[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.