36:15] s a great place to put more

[1:36:18] density. And again, no extra

[1:36:20] density whatever the code would

[1:36:22] allow. And the code has a lot

[1:36:23] of stringent provisions in

[1:36:24] there on your density and your

[1:36:26] cdm requirements. If we could

[1:36:28] meet it, please let us do it.

[1:36:28] And we

[1:36:28] re going to meet all

[1:36:30] these other architectural

[1:36:31] requirements. And that

[1:36:31] s what

[1:36:34] it boils down to. So I, I hope

[1:36:35] I didn

[1:36:35] t make it more

[1:36:37] confusing, MR. Woodruff, but

[1:36:37] that

[1:36:39] s not. Yeah, but this is

[1:36:40] not an end around in any way.

[1:36:40] We

[1:36:41] re not trying to I

[1:36:42] m not get

[1:36:43] get around the.

[1:36:45] Accusing you of end around what

[1:36:45] I

[1:36:46] m saying is you

[1:36:47] re doing a

[1:36:48] different method than you

[1:36:49] thought you were going to do in

[1:36:50] the beginning. And I

[1:36:50] m

[1:36:53] questioning just simply, is

[1:36:55] this what we can do to just

[1:36:58] close our eyes to that 1300 cap

[1:36:59] and say, you now can go out

[1:37:01] there and put another 200 and

[1:37:03] some houses or units.

[1:37:04] On it. So I understand, but

[1:37:04] we

[1:37:05] re not, we

[1:37:05] re we

[1:37:05] re

[1:37:06] certainly not asking anyone to

[1:37:07] close their eyes to it. We

[1:37:07] re

[1:37:09] asking you to look at it

[1:37:11] plainly on its paper and just

[1:37:12] tell us if you think it

[1:37:12] s still

[1:37:14] reasonable to have that cap

[1:37:16] there in 26, 20, 26. And we

[1:37:17] say, absolutely not. There

[1:37:18] s no

[1:37:19] reason to have that density cap

[1:37:21] on that property. And that

[1:37:21] s

[1:37:21] what it

[1:37:22] s about.

[1:37:26] Um, bear with me a second, MISS

[1:37:26] Painter. I

[1:37:27] m going to ask MR.

[1:37:29] Chambers this just because of

[1:37:31] his decades of service to the

[1:37:33] city of Wilmington. How many

[1:37:35] large scale mixed use or

[1:37:37] planned development projects

[1:37:39] have you seen in your time in

[1:37:41] the planning department? Here?

[1:37:41] Let

[1:37:43] s scale. Um.

[1:37:43] Let

[1:37:45] s define large scale. More

[1:37:45] than.

[1:37:48] Just a handful. Um, this would

[1:37:49] be one of them. Autumn Hall,

[1:37:50] Mayfair, those types of things.

[1:37:53] Fairfield Park. Um, okay. And

[1:37:54] how many of those have come

[1:37:56] back in to revise their

[1:37:58] original bubble plan or master

[1:37:59] plan?

[1:38:00] None of those have because

[1:38:00] they

[1:38:01] re MKs and they have a

[1:38:03] different zoning category that

[1:38:03] doesn

[1:38:05] t. Hang on restriction.

[1:38:06] To it. Okay, so Fairfield Park

[1:38:08] did because I was involved in

[1:38:09] Fairfield Park, and that was

[1:38:11] supposed to be Harris Teeter

[1:38:14] and Residential behind. And now

[1:38:15] you have residential

[1:38:17] everywhere, a church and

[1:38:18] apartments, right?

[1:38:19] That fair enough. But that,

[1:38:21] that was, that was brought in

[1:38:23] to allow for another set of a

[1:38:25] mixed use, another mixed use

[1:38:27] project that would be the same

[1:38:28] rules would still apply.

[1:38:28] The point I

[1:38:29] m trying to make is

[1:38:30] can you go back to the bubble

[1:38:34] plan for a second? Whoever

[1:38:34] s

[1:38:34] driving, I don

[1:38:35] t know who

[1:38:35] s

[1:38:37] driving now. That

[1:38:41] s it. So.

[1:38:41] I

[1:38:42] m driving, but I

[1:38:42] m not sure

[1:38:42] if that

[1:38:45] s in MR. Nichols

[1:38:47] presentation or if that is in

[1:38:47] staff

[1:38:48] s presentation.

[1:38:48] It

[1:38:49] s fine. Thank you, MISS

[1:38:49] Bradshaw. I

[1:38:50] m sorry. I

[1:38:50] m just

[1:38:51] wondering where that voice was

[1:38:55] coming from. Um, I guess MR.

[1:38:56] Nichols, for you, the question

[1:39:01] is, in 2013, why? Why do a plan

[1:39:03] like this, a bubble plan, like,

[1:39:05] expand o that a little bit?

[1:39:06] Well, um.

[1:39:07] It

[1:39:08] s certainly on the larger

[1:39:09] size of development for

[1:39:13] Wilmington. And in 2013, um,

[1:39:15] you know, what? Weren

[1:39:15] t really

[1:39:17] sure exactly what was going to

[1:39:18] go there. There were there was

[1:39:21] some bigger concepts, and there

[1:39:22] was a lot of conditions, a

[1:39:25] framework set up to develop the

[1:39:27] property. Um, in a way that

[1:39:30] would be, again, cohesive, have

[1:39:33] architectural consistency.

[1:39:33] There

[1:39:37] d be a, a broad

[1:39:40] circulation pattern. Um, but it

[1:39:42] was to provide flexibility

[1:39:44] because you, you know, here we

[1:39:45] are 13 years later and we

[1:39:45] re

[1:39:46] still developing it. It

[1:39:47] s a,

[1:39:47] it

[1:39:47] s a, it

[1:39:48] s a large project.

[1:39:49] The housing market different

[1:39:53] than it was 13 years ago. It is.

[1:39:54] Absolutely different.

[1:39:56] Is the office market different

[1:39:57] than it was 13 years ago?

[1:39:57] I

[1:39:59] m not an expert, but it is.

[1:40:01] It is a lot different. Okay. It

[1:40:02] is a lot different. And the

[1:40:03] retail space is a lot

[1:40:04] different.

[1:40:07] Okay. Um, in all the

[1:40:12] conversation about density, um,

[1:40:15] sorry. Oh, um, I

[1:40:16] ll save the

[1:40:17] last part for my for my

[1:40:18] comment. That

[1:40:18] s that

[1:40:19] s really

[1:40:24] the only question I had. Um.

[1:40:28] Commissioner Pollock.

[1:40:28] I

[1:40:29] m trying to simplify this in

[1:40:32] my mind, Matt. So let me let me

[1:40:34] make a couple declarative

[1:40:35] statements and see if this

[1:40:36] applies. You

[1:40:37] re asking, I

[1:40:39] think, two things, right?

[1:40:40] You

[1:40:42] re asking, um, and if we

[1:40:43] could go back to the one where

[1:40:45] you have the yellow, you know,

[1:40:47] the cordoned off area and the

[1:40:49] yellow, and again, I. Amy, are

[1:40:50] you driving or. I

[1:40:51] m not sure

[1:40:56] who is. It just hit a tree.

[1:41:00] Yeah. Um, but I, I guess I can

[1:41:01] do without the visual. Okay. I

[1:41:01] think you

[1:41:04] re asking two things.

[1:41:04] Uh, that

[1:41:04] s that

[1:41:05] s good enough.

[1:41:06] So, first of all, you

[1:41:06] re asking

[1:41:09] the area that you have defined

[1:41:13] in yellow to create, uh, a

[1:41:15] because every multiple people

[1:41:16] owned properties out here,

[1:41:16] you

[1:41:17] re asking number one to

[1:41:20] have that defined as a new only

[1:41:21] district by itself.

[1:41:22] That is correct.

[1:41:24] Okay. And in that ask, you

[1:41:25] re

[1:41:26] saying, you know, we I

[1:41:26] ve heard

[1:41:28] the numbers, you know, 17

[1:41:31] times. Uh, 12 or 12 point

[1:41:32] something, but you

[1:41:32] re asking

[1:41:33] that, you know, and if that

[1:41:33] s

[1:41:35] the city code, then more than

[1:41:38] happy to adhere to that city

[1:41:39] code. Yeah, I think that

[1:41:40] s

[1:41:40] that

[1:41:40] s part of what you

[1:41:41] re

[1:41:41] asking.

[1:41:42] I think that

[1:41:42] s correct.

[1:41:44] Okay. The second thing I think

[1:41:44] you

[1:41:45] re asking, which is

[1:41:48] confusing, I know I, me and I

[1:41:49] think several of my

[1:41:51] commissioners, it fell

[1:41:53] commissioners is the second

[1:41:53] piece you

[1:41:55] re referencing the

[1:41:58] 1375 cap. And you

[1:41:59] ve gone into

[1:42:00] a lot of detail. Would it have

[1:42:02] been simpler to just say, I

[1:42:04] know that based on that master

[1:42:05] plan, that

[1:42:06] s going to take the

[1:42:08] number of 13 is 1375, whatever

[1:42:11] it is up to, you know, 1500,

[1:42:11] I

[1:42:12] ll just use round numbers.

[1:42:13] And you

[1:42:14] re asking the city to

[1:42:14] say that

[1:42:16] s okay. I think that

[1:42:16] s

[1:42:16] what you

[1:42:17] re asking.

[1:42:18] I think that

[1:42:18] s one way to look

[1:42:22] at it. Um, but I didn

[1:42:24] t want to

[1:42:26] confuse and say that we were

[1:42:29] asking for the number to be,

[1:42:32] um, raised from 1375 because we

[1:42:34] were told we can

[1:42:35] t do that

[1:42:36] without rezoning the whole

[1:42:36] thing.

[1:42:37] I understand.

[1:42:39] Which which, frankly, um, I

[1:42:41] disagreed with, but I respect

[1:42:43] what the city staff. And we

[1:42:43] didn

[1:42:44] t want to have a big

[1:42:46] argument with them. But to me,

[1:42:47] the easiest thing to do would

[1:42:50] have been a one line condition

[1:42:53] request. Can we just take the

[1:42:56] cap off and follow the code

[1:42:58] that? But I get it. They

[1:42:58] re

[1:42:59] saying we can

[1:43:00] t do that and I

[1:43:00] m

[1:43:01] not going to argue with them.

[1:43:02] So we said, well, we

[1:43:02] re really

[1:43:03] only talking about seven and a

[1:43:05] half acres here of that

[1:43:06] s sort

[1:43:09] of vacant. And if we add the

[1:43:10] office space in because we own

[1:43:11] it and it makes sense, it

[1:43:11] s in

[1:43:13] the same block. If we add that

[1:43:14] in, then that would allow us to

[1:43:16] do cd you. If that opportunity

[1:43:19] presents itself and we will

[1:43:21] follow the code, we will we

[1:43:24] will follow your code. And in

[1:43:25] addition to all the other

[1:43:26] conditions that we

[1:43:27] ve said,

[1:43:27] we

[1:43:27] re we

[1:43:28] re fine with.

[1:43:29] Yeah, all things being equal.

[1:43:29] Yeah. We

[1:43:30] ll just follow the

[1:43:30] code again. We

[1:43:31] re not asking

[1:43:33] for any extra density or any

[1:43:34] special treatment. We

[1:43:35] re just

[1:43:37] asking that the commission and

[1:43:38] ultimately the City Council,

[1:43:40] please look back at a condition

[1:43:41] that was placed on this 13

[1:43:43] years ago. Does it make sense?

[1:43:45] Today? We respectfully contend

[1:43:46] it does not make sense today.

[1:43:48] And the condition that you

[1:43:48] re

[1:43:49] referencing is nothing more

[1:43:52] than the 1375 cap. That

[1:43:53] s it in

[1:43:53] a nutshell.

[1:43:53] That

[1:43:54] s it in a nutshell. We

[1:43:54] re

[1:43:56] here because of that. Um, I

[1:43:56] m

[1:43:58] not going to call it arbitrary,

[1:43:59] because there was certainly a

[1:44:00] reason for it. And I

[1:44:01] m not I

[1:44:01] m

[1:44:01] not saying it

[1:44:02] s some random

[1:44:04] number. I think it had to

[1:44:05] probably do with the overall

[1:44:06] density. And they were

[1:44:09] calculating things and I don

[1:44:10] t

[1:44:11] know how that number came to,

[1:44:13] um, but that was the number

[1:44:14] that was put on there.

[1:44:14] It

[1:44:15] s probably relevant at this

[1:44:16] point.

[1:44:18] I think 13 years later it

[1:44:19] s

[1:44:20] well outdated. It

[1:44:20] s out there.

[1:44:22] Just trying to simplify the

[1:44:24] ask. Yes, in my mind so that,

[1:44:26] you know, to consider it. And I

[1:44:26] think you

[1:44:27] ve answered my first

[1:44:30] question that says, you know,

[1:44:32] separate. Oh, and I for this as

[1:44:33] you

[1:44:34] ve cordoned off. Right. And

[1:44:36] I want to develop that tree,

[1:44:37] the pieces that are, you know,

[1:44:39] these in your picture of their

[1:44:41] treed want to have the ability

[1:44:43] to do residential right within

[1:44:46] the city code, which is the 17

[1:44:48] times 12 point something 200

[1:44:51] and 208 um, and could get

[1:44:53] bigger if you do the. If you do

[1:44:56] the different calculations. So

[1:44:56] that

[1:44:57] s, that

[1:44:58] s the first ask.

[1:44:58] And I think what

[1:44:59] s confused

[1:45:01] this is without a plan without

[1:45:04] a site plan. The second piece

[1:45:05] at least, and I

[1:45:05] ve heard has

[1:45:08] caused some confusion. And the

[1:45:09] other, the other piece of the

[1:45:11] confusion is, again, I

[1:45:12] m

[1:45:13] struggling personally with it

[1:45:13] s

[1:45:14] the second piece. It

[1:45:15] s the

[1:45:17] 1375. And I don

[1:45:17] t mean this is

[1:45:18] I, I don

[1:45:19] t know that I care

[1:45:22] about 1375 at this point.

[1:45:22] Right. That

[1:45:23] s that

[1:45:24] s kind of

[1:45:24] where I

[1:45:25] m at a little bit

[1:45:26] because we

[1:45:27] re talking about a

[1:45:30] limited, you know, bound by

[1:45:32] conditions, you know, bound by

[1:45:33] city code. Um, I

[1:45:34] m not sure

[1:45:36] that I care that that

[1:45:36] s going

[1:45:37] to change because it

[1:45:37] s not

[1:45:39] going to change any of the

[1:45:42] other pieces of the 1375 in any

[1:45:44] of the other residential pieces

[1:45:45] that are there, does that

[1:45:46] change in any of that at all?

[1:45:47] Correct.

[1:45:47] We

[1:45:48] re not changing anything

[1:45:49] outside of that yellow dotted

[1:45:50] area.

[1:45:50] We

[1:45:50] re saying the same thing.

[1:45:50] We

[1:45:51] re not changing. We

[1:45:51] re not

[1:45:53] proposing that anything change

[1:45:53] outside of that.

[1:45:54] Yeah, that

[1:45:55] s what I just want

[1:45:56] to get clear in my mind. Keep

[1:45:57] it real simple. What

[1:45:57] s you

[1:45:57] re

[1:45:57] asking?

[1:45:58] Yes, sir.

[1:45:59] Two things. That

[1:45:59] s all.

[1:45:59] You

[1:46:00] re asking. We

[1:46:00] re not

[1:46:02] proposing there be any change

[1:46:03] to anything out of that yellow

[1:46:06] dotted area. Okay? And, um,

[1:46:06] we

[1:46:07] re and we

[1:46:09] re proposing a

[1:46:10] number of conditions on top of

[1:46:11] your code. Right. We

[1:46:11] ll follow

[1:46:16] your code and almost, I guess

[1:46:17] everything. Well, not

[1:46:17] everything, because some of

[1:46:19] this is outside of Berkeley,

[1:46:21] but was was not developed with

[1:46:24] a specific site plan. Anyway,

[1:46:25] as far as the seed plan, it was

[1:46:28] a it was to allow flexibility

[1:46:30] with the development. And I

[1:46:31] think my clients have proven

[1:46:32] that they

[1:46:33] ve been very

[1:46:34] responsible with that

[1:46:36] flexibility. And there is

[1:46:38] absolutely no reason to believe

[1:46:38] that they

[1:46:38] re going to come in

[1:46:41] there and do something to hurt

[1:46:43] their own development. They

[1:46:44] have done all of that around

[1:46:44] it. It

[1:46:46] s in the middle of this

[1:46:47] mixed use development, and it

[1:46:47] s

[1:46:49] sort of the last little piece

[1:46:50] of the puzzle. And we were

[1:46:52] trying to get some more density

[1:46:54] in there because the city needs

[1:46:55] it. There

[1:46:56] s there

[1:46:56] s a demand

[1:47:00] for it. I can go on and on, but

[1:47:00] I think it

[1:47:03] s an ideal place to

[1:47:05] put density. You

[1:47:06] re not going

[1:47:08] to find a better established

[1:47:11] infrastructure of roadways,

[1:47:12] access to signalized

[1:47:14] intersections, center of the

[1:47:16] city. Uh, people could walk to

[1:47:18] work. People can walk to

[1:47:19] restaurant, they can walk to

[1:47:21] the movie theater. There

[1:47:21] s

[1:47:23] sidewalks out there. There

[1:47:24] s

[1:47:25] it

[1:47:26] s it

[1:47:27] s where you want to put

[1:47:28] density. If you

[1:47:28] re going to

[1:47:29] concentrate density to where

[1:47:30] you want to put it.

[1:47:30] You

[1:47:31] ve answered my two

[1:47:32] questions. So I

[1:47:32] ll I

[1:47:33] ll go

[1:47:33] silent and I

[1:47:34] ll defer back to

[1:47:38] the chair, please.

[1:47:38] Matt, you

[1:47:39] re doing great. You

[1:47:41] really are. And I understand

[1:47:43] and I, I will shut up after

[1:47:44] this one. But quite frankly,

[1:47:44] it

[1:47:46] s not directed to you. It

[1:47:46] s

[1:47:47] directed to staff. So if I

[1:47:48] m

[1:47:49] out of line doing that,

[1:47:51] somebody tell me. But, um, is

[1:47:53] there any aspect of this

[1:47:54] proposal that

[1:47:55] s been before us?

[1:48:00] Um, in violation of that cap

[1:48:02] that originated back on

[1:48:03] whatever year that it was of

[1:48:05] 1300? Is there any aspect of

[1:48:05] what

[1:48:07] s being asked to do here,

[1:48:08] which is obviously going to

[1:48:10] make a higher number? Is that a

[1:48:12] problem to staff? Because if

[1:48:14] you guys got worked out, I got

[1:48:14] it worked.

[1:48:17] Out. If this property is

[1:48:20] rezoned to a new cd and and for

[1:48:22] all intents and purposes

[1:48:23] removed from that original

[1:48:26] master plan, then it would be

[1:48:27] compliant on its own and it

[1:48:28] would not be in conflict with

[1:48:30] the original master plan.

[1:48:31] Okay, and I understand that,

[1:48:33] but you use the word if. Is

[1:48:33] that what we

[1:48:34] re doing?

[1:48:35] That

[1:48:35] s exactly what you

[1:48:35] re

[1:48:36] doing.

[1:48:39] Okay. Thank you.

[1:48:41] Does anyone have any more

[1:48:44] questions, Commissioner coffer?

[1:48:45] Sorry, I apologize, not trying

[1:48:46] to belabor anything, but you

[1:48:47] made a few comments that I

[1:48:48] m

[1:48:48] just curious to get some

[1:48:50] clarity on. On the cdm muse

[1:48:53] come up several times. So how

[1:48:55] does that fit into this

[1:48:56] discussion of rezoning to. Oh,

[1:48:59] and I for this parcel?

[1:49:00] Well, we would have the

[1:49:02] opportunity to do residential

[1:49:04] on the only property zoned. Oh

[1:49:05] and I now we

[1:49:05] re asking for that

[1:49:08] to stay the same. But we would

[1:49:09] have the opportunity to do the

[1:49:11] cdm with the existing

[1:49:13] commercial. That is what that

[1:49:15] would be within the district

[1:49:15] that you

[1:49:16] re considering the

[1:49:21] 12.5 for 12.25 acres.

[1:49:23] And and this would have to just

[1:49:24] jump over to staff. So how does

[1:49:26] that change the complexion of

[1:49:26] what we

[1:49:27] re talking about when

[1:49:30] we go from, oh, and I without

[1:49:33] us, with 208 units, based on

[1:49:34] your acreage calculations, no

[1:49:36] site plan for the structure.

[1:49:37] Um, but conditions that the

[1:49:40] applicant self-imposed had cdm

[1:49:42] um, fit into this. What what

[1:49:43] was that look like?

[1:49:45] If this is rezoned to a new.

[1:49:47] Oh, and I cd, the cdm would be

[1:49:50] an option for development under

[1:49:51] the under the new conditional

[1:49:52] district.

[1:49:54] With a cap of 208 residential

[1:49:54] units.

[1:49:56] It would be capped at 17 units

[1:49:57] pe acre, which I believe works

[1:49:58] out to 208 units.

[1:50:00] Is there anything else

[1:50:02] significant or salient that we

[1:50:03] would need to know about cnu at

[1:50:06] that point to evaluate this

[1:50:07] properly?

[1:50:10] Um, the cdm requirements, cdm

[1:50:11] requirements, there

[1:50:12] s a minimum

[1:50:13] commercial component. There

[1:50:13] s a

[1:50:14] minimum parking requirement,

[1:50:14] there

[1:50:15] s a minimum open space

[1:50:16] requirement. And then there

[1:50:16] s

[1:50:18] the 17 units per acre on the

[1:50:19] density.

[1:50:21] Okay. Thank you Brian.

[1:50:22] Yes, sir.

[1:50:24] Um. We

[1:50:25] ve talked a little bit

[1:50:28] about the 1375 from 2013, and

[1:50:29] maybe it was arbitrary. I

[1:50:30] m

[1:50:30] sure it had some kind of

[1:50:32] purpose, but if you do the math

[1:50:33] on 302 acres, it looks like

[1:50:33] it

[1:50:35] s about 4.5 units per acre.

[1:50:37] And this 208 addition would

[1:50:39] make you right on 5.5 units per

[1:50:40] acre, which kind of lends

[1:50:42] itself into r somewhere between

[1:50:44] r seven and our ten. If we were

[1:50:46] to rezone the whole site today,

[1:50:49] 302 acres to our between our

[1:50:51] seven and our ten, it would be

[1:50:53] this calculation if we applied

[1:50:54] it to the whole project. I just

[1:50:56] wanted to make that little, um,

[1:50:58] comment and see if you, I

[1:51:00] guess, part of why this feels a

[1:51:02] little disjointed is because we

[1:51:02] don

[1:51:03] t have the full history of

[1:51:04] that file. You know, we weren

[1:51:05] t

[1:51:06] there. Part of this thread

[1:51:07] that

[1:51:08] s evolved, and I get the

[1:51:09] flexibility that needs to be

[1:51:11] injected into a project like

[1:51:12] this, but MR.. The CHAIRMAN

[1:51:13] Also brought up, you know,

[1:51:16] other community, other projects

[1:51:17] of this magnitude. And you

[1:51:19] know, obviously I

[1:51:20] m just one

[1:51:21] person, but, you know, okay,

[1:51:23] well, what if we plop 208 units

[1:51:24] in the middle of Autumn Hall

[1:51:25] just because it

[1:51:25] s a local

[1:51:27] family that has great, you

[1:51:28] know, good faith and fair

[1:51:30] dealings with the community.

[1:51:33] Um, so, you know, one question

[1:51:35] in that line of thought would

[1:51:36] be that Wilmington Health

[1:51:38] parcel that was sold off, was

[1:51:40] that building completed when it

[1:51:43] was sold, or was it.

[1:51:43] Um, it

[1:51:44] s being constructed now.

[1:51:46] So they are Wilmington Health

[1:51:47] is building it.

[1:51:49] Yes. They own the property.

[1:51:51] So the opportunity exists for

[1:51:52] your client to sell this

[1:51:54] property once it goes through

[1:51:55] entitlement. And but you

[1:51:55] wouldn

[1:51:56] t build the proper

[1:51:58] product. Just like woman Health

[1:51:59] is not building that. I mean,

[1:52:00] just like your client

[1:52:01] s not

[1:52:02] building the Wilmington Health

[1:52:07] building. That fair to say?

[1:52:08] Um, I

[1:52:09] m not sure I understand

[1:52:10] the question, but, I mean, my

[1:52:12] client is anybody could could

[1:52:13] sell their property at any

[1:52:15] time. Yeah. I mean, that

[1:52:15] s I

[1:52:15] don

[1:52:16] t I don

[1:52:18] t mean that to be.

[1:52:18] I

[1:52:19] m just I don

[1:52:20] t I

[1:52:20] m not sure I

[1:52:21] understand, but. Yeah.

[1:52:23] Well I mean I think you, you,

[1:52:25] you made a couple points and,

[1:52:27] and I understand to advocate

[1:52:28] for the client and the and the

[1:52:30] family and the, the company. I

[1:52:32] get that. Um, but but I think

[1:52:34] in fairness and to be candid

[1:52:35] and frank, it could be sold.

[1:52:36] And they aren

[1:52:36] t the ones who

[1:52:38] built it. Build it.

[1:52:38] Well, that

[1:52:39] s true, but that

[1:52:40] s

[1:52:42] true. All you all zoning can

[1:52:43] control is land use. You

[1:52:45] absolutely have no control over

[1:52:46] ownership, right? Uh, you can

[1:52:48] own the property. You can put

[1:52:51] it in a condo. You can. But the

[1:52:53] assurances you have here are

[1:52:56] the conditions. So it has to be

[1:52:57] consistent with Berkeley West.

[1:52:57] That

[1:53:01] s in the conditions. Um,

[1:53:03] let me let me again. I don

[1:53:03] t I

[1:53:03] didn

[1:53:05] t really go through each

[1:53:06] of the conditions, but I do

[1:53:06] think it

[1:53:08] s significant that,

[1:53:11] um, the conditions are going to

[1:53:12] require it, that it be

[1:53:14] consistent with what you have

[1:53:18] out there. Um, I mean, my

[1:53:19] clients are are going to do

[1:53:21] that anyway, but they have no

[1:53:23] problem at all putting that as

[1:53:24] a condition because they

[1:53:24] re

[1:53:26] going to mandate it. Um, zoning

[1:53:28] or not. There. Again, they

[1:53:29] re

[1:53:29] not going to have anything

[1:53:30] that

[1:53:32] s not consistent with very

[1:53:35] high quality mixed use

[1:53:37] development. They they have an

[1:53:38] extremely high level of

[1:53:41] investment in this property.

[1:53:43] And you can see that from just

[1:53:43] look at the roadway

[1:53:47] improvements alone. So, um,

[1:53:49] regardless of who owns it, um,

[1:53:49] it

[1:53:50] s going to have to be

[1:53:52] consistent with Berkeley West.

[1:53:57] And you can see that with, um,

[1:54:01] conditions. Um, nine for

[1:54:03] example, linear strip retail

[1:54:04] and service development shall

[1:54:05] be prohibited unless proposed

[1:54:06] architectural design is

[1:54:07] compatible

[1:54:08] And consistent with the

[1:54:10] existing phases of the Berkeley

[1:54:12] West development. And then we

[1:54:14] go through ten, 11 and 12,

[1:54:15] which is going to assure you

[1:54:15] that it

[1:54:17] s going to meet the

[1:54:18] sort of the community standard,

[1:54:20] if you will, out there with

[1:54:23] what you see. And, um,

[1:54:26] sidewalks, the parking, the.

[1:54:29] Um, so whether they do it or

[1:54:31] not, it they

[1:54:32] re going to have

[1:54:33] control over it.

[1:54:35] Right. And those conditions

[1:54:36] will follow the, the property.

[1:54:38] Absolutely. Run with the land.

[1:54:39] So it could be sold ten times

[1:54:41] over. And and whoever does it

[1:54:41] it

[1:54:42] s going to have to it

[1:54:43] s not

[1:54:43] going to be sold ten times

[1:54:44] over. But I

[1:54:46] m just saying, um,

[1:54:48] whoever has it has to meet all

[1:54:49] of these conditions as well as

[1:54:51] the code. Right.

[1:54:54] Yeah. Um, I, I think that was

[1:54:56] all my questions or comments. I

[1:54:58] mean, beyond just echoing, I

[1:55:00] think Commissioner Pollack had

[1:55:01] mentioned, I mean, this is very

[1:55:03] similar to a general rezoning.

[1:55:03] Um, but it

[1:55:04] s also similar to

[1:55:06] you kind of having to do your

[1:55:07] own infill development within

[1:55:10] your master plan. Um, so thank

[1:55:10] you.

[1:55:12] Thank you.

[1:55:16] Any other questions? Thank you

[1:55:16] MISTER.

[1:55:17] Thank you for your time and

[1:55:19] consideration. I appreciate it.

[1:55:20] Thank you. This time, I

[1:55:20] d like

[1:55:22] to open the public hearing. If

[1:55:22] there

[1:55:24] s anyone wishing to speak

[1:55:26] in favor of agenda item number

[1:55:29] two, please come up. Anyone

[1:55:32] wishing to speak in favor?

[1:55:34] Anyone wishing to speak in

[1:55:38] opposition to agenda item two.

[1:55:40] Anyone wishing to speak in

[1:55:42] opposition. And we did receive

[1:55:44] one written comment, which i

[1:55:48] think everybody got today.

[1:55:50] Same person on all three.

[1:55:53] Yes, yes. Uh, but I believe I

[1:55:54] think we in MISTER Nichols

[1:55:56] addressed some of the items

[1:55:59] that were brought up in that

[1:56:01] hearing. No further, uh,

[1:56:02] individuals wishing to speak.

[1:56:02] I

[1:56:03] ll close the public hearing

[1:56:04] and we

[1:56:05] ll start Commissioner

[1:56:07] Jones, with you. Any thoughts?

[1:56:08] Comments?

[1:56:08] I

[1:56:08] m good. Y

[1:56:09] all asked every

[1:56:10] question I could ever think

[1:56:12] about asking.

[1:56:13] Commissioner Woodruff.

[1:56:13] I

[1:56:15] m going to vote in favor

[1:56:16] based upon staff

[1:56:17] s statement

[1:56:20] that this was pulling this

[1:56:21] track out of the original

[1:56:25] agreement and that the 1300

[1:56:27] number is not applicable to

[1:56:28] this anymore. So therefore, I

[1:56:30] find it to be a great project.

[1:56:31] Good luck.

[1:56:32] Commissioner Pawlak.

[1:56:33] Nothing further to add.

[1:56:36] MR. Adams.

[1:56:38] One clarifying question for

[1:56:40] staff. This would be handled

[1:56:43] under the regional Stormwater

[1:56:45] design for all of Berkeley

[1:56:46] West, right?

[1:56:47] Yeah. All the properties out

[1:56:47] there.

[1:56:47] Are.

[1:56:49] Subject to that regional pond.

[1:56:49] Okay.

[1:56:49] On this.

[1:56:51] Side of the road? Yes.

[1:56:52] Okay.

[1:56:54] Um, it took me a while to get

[1:56:56] comfortable with this because,

[1:56:57] again, um.

[1:56:58] i.

[1:57:00] As a rule of principle, I like

[1:57:01] seeing a site plan generally.

[1:57:03] So we have some accountability

[1:57:06] around design, but, um, knowing

[1:57:09] the, the design guidelines of

[1:57:11] the Berkeley West master plan,

[1:57:14] the o and I, the city mu um,

[1:57:17] you know, site plan guidelines.

[1:57:19] It it took me a little bit also

[1:57:20] just to, to I had to put my

[1:57:22] brain around what could go

[1:57:22] there because we

[1:57:23] re not seeing

[1:57:25] what a specific proposal would

[1:57:28] be. And the napkin sketch to me

[1:57:30] says, if you take Wilmington

[1:57:30] Health

[1:57:32] s building and parking,

[1:57:32] you

[1:57:33] re going to wind up with

[1:57:36] plus or minus eight ish acres

[1:57:39] of developable land, and you

[1:57:41] divide that by 208 and you get

[1:57:45] a density of about 20 to 23

[1:57:46] units per acre, which is three

[1:57:48] story, garden style apartments

[1:57:50] in my mind. So I agree this is

[1:57:51] the right place for for more

[1:57:53] density. Um, and you know, I

[1:57:53] ll

[1:57:55] support this project.

[1:57:58] Thank you, Commissioner Collier.

[1:58:00] Other than to say I do agree,

[1:58:01] the density is where it needs

[1:58:03] to be in this project. Berkeley

[1:58:05] is a great project. Never was

[1:58:06] that in any question. I wanted

[1:58:08] to make sure we the density

[1:58:09] numbers were what we were

[1:58:10] talking about. But I will

[1:58:12] support it wholly. Thank you.

[1:58:14] Commissioner Coffer.

[1:58:17] Thank you.

[1:58:20] I think the, um, I mean, it

[1:58:20] s

[1:58:20] it

[1:58:21] s it

[1:58:22] s just the approach and

[1:58:23] it

[1:58:24] s the procedure and it

[1:58:24] s

[1:58:26] having these come up before us

[1:58:28] in different cases, outside of

[1:58:29] a bubble plan, outside of a

[1:58:31] master plan. How do you inject

[1:58:32] it inside the master plan but

[1:58:34] still evaluate it the same way

[1:58:35] you would others? I mean, I

[1:58:36] think the applicant asked

[1:58:37] several times, or the counselor

[1:58:39] asked, um, what is your concern

[1:58:40] about putting this much density

[1:58:42] on that site? Well, that we I

[1:58:42] don

[1:58:42] t think you

[1:58:43] ve heard not

[1:58:44] not a whole lot, but I had to

[1:58:45] procedural it

[1:58:46] s process and,

[1:58:48] you know, um, not to it

[1:58:49] s not

[1:58:49] to say that you

[1:58:50] re establishing

[1:58:52] some sort of odd precedent,

[1:58:55] but, um, you know, 208 in this

[1:58:58] site within other Mayfair,

[1:59:01] other other, you know, master

[1:59:03] plans, but without a site plan

[1:59:04] and without additional

[1:59:05] questioning. I mean, it could

[1:59:06] be it could be concerning

[1:59:07] elsewhere, but I don

[1:59:08] t think

[1:59:09] there is a whole lot of concern

[1:59:11] here in this particular site.

[1:59:11] So, yes, I

[1:59:12] m in favor of this

[1:59:15] project or this rezoning.

[1:59:17] I think this project has all

[1:59:18] the buzzwords to get people

[1:59:22] fired up. Density, apartments

[1:59:26] change. Um, the agenda review.

[1:59:31] This item took 90s maybe two

[1:59:33] minutes to talk about. Um, and

[1:59:38] so MISS Hopkins, I in no way my

[1:59:40] suggestion, given what

[1:59:41] transpired here tonight, is

[1:59:43] that when this goes to council,

[1:59:46] there be a more comprehensive

[1:59:48] explanation of kind of where we

[1:59:51] got to versus how long it took

[1:59:54] us to get there, meaning, uh,

[1:59:57] the large master plan. This is

[1:59:59] a piece of that master plan.

[1:59:59] This is what they

[2:00:00] re asking

[2:00:01] for. This is the outcome. And

[2:00:03] ps, this is the perfect place

[2:00:07] to do it. Um, because I think

[2:00:09] it will go twice as long as it

[2:00:13] did tonight. Um, otherwise. So

[2:00:14] no, you did a great job. I

[2:00:17] think. Just big picture going

[2:00:18] through this experience. A

[2:00:20] suggestion is to, uh, maybe

[2:00:22] think about changing that up a

[2:00:24] little bit. Um, everybody said

[2:00:27] everything the right way to me.

[2:00:31] This is a no brainer. So,

[2:00:32] Commissioner Coffer, how would

[2:00:33] you vote? Oh, I

[2:00:34] m sorry. It

[2:00:35] might help if somebody made a

[2:00:37] motion first. What is the will

[2:00:43] of the commission?

[2:00:43] I

[2:00:45] ll make a motion to approve.

[2:00:53] Um, just give me one second.

[2:00:53] I

[2:00:54] ll make a motion to approve

[2:00:55] agenda item number two. The

[2:00:58] request to rezone 524 South

[2:00:59] College Road. Is that the

[2:01:03] correct one? Yes. Rezone from.

[2:01:04] Oh and I cd office and

[2:01:06] institutional conditional

[2:01:08] district to a new cd office and

[2:01:09] institutional conditional

[2:01:10] district. The Planning

[2:01:12] Commission um finds this

[2:01:13] request to be consistent with

[2:01:15] the objectives and policies of

[2:01:16] the following plans adopted by

[2:01:17] the City of Wilmington.

[2:01:19] Commissioner Kupfer. Yes. Stop

[2:01:21] you for a second. What is that

[2:01:23] address?

[2:01:24] Yeah.

[2:01:27] On our paperwork, MISS Painter.

[2:01:33] It says 524 South College Road.

[2:01:36] That address should be 2 to 2

[2:01:41] five Stonecrop Drive and 1124

[2:01:42] Gallery Park Boulevard.

[2:01:43] Okay, so just a point of order.

[2:01:46] Can I. Can I write that on the.

[2:01:46] Yes you can.

[2:01:47] Yeah.

[2:01:48] Okay. I

[2:01:50] m sorry, Commissioner

[2:01:51] Kupfer. I just wanted to

[2:01:52] correct that.

[2:01:53] So do I need to read that

[2:01:54] address? Are you okay with

[2:01:56] doing with right.

[2:01:58] MR.. Sir.

[2:02:00] Please read it again with that

[2:02:00] address.

[2:02:02] Okay. Can somebody, um, write

[2:02:04] that down for me? I couldn

[2:02:05] t

[2:02:05] hear.

[2:02:07] Hang on, hang on just one

[2:02:09] second.

[2:02:12] It should be on the agenda in

[2:02:13] your packet. In your.

[2:02:14] On the front.

[2:02:14] Hang on.

[2:02:15] Your folder.

[2:02:21] I got it right here. The

[2:02:23] address is going to be two two,

[2:02:24] two five Stonecrop Drive and

[2:02:28] 1124 Gallery Park Boulevard.

[2:02:28] Okay, let

[2:02:30] s start over. I make

[2:02:31] a motion to approve agenda item

[2:02:34] number two. The request to

[2:02:37] rezone 2225 Stonecrop Drive and

[2:02:40] 112 for Gallery Park Boulevard,

[2:02:42] uh, from an existing oh and I

[2:02:45] cd office and institutional

[2:02:46] conditional district to a new

[2:02:48] cd office and institutional

[2:02:50] conditional district. Uh, the

[2:02:51] Planning Commission finds this

[2:02:52] request is consistent with the

[2:02:54] objectives and policies of the

[2:02:55] following plans adopted by the

[2:02:57] City of Wilmington. The Create

[2:02:59] Wilmington Comprehensive Plan.

[2:03:00] Uh, the Planning Commission

[2:03:01] considers its approval to be

[2:03:03] reasonable and in the public

[2:03:05] interest because the proposal

[2:03:06] allows for additional

[2:03:08] residential density and an

[2:03:09] appropriate mix of uses and

[2:03:13] proximity to services, while

[2:03:15] remaining compatible with

[2:03:17] existing character and

[2:03:18] conditions. In the staff

[2:03:20] report. Therefore, the Planning

[2:03:22] Commission recommends approval

[2:03:24] of this request.

[2:03:26] Thank you, Commissioner Kupfer,

[2:03:27] do we have a second?

[2:03:28] Second.

[2:03:29] Commissioner Jones a second.

[2:03:30] Commissioner Cooper

[2:03:33] s motion.

[2:03:35] Commissioner Kerr for. A

[2:03:36] commissioner. Collier. High

[2:03:38] commissioner. Adams. Yes.

[2:03:39] Commissioner. Pawlak. High

[2:03:40] commissioner. Woodruff. High

[2:03:42] commissioner. Jones. I the

[2:03:45] chair. Votes. Passes 7 to 0.

[2:03:54] Thank you very much. Agenda

[2:03:58] item. Agenda item number three

[2:04:02] is a request for 3301 Burnt

[2:04:04] Mill drive to rezone from light

[2:04:07] industrial to. Oni office and

[2:04:09] institutional. And our

[2:04:11] presenter is MISS Taylor.

[2:04:13] All right. Good evening. Chair,

[2:04:14] vice chair and members of the

[2:04:16] Planning Commission. For your

[2:04:18] review, I present a general

[2:04:21] rezoning from Lee light

[2:04:24] industry to Oni Office and

[2:04:27] Institutional District at 3301

[2:04:31] Mill Drive. This application

[2:04:34] was submitted in mid-JULY, has

[2:04:35] been reviewed by staff, and is

[2:04:38] now at the first public hearing.

[2:04:41] The site is currently zoned Lea

[2:04:42] Light Industry and is occupied

[2:04:44] by a single story multi-tenant

[2:04:47] office building. The allowable

[2:04:49] applicable uses in the Lea

[2:04:51] district include professional

[2:04:53] offices, light manufacturing,

[2:04:55] wholesale, retail and warehouse

[2:04:57] and distribution centers. The

[2:05:00] maximum height is 45ft, with an

[2:05:02] additional height of up to 96ft

[2:05:03] allowed with a step. The

[2:05:05] allowable applicable uses in

[2:05:07] the proposed Oni district

[2:05:08] include professional and

[2:05:10] medical offices, personal

[2:05:13] services, studios, and colleges

[2:05:15] and universities. The maximum

[2:05:17] height is again 45ft, with an

[2:05:19] additional height of up to 96ft

[2:05:24] allowed with a step back. The

[2:05:26] site is located on Burnt Mill

[2:05:28] Drive between Emerson Street

[2:05:29] and Randall Parkway, and

[2:05:32] consists of approximately 2.02

[2:05:34] acres. The site is located

[2:05:36] within the Burnt Mill Business

[2:05:37] Park and is in the vicinity of

[2:05:40] reserve at Forest Hills, Avalon

[2:05:42] Apartments and Aspire 349

[2:05:44] apartment complexes, as well as

[2:05:48] an McCrary Park. These are

[2:05:49] views of the property looking

[2:05:51] north and northwest from Burnt

[2:05:55] Mill Drive. The site is

[2:05:57] currently zoned Lea Light

[2:05:59] Industry, so zoning districts

[2:06:01] neighboring the site include md

[2:06:02] 17 high density multiple

[2:06:04] dwelling residential district

[2:06:06] to the north and northwest, and

[2:06:08] Oni Office and Institutional

[2:06:10] District to the northeast.

[2:06:14] East, south, and southwest. For

[2:06:17] context, in JUNE of 2002,

[2:06:19] approximately 42 acres of the

[2:06:20] Burnt Mill Business park were

[2:06:22] rezoned from lm Light

[2:06:24] Manufacturing and wm Heavy

[2:06:26] manufacturing to Oni to better

[2:06:28] reflect the office oriented

[2:06:30] character of the business park.

[2:06:31] The owner of the subject

[2:06:32] property requested not to be

[2:06:34] included in the rezoning

[2:06:36] application. Since the lm

[2:06:37] district was appropriate for

[2:06:37] the site

[2:06:39] s use at the time as

[2:06:41] the corporate headquarters of

[2:06:42] an automotive, oil and gas

[2:06:46] company. The site is currently

[2:06:48] occupied by a single story

[2:06:50] multi-tenant office building.

[2:06:51] Uses of the surrounding

[2:06:53] properties include educational

[2:06:56] services to the northeast, a

[2:06:58] k-8 school and construction

[2:06:59] company office to the

[2:07:01] southeast, social and

[2:07:02] healthcare services to the

[2:07:04] southwest, and healthcare

[2:07:07] services to the west. Staff has

[2:07:08] reviewed this application

[2:07:08] s

[2:07:10] alignment with relevant adopted

[2:07:12] plans. The Wilmington

[2:07:13] Comprehensive Plan is the only

[2:07:15] adopted plan that applies to

[2:07:17] this site. The Create

[2:07:19] Wilmington Comprehensive Plans

[2:07:21] Growth Strategies maps

[2:07:23] identifies areas of opportunity

[2:07:24] with corresponding policies to

[2:07:26] guide the look, feel, and use

[2:07:28] of new development. The site is

[2:07:30] located within a live Work

[2:07:31] Innovation Zones area of

[2:07:33] opportunity and an employment

[2:07:35] Academic center, and along a

[2:07:36] special character street and

[2:07:39] conceptual green connection.

[2:07:41] The Create Wilmington

[2:07:43] Comprehensive Plan also offers

[2:07:44] broader policy guidance to

[2:07:45] shape new development

[2:07:47] throughout the city. Staff

[2:07:48] assess this application with

[2:07:50] the relevant policies and found

[2:07:51] modest and strong support for

[2:07:52] the application

[2:07:53] s alignment

[2:07:55] with the plan. Key policies

[2:07:57] that support rezoning the site

[2:08:01] at three 3301 Mill Drive from

[2:08:03] Lee light industry to Oni

[2:08:04] office and Institutional

[2:08:05] District, promote compatible

[2:08:07] mixed use development in

[2:08:08] appropriate areas and the

[2:08:10] redevelopment of industrial

[2:08:12] land for non-industrial uses.

[2:08:13] Where industrial activity is no

[2:08:19] longer viable or appropriate.

[2:08:20] Comments from the community are

[2:08:22] accepted leading up to the

[2:08:24] public hearing. Staff received

[2:08:26] one comment in support of this

[2:08:28] application, noting that

[2:08:29] updating the zoning to Oni will

[2:08:30] bring the parcel into

[2:08:32] conformity with the business

[2:08:32] park

[2:08:34] s existing character.

[2:08:36] Staff did not receive any

[2:08:38] comments in opposition to this

[2:08:44] request. To summarize the

[2:08:44] application and staff

[2:08:45] s

[2:08:47] findings, rezoning the site,

[2:08:50] located at 3301 Mill Drive from

[2:08:52] Lee Light Industry to Oni

[2:08:53] Office and Institutional

[2:08:55] District, would create the

[2:08:57] opportunity for office,

[2:08:59] institutional and studio and

[2:09:01] personal services uses with

[2:09:02] potential to enhance access to

[2:09:04] neighborhood goods and services

[2:09:06] in the vicinity. Commercial

[2:09:08] district mixed use or dmu is

[2:09:10] also permitted in Oni, which

[2:09:11] could further allow for

[2:09:13] residential uses in the mix.

[2:09:15] Staff finds this application to

[2:09:16] align with the recommendations

[2:09:18] of the Comprehensive Plan,

[2:09:19] particularly policies that

[2:09:21] promote office and academic

[2:09:22] development while integrating

[2:09:24] residential uses within mixed

[2:09:27] use development areas. Staff

[2:09:28] finds this request to be

[2:09:30] reasonable in the public

[2:09:32] interest and consistent with

[2:09:33] the relevant policies in the

[2:09:34] Create Wilmington Comprehensive

[2:09:38] Plan. Staff recommends approval.

[2:09:39] This concludes staff

[2:09:40] s

[2:09:41] presentation. I

[2:09:41] m happy to

[2:09:43] answer any questions, and the

[2:09:44] applicant is here as well. And

[2:09:46] she has a presentation as well.

[2:09:48] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:09:49] Commissioner Jones, any

[2:09:50] questions?

[2:09:52] Um, my only question at this

[2:09:54] point is you said it could go

[2:09:56] up to 96ft.

[2:09:58] Yes, with an optional step

[2:10:00] back. So it

[2:10:02] s 45ft. And if they

[2:10:03] make us, if they do, it

[2:10:03] s.

[2:10:04] Not many buildings.

[2:10:05] And build it up to.

[2:10:05] There

[2:10:06] s not many buildings that

[2:10:08] are even 45ft in that area.

[2:10:08] And they

[2:10:09] re mostly single

[2:10:12] storey office buildings.

[2:10:15] Yeah, I work in there. Um, my

[2:10:16] suggestion would be to

[2:10:19] condition it to the 45ft. The

[2:10:19] uses. I

[2:10:21] m fine with. So that

[2:10:21] s

[2:10:23] my only question.

[2:10:25] Commissioner Jones.

[2:10:26] Just for the record, they could

[2:10:28] do that height today under the

[2:10:31] existing Lee zoning. So? So

[2:10:33] going going to Oni does not

[2:10:34] change the height limit that

[2:10:35] s

[2:10:38] allowed.

[2:10:39] Commissioner. Okay.

[2:10:41] Commissioner. Woodruff.

[2:10:42] Commissioner. Pawlak.

[2:10:44] Commissioner. Adams.

[2:10:45] Could you go back to the slide

[2:10:47] that had the allowable uses for

[2:10:54] the two zones?

[2:10:55] Yes.

[2:10:58] Is there anything about how the

[2:11:01] building is being used today in

[2:11:02] the ally zoning? That is a

[2:11:05] nonconforming use that is

[2:11:07] triggering a desire to go. Oh,

[2:11:08] and I.

[2:11:13] Um, the uses today are, um,

[2:11:13] there

[2:11:16] s an office for a custom

[2:11:19] deck, and fence company, so I

[2:11:20] believe that is allowed in. Oh,

[2:11:23] and I but say a tenant comes in

[2:11:25] with a request to develop or to

[2:11:27] have a studio or a personal

[2:11:29] service use, and that would not

[2:11:32] be allowed. Um, whereas it is

[2:11:33] compatible with the surrounding

[2:11:35] character. So in a sense

[2:11:36] rezoning to. Oh, and I would

[2:11:38] allow for these additional uses

[2:11:39] that would serve the

[2:11:41] neighborhood to come in to, to

[2:11:42] the building.

[2:11:44] Okay. Thank you.

[2:11:47] Commissioner Collier.

[2:11:50] Commissioner coffer, thank you.

[2:11:51] Thank you.

[2:11:51] I

[2:11:52] d like to invite the

[2:12:00] applicant to come up.

[2:12:01] Good evening. Chair, vice

[2:12:02] chair.

[2:12:02] And members.

[2:12:03] Of the commission. I

[2:12:04] m Andy Van

[2:12:04] Treat. I

[2:12:05] m an attorney with

[2:12:07] Marks and Taylor and Gibson.

[2:12:08] Um, appearing tonight on behalf

[2:12:10] of the property owner, Kia

[2:12:11] Properties llc. Um, we

[2:12:12] re here

[2:12:13] in support of our general

[2:12:15] rezoning application for 3301

[2:12:17] through 3305 Mill Drive in

[2:12:19] Burwell Business Park. Um, as

[2:12:20] Hillary just presented to you,

[2:12:20] we

[2:12:21] re requesting the rezoning

[2:12:22] of a single two acre parcel

[2:12:24] from light industrial, the

[2:12:25] light industrial district to

[2:12:27] office and institutional. The

[2:12:28] subject property is already

[2:12:29] fully developed, with an

[2:12:30] existing single story,

[2:12:31] multi-tenant commercial

[2:12:32] building. I

[2:12:33] m going to probably

[2:12:35] shorten my spiel because,

[2:12:37] frankly, this is a

[2:12:39] straightforward request. Um,

[2:12:39] its purpose isn

[2:12:41] t to permit any

[2:12:42] new construction or intensify

[2:12:44] its permitted uses, but rather

[2:12:45] to better align the property

[2:12:45] s

[2:12:47] zoning with its existing and

[2:12:48] anticipated tenant uses, which

[2:12:50] are essentially the uses that

[2:12:51] are allowed in the oney, which

[2:12:53] are also the uses that are in

[2:12:55] most of the surrounding

[2:12:56] properties in this business

[2:12:59] park. Um, you know, Hillary

[2:13:01] also talked about the history,

[2:13:03] and it is actually helpful in

[2:13:05] understanding how we got here.

[2:13:08] Um, so, like she said in 2002,

[2:13:10] the city rezoned the majority

[2:13:13] of the other parcels in Burnt

[2:13:14] Mill Business Park from the

[2:13:16] former manufacturing districts

[2:13:19] to, oh, and I, um, my client

[2:13:19] s

[2:13:20] property was not included in

[2:13:21] that rezoning and therefore

[2:13:22] retained its former light

[2:13:24] manufacturing zoning, which is

[2:13:26] now Lee. And that made sense

[2:13:28] initially because, again, it

[2:13:30] was the headquarters for Go Gas

[2:13:32] and Automotive. An automotive

[2:13:33] oil and gas company, which at

[2:13:35] the time it was an

[2:13:37] appropriately and appropriately

[2:13:38] industrial use for an

[2:13:41] industrial zoning district. But

[2:13:42] today, the circumstances are

[2:13:44] different. Go gas was sold in

[2:13:46] 2015. Its former owner, who

[2:13:47] together with his wife Debbie

[2:13:48] Austin, who

[2:13:48] s here with me

[2:13:51] tonight, owns Kia Properties

[2:13:52] and has since maintained office

[2:13:53] space at this property. While

[2:13:55] it evolved over the last

[2:13:55] several years into a

[2:13:56] multi-tenant commercial

[2:13:58] building serving office and

[2:13:59] service oriented tenants like

[2:14:01] those occupying the surrounding

[2:14:01] properties in the business

[2:14:03] park, the vast majority of

[2:14:06] which are already owned by um.

[2:14:06] Let

[2:14:08] s see here.

[2:14:10] Recently, Debbie undertook a

[2:14:12] comprehensive review of the

[2:14:12] property

[2:14:13] s zoning when

[2:14:14] evaluating a proposed lease of

[2:14:16] space for use as a new dance

[2:14:17] studio. That review brought

[2:14:19] into focus the fact that as

[2:14:20] neither a dance studio nor

[2:14:22] other similar uses would likely

[2:14:23] be permitted in the Lee

[2:14:24] district. That zoning

[2:14:25] designation is no longer the

[2:14:27] best fit. The owner then

[2:14:28] decided to proactively address

[2:14:30] the issue and seek the zoning

[2:14:31] classification that is most

[2:14:32] appropriate for the property

[2:14:33] over the long term, which in

[2:14:34] our opinion, and I believe the

[2:14:37] opinion of staff is. Oh, and I,

[2:14:39] as noted in the staff report,

[2:14:40] the district is intended to

[2:14:41] accommodate professional and

[2:14:42] medical offices, institutional

[2:14:43] and assembly uses, and

[2:14:45] complementary service uses,

[2:14:46] including performing arts and

[2:14:48] dance studios. Without the

[2:14:49] additional intensity,

[2:14:51] additional intensity associated

[2:14:52] with broad commercial and

[2:14:54] retail development. The

[2:14:55] requested rezoning is a

[2:14:56] logical, modest adjustment that

[2:14:56] brings the property

[2:14:57] s zoning

[2:14:58] into conformity with its

[2:14:59] current commercial function and

[2:15:00] the character of the

[2:15:02] surrounding development. The

[2:15:04] rezoning is also well grounded

[2:15:04] in the city

[2:15:05] s zoned planning

[2:15:06] policy, and I won

[2:15:06] t belabor

[2:15:09] that point. The staff concluded

[2:15:10] that generally, the requested

[2:15:12] rezoning is consistent with the

[2:15:18] comprehensive plan. Um, the

[2:15:19] requested rezoning will not

[2:15:21] introduce a new or incompatible

[2:15:22] development pattern into Burnt

[2:15:23] Mill Business Park. It

[2:15:24] essentially does the opposite

[2:15:26] by bringing this remaining Li

[2:15:27] parcel into a zoning district

[2:15:28] that better reflects the

[2:15:28] property

[2:15:30] s current function and

[2:15:30] the district that

[2:15:31] s applied to

[2:15:32] the surrounding properties for

[2:15:33] more than 20 years. At this

[2:15:35] point. We also believe the

[2:15:36] impact of the requested

[2:15:38] rezoning will be will be

[2:15:39] minimal. All necessary

[2:15:40] utilities and transportation

[2:15:42] infrastructure is already in

[2:15:43] place, sufficient to

[2:15:44] accommodate the current and

[2:15:46] anticipated only uses. The

[2:15:48] owner is pursuing this rezoning

[2:15:49] in good faith in order to

[2:15:50] establish an appropriate long

[2:15:51] term zoning classification for

[2:15:53] the property, provide greater

[2:15:54] certainty for its tenants, and

[2:15:55] ensure that the property is

[2:15:57] managed and used consistently

[2:15:57] with the city

[2:15:58] s land use

[2:15:59] regulations and planning

[2:16:01] objectives. The rezoning will

[2:16:03] also promote the continued

[2:16:04] productive use and reinvestment

[2:16:05] of an existing commercial

[2:16:06] building. Support local

[2:16:07] businesses, and make efficient

[2:16:09] use of existing public

[2:16:10] infrastructure, all without

[2:16:11] adversely affecting

[2:16:12] neighborhood properties or

[2:16:14] public facilities. For all

[2:16:14] these reasons, and for the

[2:16:15] reasons outlined in our

[2:16:16] application and in the staff

[2:16:18] report, we respectfully ask the

[2:16:19] Commission to recommend

[2:16:20] approval of the requested

[2:16:22] rezoning. Thank you. And I

[2:16:22] m

[2:16:23] certainly here to try to answer

[2:16:24] any questions you MAY have

[2:16:25] about this request.

[2:16:28] Thank you. Commissioner Cooper.

[2:16:29] Um, I do not have any

[2:16:31] questions. Thank you.

[2:16:32] Commissioner Collier.

[2:16:35] Commissioner Adams.

[2:16:40] Commissioner Pawlak.

[2:16:40] I

[2:16:41] m going to try and phrase

[2:16:43] this as politely as I can. I

[2:16:44] drove by there today, and there

[2:16:46] were names on the door. Okay.

[2:16:47] And which looked like

[2:16:50] occupants. Um, as I

[2:16:50] m looking

[2:16:51] at your presentation, it

[2:16:53] appears to me that these

[2:16:54] occupants are more that are

[2:16:56] already. There are more. Oh,

[2:16:59] and I centric. So are we to to

[2:17:01] put it bluntly, are we asking

[2:17:03] forgiveness? But to rezone? I

[2:17:05] mean, it sounds like that the

[2:17:06] people you want in there are

[2:17:07] already there.

[2:17:08] Well, that

[2:17:09] s essentially what

[2:17:09] we

[2:17:11] re asking to better align

[2:17:13] the zoning with the existing

[2:17:14] uses, which are also the uses

[2:17:16] that are most appropriate. So

[2:17:19] this this is sort of the reason

[2:17:21] that the history is helpful is

[2:17:22] that, you know, in the last

[2:17:23] several years, I think I said

[2:17:25] 2015 was when gas was sold. It

[2:17:26] was a few years after that one

[2:17:27] tenant came in and then

[2:17:28] another. And it

[2:17:28] s been kind of

[2:17:31] a slow transition to a building

[2:17:33] that was really only used by

[2:17:35] the owner to becoming a

[2:17:36] multi-tenant commercial

[2:17:40] building. Um, only recently,

[2:17:42] um, has Debbie stepped in to

[2:17:45] handle a lot of the, um,

[2:17:47] management and operation of the

[2:17:49] of k properties, including the

[2:17:51] property management. Um, and in

[2:17:53] the course of that transition

[2:17:55] has had occasion to look a

[2:17:57] little bit more into the

[2:18:00] current zoning and existing

[2:18:02] uses, as well as obviously

[2:18:03] evaluating other tenants that

[2:18:04] are coming to her wanting to

[2:18:06] lease the open space in the

[2:18:07] building. So it

[2:18:08] s sort of all

[2:18:11] just came about within the last

[2:18:12] I mean, certainly this year,

[2:18:14] very recently. Um, and as she

[2:18:15] discovered that that

[2:18:16] s why

[2:18:16] we

[2:18:18] ve brought this to you and

[2:18:20] tried to trying to correct this,

[2:18:21] because I think it

[2:18:22] s clear to

[2:18:23] everybody that, oh, and I is

[2:18:24] the most appropriate, um,

[2:18:26] district for the property, not

[2:18:27] just because of the existing

[2:18:29] uses, but also because it just

[2:18:32] is because of the way that the,

[2:18:35] um, overall park is, is

[2:18:36] operated now.

[2:18:40] Okay. Thank you.

[2:18:41] Commissioner Jones, you have

[2:18:43] anything? Okay.

[2:18:43] Thank you.

[2:18:46] Thank you.

[2:18:47] At this time, I

[2:18:48] d like to open

[2:18:49] the public hearing and ask if

[2:18:49] there

[2:18:51] s anyone wishing to speak

[2:18:54] in favor of agenda item number

[2:18:56] three. Anyone wishing to speak

[2:18:59] in favor. Hearing none. Is

[2:19:01] there anyone wishing to speak

[2:19:03] in opposition to agenda item

[2:19:06] number three? Anyone wishing to

[2:19:08] speak in opposition? For the

[2:19:10] record, as noted, we did have

[2:19:14] one. Um, submittal via the

[2:19:16] website, which was distributed

[2:19:18] to the Planning Commission

[2:19:22] today in favor of this. Um,

[2:19:25] request. So, uh, hearing no

[2:19:26] further comments, I will close

[2:19:29] the public hearing and

[2:19:31] Commissioner Jones, any

[2:19:32] comments? Thoughts?

[2:19:33] No.

[2:19:34] Good.

[2:19:34] All good.

[2:19:37] MR. Pawlak. Commissioner Adams.

[2:19:38] I

[2:19:40] ll just say I kind of

[2:19:42] appreciate the honesty and the

[2:19:44] transparency around maybe what

[2:19:46] is triggering this. So, um,

[2:19:48] thank you for doing that. And,

[2:19:49] uh, I think this is a great

[2:19:52] thing to support and do.

[2:19:53] MR. Collier. Commissioner,

[2:19:56] cover for me. All I had to do

[2:19:57] is look at the map with the

[2:19:58] gray square in the middle of

[2:20:01] the blue, and that that kind

[2:20:04] of. Okay, what is the will of

[2:20:05] the commission?

[2:20:07] MR. CHAIRMAN? I guess be

[2:20:08] prepared to make a motion,

[2:20:13] please. As for agenda item

[2:20:15] number three, the request to

[2:20:18] rezone 3301 Burnt Mill Drive

[2:20:20] from light industrial to Oni

[2:20:22] office and institutional um

[2:20:24] recommend approval. This

[2:20:25] request is consistent with the

[2:20:27] objectives and policies of the

[2:20:28] following plans adopted by the

[2:20:30] City of Wilmington. The Create

[2:20:32] Wilmington Comprehensive Plan.

[2:20:33] The Planning Commission

[2:20:35] considers its approval to be

[2:20:36] reasonable and in the public

[2:20:38] interest. Because the proposed

[2:20:39] rezoning is consistent with the

[2:20:41] properties and is compatible

[2:20:43] with the surrounding area.

[2:20:44] Therefore, the Planning

[2:20:46] Commission recommends approval

[2:20:48] of this request.

[2:20:50] We have a motion from

[2:20:51] Commissioner Adams. Do we have

[2:20:53] a second?

[2:20:53] Second.

[2:20:56] We have a second. Uh,

[2:20:58] Commissioner Jones.

[2:21:01] A yes.

[2:21:02] Commissioner Adams.

[2:21:02] I

[2:21:03] m gonna go with a at this

[2:21:04] time.

[2:21:05] Okay. Commissioner Collier.

[2:21:06] Hi.

[2:21:08] Hi.

[2:21:10] Chair votes I passes

[2:21:17] unanimously 7 to 0. Thank you.

[2:21:20] All right. Um, that concludes

[2:21:22] the item of items of business.

[2:21:24] Do we have any items from the

[2:21:25] commissioner? Commissioner

[2:21:31] Cooper, start with you.

[2:21:33] My little mic here is coming on

[2:21:36] and off. I got it. This MAY not

[2:21:38] be my last meeting. From what

[2:21:38] I

[2:21:39] ve heard from staff, so i

[2:21:40] ll

[2:21:42] save any of those comments for

[2:21:44] for the next one. But for those

[2:21:45] of, um, our peers and

[2:21:47] colleagues and friends here on

[2:21:48] the commission, that this will

[2:21:51] be your last meeting. I most

[2:21:53] enjoyed our time together. Uh,

[2:21:54] what a great think tank that

[2:21:56] this body is. Uh, I think it

[2:21:56] s

[2:21:58] just so well rounded. I like

[2:22:00] the fact that we, uh, we don

[2:22:00] t

[2:22:02] all agree. And even when we do

[2:22:04] agree, we come at the

[2:22:05] discussion from so many

[2:22:08] different angles that, um, it

[2:22:08] s

[2:22:10] just a I think a think tank is

[2:22:11] the best way to put it. I think

[2:22:11] it

[2:22:13] s a great, uh, service to

[2:22:16] the city council and, um, and

[2:22:17] hopefully the citizens of

[2:22:18] Wilmington think the same way.

[2:22:20] And I feel like everyone here

[2:22:20] that

[2:22:22] s, um, shares their

[2:22:23] comments, shares their thoughts

[2:22:26] and how they got to. Yes. Or

[2:22:28] how they got to know just

[2:22:30] instills more of that public

[2:22:32] trust and transparency. And,

[2:22:34] um, and the land use process

[2:22:36] and how we go about zoning. So

[2:22:37] and a special thanks to, um,

[2:22:39] John Lennon, the chair who

[2:22:39] s

[2:22:41] done a remarkable job leading,

[2:22:43] um, this group on several

[2:22:45] occasions. And, um, and MISTER

[2:22:48] Commissioner Woodruff, uh,

[2:22:49] farewell. That

[2:22:50] s my only

[2:22:52] comment.

[2:22:55] Thank you, Commissioner Collier.

[2:22:57] No, not a lot of comments. Uh,

[2:22:59] I would like to thank the

[2:23:01] outgoing commission, because i

[2:23:03] do believe that we have been a

[2:23:04] very, very good group together.

[2:23:06] And we do think about things in

[2:23:07] different ways, which makes it

[2:23:09] for good, good discussion,

[2:23:10] sometimes way too lively and

[2:23:12] way too long, but good

[2:23:14] discussion. CHAIRMAN Lennon,

[2:23:14] you

[2:23:15] ve done a great job this

[2:23:16] last year. We appreciate

[2:23:16] everything you

[2:23:17] ve done and

[2:23:18] certainly hope you

[2:23:18] ll sit out a

[2:23:19] year and come back.

[2:23:20] So thank you.

[2:23:21] Yes, sir.

[2:23:23] Commissioner Adams.

[2:23:23] It

[2:23:26] s hard to pile on much more

[2:23:27] than that, but, um. Yeah. Thank

[2:23:29] you John. Thank you. Ron. Um,

[2:23:29] John, it

[2:23:31] s been great to serve

[2:23:34] as your, uh, co-chair. Um, so I

[2:23:36] wish you both well. Thank you.

[2:23:38] Thank you, Commissioner Pollock.

[2:23:40] A couple of things before I get

[2:23:42] to the, uh, personal comments.

[2:23:45] Um, to the to the staff. Can we

[2:23:47] consider changing a policy? And

[2:23:50] the policy is simply we wait

[2:23:52] till, like, 3:00 on the day of

[2:23:54] a meeting to for, you know, to

[2:23:56] put out any comments that come

[2:23:58] in on the website. Is it

[2:23:59] possible to change the

[2:24:00] procedure that says the

[2:24:03] comments, you know, come in and

[2:24:05] end of business the day before?

[2:24:06] So then the morning of a

[2:24:08] meeting you can forward those

[2:24:09] out. So we have a little bit

[2:24:10] more time to look at them. Just

[2:24:12] something to consider. Process

[2:24:17] change. Is it.

[2:24:17] We

[2:24:18] ll have to take a look to

[2:24:20] see where the 3:00 comes from.

[2:24:21] Yeah, please.

[2:24:23] To to determine that.

[2:24:24] Okay.

[2:24:27] Um, this the second thing is I

[2:24:28] understand you

[2:24:30] ve had a staff

[2:24:35] addition. Um.

[2:24:35] We

[2:24:37] ll cover that under staff

[2:24:37] reports.

[2:24:38] Okay? Okay.

[2:24:42] I guess then, John, it, you

[2:24:43] know, thank you for your

[2:24:45] leadership. You know, I know

[2:24:45] I

[2:24:46] ve kidded you before, it

[2:24:47] says, are we ever going to have

[2:24:49] anything to do? Because some of

[2:24:49] our meetings have been pretty

[2:24:51] light. But I appreciate your

[2:24:52] sense of humor. I appreciate

[2:24:54] your your guidance. And thank

[2:24:56] you for your, your, uh, you

[2:24:58] know, your custodian of the

[2:24:59] chair. I appreciate that very

[2:25:01] much, Ron. I

[2:25:01] m going to MISS

[2:25:04] The carpooling, buddy, but you

[2:25:05] only live around the block, so

[2:25:05] we

[2:25:06] ll we

[2:25:07] ll stay in touch. But

[2:25:08] thank you for your service. I

[2:25:12] appreciate it.

[2:25:14] Uh, I really welcomed

[2:25:16] everybody. Great people, great

[2:25:18] staff. Um, but I know this is

[2:25:19] not going to be what I watch on

[2:25:22] tv on Tuesday nights.

[2:25:22] My mother

[2:25:26] s still watching.

[2:25:27] Um, yes. Thank you to both of

[2:25:28] y

[2:25:29] all. John, thank you for

[2:25:31] serving as chair. And I

[2:25:31] m sure

[2:25:32] I

[2:25:34] ll see you very often. Um,

[2:25:35] Ron, I hope I get to see you

[2:25:35] often. I

[2:25:37] ve enjoyed working

[2:25:38] with you and and getting to

[2:25:41] know you better.

[2:25:43] Um, thank you all. This has

[2:25:44] been awesome. This has been a

[2:25:47] fantastic group. Um, shout out

[2:25:49] to Jake Lyle, who sort of

[2:25:52] prepared me for all this. Um, I

[2:25:53] think I would leave you with

[2:25:55] this thought. Um, no, it

[2:25:55] s not

[2:25:56] a lesson. It

[2:25:58] s just an opinion.

[2:25:59] I wake up every morning. Thank

[2:26:01] GOD I live in a place that is

[2:26:03] growing, um, that is thriving

[2:26:05] economically, where our biggest

[2:26:07] worry is what our bridge is

[2:26:09] going to look like, because we

[2:26:12] even get to build a bridge. Um,

[2:26:14] so that comes at a cost. And

[2:26:18] that cost is growth. Um, but I

[2:26:20] would just ask that we

[2:26:21] constantly remember this is the

[2:26:24] planning Commission, not the

[2:26:27] reaction Commission, not the

[2:26:29] Public Opinion Commission. It

[2:26:29] s

[2:26:31] the planning commission. So we

[2:26:31] take the city

[2:26:34] s codes and, um,

[2:26:36] restrictions and regulations,

[2:26:38] and we look at a project based

[2:26:42] on that period. Um, and I think

[2:26:44] if we do that, then we

[2:26:44] ve all

[2:26:46] done our job as a, as a

[2:26:47] planning commission. So it

[2:26:47] s

[2:26:49] been an honor to the staff.

[2:26:52] Thank you very much. And, um,

[2:26:54] probably we

[2:26:55] ll never you never

[2:26:58] know. All right. Uh, items from

[2:27:02] staff, MISS Painter.

[2:27:04] Thank you, MR. Chair. And

[2:27:05] before we go into our items, I

[2:27:08] do want to thank both you and,

[2:27:11] uh, Ron for your service to the

[2:27:12] community and to the city. It

[2:27:12] s

[2:27:13] a very important job that you

[2:27:15] guys undertake. And we

[2:27:17] understand how much it takes of

[2:27:19] your time to spend it. Spend it

[2:27:21] here with us on these lovely

[2:27:23] evenings. Uh, so, moving on

[2:27:24] from that, we did provide you

[2:27:28] with your annual report for fy

[2:27:32] 2026. Um, I know that there are

[2:27:34] probably fewer cases on here

[2:27:35] that the charts show that you

[2:27:37] had fewer applications than you

[2:27:38] have in the past, but I think

[2:27:40] you do need should celebrate

[2:27:41] some of the big things you did,

[2:27:42] including the adoption of the

[2:27:44] Greater Downtown Plan, because

[2:27:46] that was that was a big item

[2:27:48] for for the city to to bring

[2:27:50] forward some other things that

[2:27:51] are happening. Uh, the Tree

[2:27:53] Commission has established a

[2:27:55] tree ordinance subcommittee

[2:27:57] that will be working on

[2:28:00] identifying amendments to the

[2:28:01] proposed amendments to the

[2:28:01] city

[2:28:03] s tree ordinance. So they

[2:28:05] will be inviting subject matter

[2:28:07] experts as well as various

[2:28:08] stakeholders, including the

[2:28:10] Alliance for Cape Fear Trees,

[2:28:11] the development community, to

[2:28:13] participate in that process.

[2:28:15] Uh, we are staffing that

[2:28:17] committee and we will have also

[2:28:19] recommended that before they

[2:28:20] get to the point where they are

[2:28:22] finalizing their proposal, we

[2:28:23] would actually like to do a

[2:28:25] meeting with this with with the

[2:28:26] commission, or if you want to

[2:28:28] appoint a subcommittee to look

[2:28:29] at this so that so that we have

[2:28:31] the two groups working together

[2:28:32] before we bring you a formal

[2:28:35] proposal at a public hearing,

[2:28:37] uh, we also, since the chair

[2:28:39] mentioned it, uh, the Cape Fear

[2:28:41] Memorial Bridge Environmental

[2:28:43] assessment was published and is

[2:28:45] open for public comment through

[2:28:47] OCTOBER 15th. There are two

[2:28:49] public hearings coming up on

[2:28:51] SEPTEMBER 14th and 15th, and

[2:28:53] you can find more information

[2:28:55] about the project on the city

[2:28:55] s

[2:28:56] website. There is actually if

[2:28:58] you go to Wilmington, nc, dot

[2:29:00] gov. There is a large banner

[2:29:01] that will take you to a web

[2:29:03] page that was created to help

[2:29:04] the public understand the

[2:29:07] project, and then, uh, as

[2:29:08] Commissioner Pollock alluded

[2:29:10] to, we do have a new community

[2:29:12] planning and design manager who

[2:29:14] will be joining us, uh,

[2:29:16] officially on Tuesday. So you

[2:29:17] will be seeing them at your

[2:29:20] next meeting. And, uh, we are

[2:29:22] very excited to have them. So

[2:29:25] with that.

[2:29:25] Okay.

[2:29:28] Can I just add if anybody, um,

[2:29:28] to Linda

[2:29:29] s point about the Cape

[2:29:32] Fear Bridge, take a look at the

[2:29:32] replay of last night

[2:29:33] s council

[2:29:34] meeting, because I talked to

[2:29:36] Linda before. I thought she did

[2:29:37] an excellent job of here

[2:29:38] s

[2:29:40] really what option a is, and

[2:29:40] here

[2:29:42] s really what option b is.

[2:29:46] And it was a very, you know,

[2:29:48] nonpartisan, very objective.

[2:29:49] This is what it is. This is

[2:29:50] what it isn

[2:29:51] t. So I would you

[2:29:52] know, I would encourage you if

[2:29:54] you get a chance. And even

[2:29:55] though I know Ron, you just

[2:29:55] said it

[2:29:56] s not things you

[2:29:56] re

[2:29:57] going to be watching on tv,

[2:29:58] take a look at that. Because it

[2:29:59] was really nice. Job done.

[2:30:01] And and honored who watched

[2:30:02] this. Most of them. What

[2:30:02] s

[2:30:03] that? I said I

[2:30:04] m the nerd who

[2:30:04] watches me.

[2:30:04] You

[2:30:06] re right with me. But yeah.

[2:30:08] So yeah, take a look at it. It

[2:30:10] was a nice job, Linda.

[2:30:12] Very good. Anything else from

[2:30:15] staff? Do you have a motion to

[2:30:16] adjourn?

[2:30:17] So moved.

[2:30:18] Second.

[2:30:19] All in favor?

[2:30:20] Aye, aye.

[2:30:27] Meeting adjourned. Thank you.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript