ITEM PH1

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

(910) 341-7810 | FAX (910)341-5839
TDD (910)341-7873

10/6/2020

City Council
City Hall
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

Attached for your consideration is an ordinance amending the Land Development Code to modify
certain prescribed conditions of the commercial district mixed use (CDMU) as a use permitted in the
Office and Institutional (O&I-1), Commercial Business (CB), and Regional Business (RB) districts.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring the development standards of the CDMU into a closer
alignment with its original intent. A case summary follows the ordinance.

The CDMU provision is a development type adopted into the Land Development Code (LDC) in 2002
to encourage some residential uses within commercial developments. The O&I-1, CB, and RB
districts were chosen as the appropriate zoning districts for CDMUs. The objective was to allow for
the creation of balanced, mixed-use developments by placing office, commercial, and residential uses
within a single development, thereby increasing convenience to residents and reducing the number of
shopping and commuting trips needed. The objectives of promoting balanced mixed-use development,
reducing traffic volumes on city streets, and promoting a higher quality of life are supported by the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.

In practice, however, the CDMU provision has not achieved those objectives, as well as other
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, due to the lack of minimum required commercial use(s) and no
open space requirements. Instead of commercial with some residential mixed in, many larger CDMU
developments have essentially become intensive multifamily residential projects with a token amount
of commercial use, no open space, heavy automobile dependence and the clear-cutting of sites to
accommodate extensive impervious surface areas.

The proposed amendment would establish standards for a minimum amount of commercial use, as well
as open space and parking standards scaled to the residential intensity of CDMU developments. Also
included is a provision to incentivize workforce housing in CDMU developments in exchange for
unlimited residential development density.

In addition to support from the Comprehensive Plan, the requested amendment would be consistent
with the City of Wilmington Strategic Plan Focus Areas of Foster a Prosperous, Thriving Economy,
Provide Sustainability & Adaptability, and Support Efficient Transportation Systems.
Planning staff recommends approval of the amendment. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding this code amendment at their August 5 and September 2 regular meetings and voted
6-1 to recommend approval of the amendment with modifications related to the commercial component
and open space requirement of these developments.

If approved, the amendment would establish standards for a minimum percentage of commercial use, as
well as open space and parking standards scaled to the residential intensity of CDMU developments.
Also included, is a provision to incentivize workforce housing in CDMU developments in exchange for
unlimited residential development density. If not approved, the current standards for CDMU
developments would remain.

Passage of the attached Ordinance is recommended.

Respectfully submitted,

Sterling B. Cheatham,
City Manager

PH1-2
Ordinance City Council
City of Wilmington
North Carolina

Introduced By: Sterling B. Cheatham, City Manager Date: 10/6/2020

Ordinance Amending the Land Development Code Chapter 18, Sec. 18-257 To Amend The
Prescribed Conditions For CDMU, Commercial District Mixed-use Projects In The O&I-1,
CB, And RB Districts (LDC-4-820)

LEGISLATIVE INTENT/PURPOSE:

WHEREAS, NCGS Section 160A-385 authorizes local governments to amend ordinances

regulating land use within their jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the amendment set out below is made in accordance with NCGS Section 160A-364
and Article 3, Section 18-117 of the Land Development Code; and

WHEREAS, the amendment set out below is intended to promote the public health, safety, and
welfare by amending the Land Development Code to modify prescribed conditions in the
Commercial District Mixed Use (CDMU) to bring that provision into closer alignment with its
original intent.

THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED:

SECTION 1: Chapter 18, Sec. 18-257 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:

Sec. 18-257. - Commercial District Mixed Use (CDMU) within the O&I-1, CB, and RB
Districts.

Multiple-family housing including townhouse development is permitted in the O&I-1, CB

and RB Districts under the following conditions.

(a) Uses

1. Multiple-family housing and townhouse development shall be permitted. Detached

dwelling units shall not be permitted.
2. Commercial uses assigned to the zoning district shall make up not less than 20% of the
total building square footage of the development, except as may be reduced under
paragraph (b). below.

PH1-3
(b) Reduction to Commercial Square Footage Requirement

1. For properties with less than or equal to 25% of their perimeter fronting on an arterial
street, the minimum commercial building square footage of the development may be
reduced to 10% of the total.
2. Parking under a building or in a deck may be counted toward the minimum commercial
building square footage, with the credit not to exceed 50% of the minimum commercial
building square footage first determined under 1. above, if applicable.
3. The building square footage of amenities that are commercial in nature (such as a spa or
health club open and advertised to the public for a fee) may be counted toward the
minimum commercial building square footage.
4. In no case shall amenities for the exclusive use of residents, on-site leasing offices, or
other nonresidential uses not otherwise open to the general public, count towards the
minimum commercial building square footage.

(c) Residential Development Density and Density Bonus for Workforce Housing

1. CDMU’s shall have a base density cap of 17 residential units per acre.
2. There shall be no cap on residential density if 10% of the total number of residential
units are designated for workforce housing, as defined under HUD’s High HOME rent
census data, for a period of not less than 10 years.

(d) Open space shall be provided on a sliding scale as follows:

1. For CDMU developments with 50% or less square footage in residential use, there shall
be no open space requirement.
2. For CDMU developments with greater than 50% building square footage in residential
use, 20% open space shall be required as applied by code.

(e) Parking shall be provided on a sliding scale as follows:

1. For CDMU developments with 49% or less square footage in residential building
square footage, parking shall be provided at one dedicated space per one-bedroom unit,
1 and a half spaces per two-bedroom unit, and two spaces per three-bedroom unit.
2. For CDMU developments with 50 to 75% square footage in residential building square
footage, parking shall be provided at one and a quarter dedicated spaces per
one-bedroom unit, one- and three-quarter spaces per two bedroom unit, and two and a
quarter spaces per three bedroom unit.
3. For CDMU developments with greater than 75% square footage in residential building
square footage, parking shall be provided at one and a half-dedicated spaces per one
bedroom unit, two spaces per two bedroom unit, and two and a half spaces per three
bedroom unit.

PH1-4
 4. Additional parking shall be provided for all commercial uses in accordance with
parking standards for such uses. Shared use of commercial parking spaces by
residential uses shall be permitted.

(f) Building and Design Standards

1. A conceptual elevation indicating proposed architecture style shall be provided.

2. All buildings internal to the site shall be connected via pedestrian ways. Sidewalks
shall connect all buildings, parking areas, community facilities/open space, bicycle
parking, and any adjacent commercial uses.
3. Drive-through customer speaker window service for banking and saving and loan
associations shall only be permitted to operate between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Monday through Friday.
4. A conceptual lighting plan shall be provided.

(g) Other Standards

1. Such a development shall be in single ownership or under the unified control of a

property owners’ association.
2. Residential uses shall not cause any increased setbacks or buffers on adjacent lots.
3. Any accessory uses, including outdoor seating, if permitted in the district, shall meet
the applicable accessory use standards.

SECTION 2: That any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to the
penalties set forth in Article XIV, Section 18-52 of the Land Development Code.

SECTION 3: That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 4: That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed severable and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.

SECTION 5: That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its adoption.

Adopted at a ________________ meeting

on ____________________ 2020 Bill Saffo, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Penelope Spicer-Sidbury, City Clerk City Attorney

PH1-5
CASE SUMMARY Land Development Code Amendment
City Council October 6, 2020
LDC-4-820
Glenn Harbeck, 910-341-5808, [email protected]

Staff Recommendation APPROVAL

Planning Commission Recommendation 08/04/20; CONDITIONAL APPROVAL 7-0
City Council Action 10/6/20; Scheduled for Public hearing

Request
Code Section(s) Amend Sec. 18-257. Commercial District Mixed Use (CDMU) within the
O&I-1, CB, and RB Districts.
Request To amend the prescribed conditions for CDMU development in the O&I-
1, CB, and RB districts
Applicant City of Wilmington

Case Overview

The proposed amendment would modify certain prescribed conditions of the commercial district
mixed use (CDMU) as a use permitted in the Office and Institutional (O&I-1), Commercial
Business (CB), and Regional Business (RB) districts to bring the development standards into a
closer alignment with its original intent.

ANALYSIS

1. History/Background

The CDMU provision is a development type adopted into the Land Development Code (LDC) in
2002 to encourage some residential uses within commercial developments. The O&I-1, CB, and
RB districts were chosen as the appropriate zoning districts for CDMUs. The objective was to
allow for the creation of balanced, mixed-use developments by placing office, commercial, and
residential uses within a single development, thereby increasing convenience to residents and
reducing the number of shopping and commuting trips needed. The CDMU provision has not
achieved that objective due, in part, to the lack of minimum required commercial use(s) in these
commercial districts. Instead of commercial with some residential mixed in, resulting CDMU
developments have essentially become intensive multifamily residential projects with a token
amount of commercial uses to satisfy the unspecified mixed-use requirement. The following
table shows the amount of nonresidential square footage as a percent of total project square
footage in recent CDMU developments, as measured by building square footage.

191031 Draft
PH1-6
 2
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

Ratio of Nonresidential Uses

Development Percent Nonresidential Square Footage

Lofts at Park Avenue 1.5%

Kerr Station Lofts 2.0%
Belle Meade Apartments 1.0%
Cottages at College Acres 2.0%
Flats at Main 1.0%
Arboretum West 4.5%
17th Street Mixed Use 1.5%
Oleander Commons 1.0%

These token amounts of nonresidential uses are insufficient to achieve any meaningful
reduction in shopping and commuting trips, as is the intent of the CDMU provision.

2. Unintended Consequences of the Current CDMU Provision

When the CDMU provision was established, these developments were envisioned as
predominantly commercial in nature with some residential uses mixed in. As such, they were to
be treated as any other commercial development in the O&I-1, CB, and RB commercial districts
and no open space would be required. Instead of balanced mixed-use developments, however,
the projects that have been produced under the CDMU provision have been intensive
multifamily projects with a very small amount of nonresidential included to meet the ambiguous
mixed-use standard. The de facto multifamily developments have been able to achieve greater
densities than permitted in the multifamily zoning districts due to the lack of open space
requirements. The lack of open space and greater development density, in turn, has resulted in
developments with more impervious surface area per acre and more extensive land clearing for
essential site improvements compared to typical multifamily developments. The greater extent
of essential site improvements has enabled the removal of more trees with less tree mitigation.
Very often, the amount of tree removal has the appearance and effect of clearcutting the site.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The proposed amendment to the LDC is intended to bring new CDMU developments into
alignment with the original intent of the provisions. In summary, the proposed amendment would
do the following:

 Require open space on a sliding scale, determined by the percentage of residential

building square footage in the development;
 Require parking on a sliding scale, determined by the percentage of residential building
square footage in the development;
 Establish a minimum amount of nonresidential development, as measured by building
square footage, of 20%. This percentage may be reduced with credit given for (1)
amenities that are commercial in nature (such as spa or health club open to the public);
or (2) parking placed under buildings. This percentage may also be reduced for
properties with less than 25% of their perimeter fronting on a major street.
 Establish a base density of 17 units per acre, with unlimited density available with the
inclusion of work force housing units in the development. and

191219 Draft

PH1-7
 3
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

 Prohibit single-family detached housing (to date, no CDMU development has included
single-family development).

In the draft amendment to the Land Development Code that follows, additions are underlined,
and deletions are in strikethrough.

Sec. 18-257. - Commercial District Mixed Use (CDMU) within the O&I-1, CB, and RB Districts.

Multiple-family housing including residential townhouse development and limited single-

family detached is permitted in the O&I-1, CB and RB Districts under the following conditions.
To insure adequate safeguards and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, the following
minimum requirements shall be incorporated when residential development is proposed in the
O&I-1, CB and RB zoning districts.

(a) Uses
1. Multiple-family housing and townhouse development shall be permitted.
Detached dwelling units shall not be permitted.
2. Commercial uses assigned to the zoning district shall make up not less than
20% of the total building square footage of the development, except as may be
reduced under paragraph (b). below.

(b) Reduction to Commercial Square Footage Requirement

1. For properties with less than or equal to 25% of their perimeter fronting on an
arterial street, the minimum commercial building square footage of the
development may be reduced to 10% of the total.
2. Parking under a building or in a deck may be counted toward the minimum
commercial building square footage, with the credit not to exceed 50% of the
minimum commercial building square footage.
3. The building square footage of amenities that are commercial in nature (such
as a spa or health club open and advertised to the public for a fee) may be
counted toward the minimum commercial building square footage.
4. In no case shall amenities for the exclusive use of residents, on-site leasing
offices, or other nonresidential uses not otherwise open to the general public,
count towards the minimum commercial building square footage.

(c) Residential Development Density and Density Bonus for Workforce Housing
1. CDMU’s shall have a base density cap of 17 residential units per acre.
2. There shall be no cap on residential density if 10% of the total number of
residential units are designated for workforce housing, as defined under
HUD’s High HOME rent census data, for a period of not less than 10 years.

(d) Open space shall be provided on a sliding scale as follows:

1. For CDMU developments with 50% or less square footage in residential use,
there shall be no open space requirement.
2. For CDMU developments with greater than 50% building square footage in
residential use, 20% open space shall be required as applied by code.

(e) Parking shall be provided on a sliding scale as follows:

1. For CDMU developments with 49% or less square footage in residential
building square footage, parking shall be provided at one dedicated space per

191219 Draft

PH1-8
 4
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

one bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces per two bedroom unit, and 2 spaces per three
bedroom unit.
2. For CDMU developments with 50 to 75% square footage in residential building
square footage, parking shall be provided at one and a quarter dedicated
spaces per one bedroom unit, one and three quarter spaces per two bedroom
unit, and two and a quarter spaces per three bedroom unit.
3. For CDMU developments with greater than 75% square footage in residential
building square footage, parking shall be provided at one and a half dedicated
spaces per one bedroom unit, two spaces per two bedroom unit, and two and
a half spaces per three bedroom unit.
4. Additional parking shall be provided for all commercial uses in accordance with
parking standards for such uses. Shared use of commercial parking spaces by
residential uses shall be permitted.

(f) Building and Design Standards

1. A conceptual elevation indicating proposed architecture style shall be
provided.
2. All buildings internal to the site shall be connected via pedestrian ways.
Sidewalks shall connect all buildings, parking areas, community facilities/open
space, bicycle parking, and any adjacent commercial uses.
3. Drive-through customer speaker window service for banking and saving and
loan associations shall only be permitted to operate between the hours of
8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
4. A conceptual lighting plan shall be provided.

(g) Other Standards

1. Such a development shall be in single ownership or under the unified control of
a property owners’ association.
2. Residential uses shall not cause any increased setbacks or buffers on adjacent
lots.
3. Any accessory uses, including outdoor seating, if permitted in the district, shall
meet the applicable accessory use standards.

(b) Density
1. Residential density may exceed two and one-half (2.5) units per acre in the
Watershed Resource Protection areas if the development does not exceed a
maximum of twenty-five (25) percent impervious area, or is exceptionally
designed.

(a) The dwelling units shall be part of a mixed use development established to
provide innovative opportunities for an integration of diverse but compatible
uses into a single development that is unified by distinguishable design
features with amenities and walkways to increase pedestrian activity. Such a
development shall be in single ownership or unified control of a property
owners' association.
(b) Strip commercial development characterized by single story uncoordinated,
unconnected buildings with large street frontage parking lots is specifically
prohibited. Strip malls or multifamily buildings with uncoordinated,
unconnected out parcels are prohibited. All structures shall be fully integrated
into the mixed use project through common design themes (including, but not

191219 Draft

PH1-9
 5
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

limited to, lighting, benches, landscaping, other decorative features but not
necessarily building design), integration with a variety of uses, nonlinear
arrangement, common spaces, pedestrian walkways, vehicular access
connections and other features.
(c) A conceptual elevation indicating proposed architecture style shall be
provided.
(d) Sidewalks must be provided throughout the project.
(e) One (1) dedicated parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit on
site. The parking space must be available to the occupants at all times and
clearly designated or reserved for residential tenants only.
(f) Community facilities and/or common area shall be provided.
(g) A conceptual lighting plan must be provided.
(h) Residential density may exceed two and one-half (2.5) units per acre in the
Watershed Resource Protection areas if the development does not exceed a
maximum of twenty-five (25) percent impervious area, or is exceptionally
designed. Exceptionally designed projects shall meet the criteria of Article 10
and shall reduce runoff from impervious surfaces through porous paving
and/or infiltration devices as well as managing runoff with at least one (1) or
more of the following water quality best management practices (REF:
NCDENR Best Management Practices Manual for design criteria): bio-
retention area, filter strip, sand filter, or grassed swales, or other approved LID
techniques.
(i) Residential uses in O&I-1, CB and RB developed under this section shall not
cause any adjacent property to provide increased setbacks or buffers as
provided for in other sections of the City Code.
(j) Drive-through customer speaker window service for banking and saving and
loan associations shall only be permitted to operate between the hours of 8:30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
(k) Single-family detached dwellings by special use permit are allowed provided
all the following requirements are met:
(1) There must be adjacent property that is developed and zoned R-3, R-5,
R-7, R-10, R-15, or R-20 and this adjacent residential property must
comprise a continuous minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the
perimeter length of the subject property.
(2) Density of the single-family detached dwellings shall not exceed eight (8)
dwelling units per acre.
(l) Multiple-family including townhouse residential and single-family detached is
only permitted in conjunction with the following uses provided they are
permitted uses within the district:
a. Related residential uses.
i. Day care facilities, child or adult.
ii. Religious institutions.
b. Nonresidential.
i. Artist's studio.
ii. Banking services (drive-through window speaker service
restrictions in this chapter apply).
iii. Business services.
iv. Cultural arts center, including theaters, offices, classrooms, etc.
v. Farmer's market, seasonal only.
vi. Furniture and other home furnishings store.
vii. Grocery stores.

191219 Draft

PH1-10
 6
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

viii. Internal service facilities incidental to permitted uses, including

cafeterias, day care facilities, snack bars, and similar retail
activities, conducted solely for the convenience of employees, or
occasional visitors, provided any signage for such facilities is not
visible beyond the premises.
ix. Libraries.
x. Marinas.
xi. Museums, art galleries.
xii. Offices, professional.
xiii. Personal services.
xiv. Recreation facility, private including clubs and recreation facilities
associated with multiple-family complexes, golf courses, tennis
facilities, country clubs, etc.
xv. Restaurant, standard (must have greater than fifty (50) percent of
receipts in food sales).
xvi. Retail sales establishments.
xvii. Offices, medical.

CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS

Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan
The following analysis examines the proposal relative to the policies of the plan. Policies that
most pertain to the proposed amendment are provided below. Not all policies carry equal weight
and may depend on the specifics of the proposal. The policy analysis uses the following
symbology:

Strong Support Modest Support Modest Non-support Strong Non-support

Policies 1 Development and City Building

Development should create places, streets, and spaces that are visually attractive,
1.2.1 safe, accessible, functional, inclusive, have their own distinct identities, and maintain or
improve desired character.

Large scale development should include provisions for parks, community facilities, and
1.2.3
other amenities to help meet the demands created by the development.

Mixed-use development that provides a range of services within walking distance of

integrated residential development should be promoted as a way to help reduce motor
1.3.4
vehicle trips. Developments that reduce reliance on single-occupancy motor vehicles
should be supported.
Quality design and site planning should be promoted so that new development infill
and redevelopment is implemented with minimal adverse impacts on desired character
1.4.1
of the existing built environment.

Mixed use centers should be made up of a diverse mix of uses in an integrated design
1.5.1 that avoids segregation of uses. Centers should have well-planned public spaces that
bring people together and provide opportunities for active living and social interactions.

Usable open space that preserves natural landscapes and high-quality ecological
1.7.8
resources should be encouraged in new residential development.

191219 Draft

PH1-11
 7
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

Retail development should be encouraged in mixed-use centers as identified on the

1.9.3
growth strategies maps and should be discouraged in linear strip patterns.

Policies 2 Transportation
2.7.5 Shared-use parking should be encouraged for land-use is where peak parking
demands occur at different times of the day, reducing the overall total number of
spaces needed. Parking lots should be sized and managed so that spaces are
frequently occupied.
Policies 5 Economic Development
5.1.2 Mixed-use redevelopment should be promoted as a means of revitalizing and
enhancing economic development in commercial quarters and creating transit and
pedestrian oriented development patterns.
Policies 6 Environment and Natural Resources
6.2.1 Environmentally sensitive natural areas should be identified, mapped, protected,
enhanced, and maintained.

6.3.1 Tree preservation should be a priority in developments were significant clusters of

trees can be protected for meaningful impact and appearance. Planting of street
trees with frequent spacing should be a priority where the density of buildings,
infrastructure, and required grading make the preservation of existing trees
unfeasible.
Policies 9 Urban Design and Placemaking
9.3.1 Mixed use buildings and multi use development sites should be encouraged where
appropriate. Infill development that creates a destination for existing land uses
should include opportunities for cross site pedestrian connections, shared parking
arrangements and other strategies to enhance mixed use environments.
9.6.1 New housing of mixed types and prices should be encouraged in proximity to and
within employment areas, mixed-use centers, and neighborhood nodes, as identified
on the Growth Strategies Maps.

City of Wilmington Strategic Plan

Elements of support from the City of Wilmington Strategic Plan include the focus areas of:

Foster a Prosperous, Thriving Economy: The city will promote opportunity and prosperity by
fostering sustainable, regionally coordinated economic growth and development strategies for
creating jobs, building a strong workforce, facilitating commerce and business vitality; and

Provide Sustainability and Adaptability

The city will protect and preserve our natural resources with quality design for the built
environment. The city will make strategic decisions focused on the long-term financial, physical,
and social health of the entire city to enhance our ability to respond to changing economic and
demographic conditions. Our actions will be based on a shared commitment to inclusiveness,
equity, and continuous improvement.

CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION

The CDMU provision was adopted in 2002 to encourage balanced, mixed-use developments in
the O&I-1, CB, and RB zoning districts. Instead of producing balanced mixed-use development,

191219 Draft

PH1-12
 8
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

the CDMU provision has been employed to produce de facto multi-family developments with no
open space, extensive impervious surface areas, and the effective clearcutting of sites to
accommodate the resulting essential site improvements. The proposed amendment establishes
a minimum standard for open space, a minimum percentage for nonresidential building square
footage, and a maximum density for residential housing units. These changes are intended to
create standards that will bring CDMU developments into closer alignment with the original
intent of the provision.

The proposed change is consistent with the recommendations of the city’s Strategic Plan and
the Create Wilmington Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the request.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT
Planning Commission City Council
Advertisement Date(s) 8/4/20
Other – Contact(s) Representatives of B.A.S.E.
Homebuilders, Wilmington Tree
Commission, Cape Fear Alliance
for Trees, Board of Realtors,
Mayors Ad Hoc Committee for
the LDC Rewrite, City Council
Governance Committee

ACTIONS TO DATE

Planning Commission 8/5/20; Public Hearing; item continued to 9/2/20 meeting

9/2/20; Approval, 6-1
City Council 10/6/20; Scheduled for Public Hearing

Information from the August 5, 2020 Planning Commission meeting:

One person from the public spoke in support of the amendment and one person spoke in
opposition.

In addition, public comments were accepted via an online form on the city’s website in advance
of the Planning Commission meeting. Comments received by 12:00 pm on the day of the
meeting were compiled and provided to the chairman of the Planning Commission in advance of
the meeting and were read into the record. One written comment received was in support of the
amendment while four others were in opposition.

After discussion, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend continuance of the item to
allow staff to seek additional public input on the amendment.

Information since the August 5, 2020 Planning Commission meeting:

Additional public comments were accepted up to 24 hours after the meeting. No public
comments were received via online public comment during this period.

On August 17, staff held an additional zoom meeting with several representatives of the
development community to receive their input.

Information from the September 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting:

191219 Draft

PH1-13
 9
LDC-4-820 CDMU Amendments

No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the amendment.

Public comments were accepted via an online form on the city’s website in advance of the
Planning Commission meeting. Comments received by 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting
were compiled and provided to the chairman of the Planning Commission in advance of the
meeting and were read into the record. Two written comments were received in opposition to
the amendment.

After discussion, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the item with
some changes related to the commercial component of the amendment.

Information since the September 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting:

Additional public comments were accepted up to 24 hours after the meeting. One written
comment was received via online public comment during this period.

ATTACHMENTS

 Evaluation of Suggestions from Representatives of the Development Community

 Mapped Analysis of Development Community Suggestion Regarding Exemption from
Commercial Use

191219 Draft

PH1-14
Evaluation of Suggestions from Representatives of the Development Community: 
Commercial Development Mixed Use Amendment 

Staff met with several members of the development community on Monday afternoon August 17 to 
discuss the proposed amendment to the CDMU provision. Listed below are seven suggestions that the 
development community representatives put forth that they believed would improve the CDMU. Since 
that meeting, staff has had time to fully evaluate the suggestions in their totality. Staff’s overall 
conclusion is that these suggestions, when taken together, would not correct current deficiencies in the 
CDMU. While staff believes the suggestions were put forth in good faith, we find that upon examination, 
they would make matters worse relative to tree protection, impervious surface area and the balancing 
of residential and non‐residential uses. Each suggestion, along with the staff evaluation is listed below. 

1. Commercial SF should be 5% of the total residential area, with the requirement not to exceed
10,000 square feet. SF will be defined by the NC real estate commission.

The 5% minimum does not come close to the intent of the Commercial Development Mixed Use 
provision. Significantly, suggestions 3 and especially 4 below effectively void even this minimal 
percentage requirement. In addition, the ability to develop 95% residential space with a 5% commercial 
component already exists as an option within the existing MF‐M, MF‐MH, and MF‐H districts, and should 
be the route for majority residential projects of this nature. 

The 10,000 square foot maximum is contrary to the intent of the CDMU provision and could prohibit 
projects that seek to comply with the intent of the provision‐‐ to enable balanced mixed‐use 
development. Examples of recent projects that will achieve a balanced mix of residential and 
commercial uses include: 

 Atlantic Marine Expansion— residential above commercial on Canal Street

 Spofford Mixed‐use—residential above commercial on Wrightsville Ave at RR tracks

 Trolley Station—residential above commercial on Wrightsville Ave across from the Galleria site

 Oleander Bay II‐ residential apartments above a dance studio and office located off Oleander on
Victory Gardens Drive
 Port City Porches‐ residential above office or neighborhood commercial located off Masonboro
Loop Road across from the fire station.
As our city continues to experience redevelopment and new development on infill sites, we would 
expect to see more mixed use projects, similar to the ones listed above, and larger, to become more 
common. 

2. Allow some commercial on elevated floors (not limited to ground floor)

No objection, but this suggestion is of no consequence one way or the other. This is already permitted 
and encouraged in the current code language. 

3. Allow bricks and mortar amenity space and leasing office to be credited toward commercial
required space

PH1-15
Bricks and mortar amenities are customarily already an integral part of large multi‐family residential 
developments—developments that the current CDMU has certainly enabled‐‐ essentially without 
commercial uses. In keeping with this suggestion, however, staff provides credit in the new draft for 
amenities that are specifically designed, located and made equally accessible to customers and 
employees of any non‐residential establishments on site. 

Allowing leasing offices to be credited toward the commercial square footage requirement would do 
very little, if anything, to reduce trip generation of residents within the development. They are a 
customary component of most large, multi‐family apartment complexes—not an additional commercial 
service in support of routine daily living needs.  

4. If you are within ½ mile of over 20,000 square feet of existing commercial, the commercial sf
requirement will be waived

Staff performed an evaluation of this suggestion using GIS mapping technology. Given the location of 
O&I, CB and RB zoning districts in the city and existing developments within those districts, the mapping 
analysis shows that this provision would effectively eliminate virtually all sites in the city from any 
commercial square footage requirement in a CDMU development. A copy of the map is included in the 
PC agenda package. 

Other concerns include the ½‐mile distance as to probabilities for walking and no guarantee of non‐
motorized connectivity between residential and commercial uses. There is also no guarantee of 
satisfying the intent of commercial use proximity to daily needs. An auto dealership, for example, could 
satisfy this requirement but be of no value as to a beneficial mix of services. This provision would enable 
100% multi‐family development, eliminating the inclusion of any commercial uses in a Commercial 
Development Mixed use project. This would also completely eliminate the minimum 5% allowance 
suggested under suggestion 1 above. 

5. Open space 20% max and includes the club/amenity, this would include sidewalks, ponds,
undisturbed areas and buffers. If you are redeveloping a site and reducing impervious surface, this
requirement is waived

A club/amenity is not open space. Sidewalks and retention ponds are considered essential site 
improvements and enable the removal of trees wherever they exist, rather than the retention of useful 
open space. An examination of recent major CDMU developments reveals that rather than leaving 
undisturbed areas, the overwhelming outcome of nearly all was the clearcutting of trees. Buffers, 
including fences, are required elements most often intended to screen incompatible uses at the 
perimeter of a development, rather than serve as useful open space within the development. While 
open space can and does help with the absorption of stormwater runoff, its purpose in primarily 
residential developments is also to provide outdoor space(s) to be enjoyed by the residents.  

6. Commercial SF will not be required to be vertically integrated and can be freestanding.

Staff is concerned that this suggestion is a recipe for commercial strip development—a form a 
development that the Comprehensive Plan strongly discourages. The existing code language, though not 
as clear as it could be, seeks to prohibit strip commercial development.  

7. No density requirement

PH1-16
Unlimited multi‐family density with no open space, maximized essential site improvements, and 
therefore no tree protection and maximum impervious surface area, is the bottom line outcome that 
the current CDMU provision is allowing. The seven suggestions, offer no substantive change to the 
current CDMU provision, and will further facilitate the clearcutting of trees from sites, promote “wall to 
wall” essential site improvements (especially buildings and parking), and result in maximization of 
impervious surfaces. All of these outcomes are enabled by the lack of an open space requirement in the 
three commercial districts in which CDMU is allowed. As a side note, unlimited density as a baseline 
provision, allows no room for incentivizing work force housing, a request that is often heard. The 
modified staff recommendation on density, based on input previously received on affordable housing 
needs, incentivizes the production of workforce housing in exchange for unlimited density. 

PH1-17
PH1-18
Comparison of Multi‐Family Zoning Districts, Multi‐Family Mixed Use (MFMU) and Commercial District Mixed Use (CDMU). 

Multi‐Family Zoning Districts  Mixed Use Development Types 
MF‐
MF‐L  MF‐M  MF‐H  MFMU  CDMU Currently  CDMU Proposed 
MH 
Residential 
Per the underlying  17
Development Density  10  17  25  36  No standard 
MF District  Unlimited if workforce housing is provided
(Units per Acre) 
20% 
 10% if limited road frontage
Percentage 
Permitted by MFMU  No standard  No standard   Reduction for parking under building or
Commercial 
structured parking 
Reduction for commercial type amenities
Scaled based on % residential building sq ft 
Open Space  35%1 35%1 No standard  Up to 50%: No open space required
More than 50%: 20% open space required1
1 dedicated 
 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces See MF standards. ½ 
parking space per 
 2 bedrooms 2 spaces the number required  Scaled based on bedrooms and % 
Parking  residential unit, 
 3+ bedrooms 2.25 spaces must be dedicated to  residential sq ft, plus commercial spaces 
plus commercial 
 Up to 2.5 spaces if justified. residential 
spaces 
Workforce Housing  No standard  No standard  No standard  Incentivized 
1
 After lakes, ponds, streams and marshes have been subtracted. 

PH1-19
PH1-20
Amy W. Bradshaw

From: Jeff Hovis <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 6:34 AM
To: Amy W. Bradshaw
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Item 1: CDMU text amendment

Sent from my iPhone 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: Tim Clinkscales <tclinkscales@paramounte‐eng.com> 
Date: September 1, 2020 at 10:55:31 PM EDT 
To: Tyler Newman <[email protected]>, Richard Collier <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Hovis 
([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>, Ron Woodruff <[email protected]>, "Al Sharp ([email protected])" 
<[email protected]> 
Subject: Planning Commission Item 1: CDMU text amendment 

Members of the planning board, I am reaching out again for the proposed update to the CDMU text 
amendment.  As part of the item being continued, you asked the staff for more clarity on open space, 
the percentage of project being commercial and input from stakeholders and how these changes would 
affect projects moving forward.  As you may or may not be aware, the stakeholders (developers, real 
estate community, and design consultants) had a call with staff a few weeks ago and provided what we 
felt was a reasonable compromise.  I do not believe this updated text amendment addressed your or our 
concerns and actually creates additional ones.   

After reviewing the changes to the text amendment, I was disappointed to not only see that our 
recommendations were not implemented but the proposed amendment is actually more restrictive than 
the one brought in front of you last month.   Rarely when something is continued over certain items, 
does the applicant bring back a proposal that makes these items more restrictive. 

To be honest, the amendment contradicts itself, in some places it seems that open space is the most 
important item and in others, the percentage commercial.  I believe the development community has 
been clear on what changes to the current code will make a project unviable, and on these items it 
seems the staff has decided to double down (commercial percentage remaining at 25%, density reduced 
and open space increased).  If the proposal last month did not effectively kill this type of development, 
then the revisions will.   

With the amendment as presented in its current form, we either ask for a no vote or another month to 
try to address and achieve real compromise.   

Tim Clinkscales PE, PLS 
PARAMOUNTE ENGINEERING, INC
122 Cinema Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
OFFICE: (910) 791-6707
CELL: (910) 520-1991
1
PH1-21
FAX: (910) 791-6760
www.paramounte-eng.com

2
PH1-22
Amy W. Bradshaw

From: Richard Collier <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Amy W. Bradshaw; Brian Chambers
Cc: Bruce Bowman; Jeff Hovis; Al Sharp; Candy Cortes; JC Lyle; Ron Woodruff
Subject: FW: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU

Email I received this morning from Stakeholders related to Item #1 on tomorrow night’s agenda.

Richard

From: Hill Rogers <[email protected]>  
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:49 AM 
To: Richard Collier <[email protected]>; Bruce Bowman <[email protected]> 
Subject: FW: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU

FYI…the development community is fired up on this one.  

Hill Rogers
Cameron Management, Inc.
910‐512‐3263 Mobile
910‐251‐2324 Office
[email protected]

From: Tyler Newman <[email protected]>  
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 9:47 AM 
To: Tim Clinkscales <tclinkscales@paramounte‐eng.com>; Hill Rogers <[email protected]>; Brian Eckel 
<[email protected]>; Rob Bridgers <[email protected]>; David Michael 
<[email protected]>; Dave Spetrino <[email protected]>; Jim Smith 
<[email protected]>; Grayson Powell <[email protected]>; Cody Cress 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mark L. Maynard, Jr <[email protected]>; 
Thomas Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; WCFHBA ‐ E‐Newsletter 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ken Dull <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooke 
<[email protected]>; Pete Avery <[email protected]>; Jim Hundley 
<[email protected]>; Chris Boney <[email protected]>; Allison Engebretson 
<aengebretson@paramounte‐eng.com>; Andrew Smith <[email protected]>; Dan Smith <[email protected]>; 
'[email protected]' <[email protected]>; PJ Kelly <[email protected]>; Matthew Nichols 
<[email protected]>; Dan Fisk <dfisk@paramounte‐eng.com>; Porter Jones <[email protected]> 
Cc: Tim Milam <[email protected]>; Sam Franck <[email protected]>; Jason Swain 
<[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU

I really like the chart‐‐I think that clearly shows how counterproductive this whole process has been. It is very 
clearly NOT looking for a viable solution.
1
PH1-23
Also, since staff has been dragging recent CDMU projects through the mud, I decided to go back and find the 
staff report for one to see if staff had expressed any of these concerns during the approval process. Here's 
Arboretum West from May 2018. 
(https://wilmington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=25&clip_id=4923&meta_id=187315). It had staff 
approval, a 6‐1 vote from Planning Commission and a 7‐0 vote from City Council. Yet here we are 2 years later 
talking about how "problematic" it is and fast tracking ordinance changes to make it nonconforming. 

I am currently working on comments to the City environmental chapter which are due today. I will have a 
formal CDMU letter for Planning Commission by tomorrow which will include Tim's points and some 
information from Grayson Powell about potential projects that are at risk. If anyone has additional thoughts or 
comments, please let me know.

Again, I would encourage you to reach out to Planning Commission members ASAP‐‐especially folks like Chair 
Richard Collier. The list is at the bottom of this page: https://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/departments/planning‐
development‐and‐transportation/boards‐commissions/planning‐commission

Tyler Newman

President & CEO

Business Alliance for a Sound Economy

Wilmington, North Carolina

404‐484‐9045 (c)

From: Tim Clinkscales <tclinkscales@paramounte‐eng.com> 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 10:19 PM 
To: Tyler Newman <[email protected]>; Hill Rogers <[email protected]>; Brian Eckel 
<[email protected]>; Rob Bridgers <[email protected]>; David Michael 
<[email protected]>; Dave Spetrino <[email protected]>; Jim Smith 
<[email protected]>; Grayson Powell <[email protected]>; Cody Cress 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mark L. Maynard, Jr 
<[email protected]>; Thomas Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; WCFHBA ‐ E‐Newsletter <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; Ken Dull <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooke <[email protected]>; 
Pete Avery <[email protected]>; Jim Hundley <[email protected]>; Chris Boney 
<[email protected]>; Allison Engebretson <aengebretson@paramounte‐eng.com>; Andrew Smith 
<[email protected]>; Dan Smith <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 
PJ Kelly <[email protected]>; Matthew Nichols <[email protected]>; Dan Fisk <dfisk@paramounte‐
eng.com>; Porter Jones <[email protected]> 
Cc: Tim Milam <[email protected]>; Sam Franck <[email protected]>; Jason Swain 
<[email protected]> 
Subject: RE: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU

2
PH1-24
To all

We have talked around the office and think the best way to present is via a chart and bullet points

August Staff 
By‐Right Zoning (Commercial) By‐Right CDMU Recommended Text Amendment

Open Space % 0 0 17.50%
Density N/A No Cap 24 units/acre
Commercial % N/A Not defined 25%
Parking N/A 1 per unit to 2.5 per unit

The bullet points are the following:

1. Staff was asked by planning commission about % of commercial, members of the commission asked for 5% as
the number, the updated proposal does not lower the % of commercial
2. Staff was asked to talk to stakeholders on the proposed changes by the commission, meeting took place and
proposal provided by stakeholders
a. Stakeholders proposal had higher % of open space than initial text amendment
b. Placed the 5% on the commercial percentage
3. After meeting with stakeholders and August Planning commission meeting, staff increased open space and did
not reduce commercial percentage, more restrictive than original proposal
4. The staff added parking requirement, this will increase impervious and make it difficult to meet open space and
parking requirement
5. Staff decreased the density from 24 units/acre to 17 units/acre

Tyler/Cameron, on the points above, think you should send such if you are in agreement, we can tweak, but will have 
more power on your end, I think we need to answer the questions below and all bombard the boxes of all the planning 
board members and ask Glenn why did he not listen to their concerns and actually make the provisions more 
restrictive.  Please take my grammar as 10 pm writing.  Contact with questions and good night 

Glenn on the response from our proposal on open space, he stated sidewalks and retention ponds are essential, …, 
retention of open space.  For zoning districts that require open space, ponds that are amentized are considered, why 
should this be any different.
On our response for density, he said would facilitate clear cutting, so my question, that affordable housing and greater 
than 50% commercial clear cutting is fine.  So our proposal sets the minimum at 20%, with the tradeoff of unlimited 
density.  
The staff report is contradicting, so in one place, we need open space, next we want commercial, one place with no 
open space.  
The staff provision for increasing the parking requirements only increases impervious and tree removal

The text amendment has verbiage where it contradicts, how can something be approved that says 25% minimum 
commercial but has a sliding scale for open space based on less than that amount.  

It is also to note that lawyer said any changes to the proposal would need to be taken back up by the staff, therefore, if 
the planning board does not like these changes then should have to fix over the next month.  We need to continue to try 
to postpone and get what we want or have the planning commission vote against if that would do anything.

3
PH1-25
Tim Clinkscales PE, PLS
PARAMOUNTE ENGINEERING, INC
122 Cinema Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
OFFICE: (910) 791-6707
CELL: (910) 520-1991
FAX: (910) 791-6760
www.paramounte-eng.com

From: Tyler Newman <[email protected]>  
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:12 PM 
To: Tim Clinkscales <tclinkscales@paramounte‐eng.com>; Hill Rogers <[email protected]>; Brian Eckel 
<[email protected]>; Rob Bridgers <[email protected]>; David Michael 
<[email protected]>; Dave Spetrino <[email protected]>; Jim Smith 
<[email protected]>; Grayson Powell <[email protected]>; Cody Cress 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mark L. Maynard, Jr <[email protected]>; 
Thomas Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; WCFHBA ‐ E‐Newsletter 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ken Dull <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooke 
<[email protected]>; Pete Avery <[email protected]>; Jim Hundley 
<[email protected]>; Chris Boney <[email protected]>; Allison Engebretson 
<aengebretson@paramounte‐eng.com> 
Cc: Tim Milam <[email protected]>; Sam Franck <[email protected]>; Jason Swain 
<[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU

1) Staff's analysis of our recommendation:
"Staff’s overall  conclusion is that these suggestions, when taken together, would not correct current deficienci
es in the
CDMU. While staff believes the suggestions were put forth in good faith, we find that upon examination,  they
would make matters worse relative to tree protection, impervious surface area and the balancing  of residenti
al and non‐residential uses."

2) With regard to our request for additional conversation, I got the following email yesterday at 2PM:

Afternoon Tyler,

With the September agenda deadline fast approaching, I have been focused on fully evaluating input from last 
Monday’s meeting as well as other stakeholder input, and formulating a modified draft. I am advised that all 
agenda item packages will be available on‐line tomorrow, Thursday, where you will also find the modified 
CDMU package.

Best,

Glenn

4
PH1-26
Tyler Newman

President & CEO

Business Alliance for a Sound Economy

Wilmington, North Carolina

404‐484‐9045 (c)

From: Tim Clinkscales <tclinkscales@paramounte‐eng.com> 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:05 PM 
To: Tyler Newman <[email protected]>; Hill Rogers <[email protected]>; Brian Eckel 
<[email protected]>; Rob Bridgers <[email protected]>; David Michael 
<[email protected]>; Dave Spetrino <[email protected]>; Jim Smith 
<[email protected]>; Grayson Powell <[email protected]>; Cody Cress 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mark L. Maynard, Jr 
<[email protected]>; Thomas Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; WCFHBA ‐ E‐Newsletter <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; Ken Dull <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooke <[email protected]>; 
Pete Avery <[email protected]>; Jim Hundley <[email protected]>; Chris Boney 
<[email protected]>; Allison Engebretson <aengebretson@paramounte‐eng.com> 
Cc: Tim Milam <[email protected]>; Sam Franck <[email protected]>; Jason Swain 
<[email protected]> 
Subject: RE: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU

Tyler

Has Glenn or Ron stated why none of our suggestions were implemented.  If not, my belief is that everyone should let 
the boards know that seems like no intention of the staff to work with the stakeholders on this.  Also any response from 
your email last Thursday for another talk

Tim Clinkscales PE, PLS
PARAMOUNTE ENGINEERING, INC
122 Cinema Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
OFFICE: (910) 791-6707
CELL: (910) 520-1991
FAX: (910) 791-6760
www.paramounte-eng.com

5
PH1-27
From: Tyler Newman <[email protected]>  
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 10:39 AM 
To: Hill Rogers <[email protected]>; Brian Eckel <[email protected]>; Rob Bridgers 
<[email protected]>; David Michael <[email protected]>; Dave Spetrino 
<[email protected]>; Jim Smith <[email protected]>; Grayson Powell 
<[email protected]>; Cody Cress <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mark 
L. Maynard, Jr <[email protected]>; Tim Clinkscales <tclinkscales@paramounte‐eng.com>; Thomas Davis 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; WCFHBA ‐ E‐Newsletter <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]; Ken Dull <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooke <[email protected]>; Pete 
Avery <[email protected]>; Jim Hundley <[email protected]>; Chris Boney 
<[email protected]> 
Cc: Tim Milam <[email protected]>; Sam Franck <[email protected]>; Jason Swain 
<[email protected]> 
Subject: UPDATE: "revised" CDMU
 
City Planning staff has released the revised CDMU regulations. The full document can be found at the link 
below. In that document you can find the new language...as well as a point‐by‐point rebuttal of all the 
suggestions we offered to the City previously (page 13). 
 
In summary, the revised proposed amendment would do the following:  

· Require open space on a sliding scale, determined by the percentage of residential building square footage in
the development;

· Require dedicated parking for residential units on a sliding scale, determined by the percentage of residential
building square footage in the development; (NEW)

· Establish a minimum amount of nonresidential development, as measured by building square footage, of

25%, with credit given to reduce this amount when brick and mortar amenities are open to the general public, as
well as residents of the CDMU development;

· Establish a base density of 17 units per acre, with unlimited density available with the inclusion of work force
housing units in the development

· Prohibit single-family detached housing (to date, no CDMU development has included single-family
development).
 
This item will be the first item discussed at the City's Planning Commission meeting next Wednesday at 6PM. I 
would strongly encourage individual outreach to Planning Commission members and members of City 
Council. 
 
The question that hasn't been answered is this: how many projects will be impacted/nonconforming once the 
City makes this change? Since the City appears bound and determined to make these changes, they should at 
least attempt to quantify the impacts on property owners City‐wide. 
 
https://wilmington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=19&event_id=4094&meta_id=215672 
 

Tyler Newman

6
PH1-28
President & CEO

Business Alliance for a Sound Economy

Wilmington, North Carolina

404-484-9045 (c)

Disclaimer

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient
should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

7
PH1-29
* Full Name
Monte Wagner

* Full Address
620 Woodland Forest Court
Wilmington NC 28403
USA

Email
[email protected]

* Select the item you're commenting on here

Land Development Code Amendment: Prescribed conditions for CDMU, Commercial District Mixed-use (LDC-4-820).

* Leave your comment here

Mr Bowman's comments regarding the economics of development with the proposed changes is the absolute truth. The proposed language that staff has put forth
exemplifies their complete lack of understanding of what actually goes into a development. The reality is that these projects are driven by the market and the economics of
such and most particularly costs and returns involved to make these projects viable. The proposed language will stop multifamily development in Wilmington for two
reasons: 1) The commercial requirement is not viable in an already saturated commercial market especially considering the effects of COVID-19 on the real estate industry
and 2) Most of the multifamily land has been developed already and what has not is so restricted by open space requirements that with land and construction costs it makes
no financial sense to move forward. As a result, multifamily development will stop in Wilmington. This will drive the cost of current apartment units to prices such as Raleigh
and Charlotte markets and will make Wilmington even more unaffordable for the very people who need these housing options most, REAL WILMINGTONIANS! Glenn tried to
make the point that we are not a small town anymore and that Wilmington is comparable to Charlotte and Raleigh. This could not be more erroneously stated or incorrect.
Median incomes in Wilmington do not support changes and the resulting effects that are being made by city staff. We hear constant talk of affordable housing but
uninformed changes such as these will further erode affordable housing in the City of Wilmington. While staff might think they are helping and their ideas may in fact come
from a good place. They have no concept of market realities, economics or the negative effects of their decisions today that will impact Wilmington for years.

PH1-30
Page | 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 2, 2020

1. Land Development Code Amendment: Amend City Code Chapter 18, Section 18-257.
CDMU, Commercial District Mixed-use prescribed conditions for CDMU projects in the
O&I-1, CB, and RB districts. Glenn Harbeck, Director of Planning, Development and
Transportation (LDC-4-820).
Mr. Harbeck provided a presentation/update on this item, which was continued from
the August meeting in order to solicit additional stakeholder input, conduct further research and
provide additional information to the commission. He said that staff spoke with a variety of
stakeholders and that this presentation incorporated many different perspectives on the issue
as well as the additional information requested by the commission. He gave a brief overview of
how the amendment was developed and reiterated that the intent of the CDMU is to allow for
balanced, mixed use development in three of the city’s commercial zoning districts, rather than
the near 100% multi-family development that is resulting currently. He added that several
smaller projects in the city have been approved and are in some stage of design or construction.
He assured commissioners that the amendment would not affect any projects, large or small,
currently in various stages of development.
Mr. Harbeck outlined the objectives of the amendment which included:
 Meeting the original purpose of a balanced mixed-use development;
 Providing for some open space;
 Reducing extensive clearcutting; and
 Reducing extensive impervious surface areas.

He said that based on input since the last commission meeting, two new objectives were
added:
 To provide options and choices to developers, with graduated standards tied to
those choices; and
 To incentivize workforce housing.

The proposed changes include open space standards that would scale requirements
based on the residential proportion of the development. He explained that more open space is
required with an increased proportion of residential square footage. This concept would also
apply to parking; the greater the residential proportion of the development, the more parking
spaces required. Mr. Harbeck added that the number of parking spaces for commercial uses
would be provided as required by the code as well.
Mr. Harbeck said that the base density was previously set at 24 units per acre. He said in
the new proposal, it is recommended that the base density be set at 17 units per acre. This is
the same density as the city’s MF-M zoning district. However, if a developer was willing to
provide 10% of the total number of units as workforce housing, they would receive an incentive
in the way of unlimited density. The workforce housing would be required for 10 years.
Mr. Harbeck explained that some city council members requested that the
recommended 25% of commercial use not be changed. However, some amenities would be
given credit as commercial uses, such as fitness centers, which are located and accessible to

1
PH1-31
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 2, 2020

non-resident customers for a fee. He noted that leasing offices for the apartments would not be
considered commercial.
Mr. Harbeck reviewed the city’s current open space standards (35% of the land acreage
after ponds and wetlands have been omitted) but reminded the commission that credit for open
space would not be given on landscape improvements that are required by the code. He said
that the proposed Land Development Code (LDC) includes a recommendation of greater than or
equal to 20% of the size of the tract, also after ponds and wetlands have been omitted, with
minimum dimensions of 10 feet.
Mr. Harbeck provided a chart, which was requested by Commissioner Sharp, illustrating
the number of units allowed in the CDMU and comparing it to the number of units allowed in
the city’s multi-family (MF) zoning districts.
Commissioner Sharp explained that the chart ultimately shows the greater number of
residential units approved using CDMU zoning rather than MF zoning. He pointed out that it
supports the loophole of a potential misuse of the CDMU to circumvent the open space
requirements of a multi-family use.
Commissioner Bowman asked why more residential units would be a bad thing and
expressed concern about the 25% commercial requirement. He commented that the proposed
percentage of commercial would only be feasible on small projects. He pointed out that it would
not be economical on larger projects based on the way buildings are constructed and the cost of
building materials for commercial uses. He suggested that the commercial aspect have a sliding
scale similar to the one proposed for open space and parking. He reiterated that 25%
commercial is an unreasonably large ratio.
Mr. Harbeck responded with examples of Mayfaire and other developments to show
these types of mixed-use developments cab be done and may continue to be expected.
Chairman Collier opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak in person,
Chairman Collier read into the record all written comments submitted in advance of the
meeting.
Mr. Tim Clinkscales wrote in opposition to the amendment with concerns regarding the
percentage of required commercial use.
Mr. Tyler Newman wrote in opposition to the amendment stating that the
recommendations from the development community were not considered.
Everyone being given the opportunity to be heard, both in-person and through the
reading of the written comments, Chairman Collier closed the public comment section of the
hearing.
Mr. Harbeck responded to public comment by saying that staff did review and take into
consideration each of the seven recommendations provided by representatives of the
development community. However, staff came to some different conclusions.
Commissioner Woodruff asked if the intention of the amendment is to stop this type of
development. He expressed concern that this would be result of the amendment as written.

2
PH1-32
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 2, 2020

Commissioner Bowman pointed out that there is a cost associated with building vertical
mixed-use use structures. He reiterated that the proposed percentage of commercial is not
economically feasible for large developments and that the commercial percentages should be
considered on a sliding scale based on frontage.
Commissioner Lyle expressed concern that with the increased cost associated with 25%
commercial would lead to more expensive residential housing in order to make up the
difference. She said that the incentives on the open space and workforce housing are
appreciated and needed as well as housing near services. She also expressed support for the
use, and commented that it is beneficial in some areas.
Vice-Chairman Hovis asked about the height limits in the various zones. Staff responded
with the following:
 Community Business (CB): 45 feet;
 Office & Industrial (O&I): 45 feet by-right with the option for 75 feet with a special
use permit; and
 Residential Business (RB): 96 feet.

Vice-Chairman Hovis confirmed with staff that residential could be above commercial
with no restrictions. He also asked if workforce housing could be a trade-off for a lower
commercial requirements and whether the city could get involved with providing and
maintaining open space for these types of developments.
Commissioner Sharp said that exploring options other than a 25% commercial use
requirement could be beneficial; but expressed concern that is does not undercut the multi-
family use standards.
Chairman Collier asked staff about its biggest concern with the UMX use: commercial
percentage or open space. Mr. Harbeck answered that in his opinion, City Council was most
concerned with including a requirement for open space to avoid clear cutting trees from buffer
to buffer.
Commissioner Sharp asked if vertical commercial was an option and about a formula to
allow developers to meet the criteria better. Commissioner Bowman responded that although
this is an option, it’s generally difficult to lease a second floor commercial space due to it not
being visible to pedestrians.
Commissioner Bowman made a motion to continue this item to October 7th to allow for
staff to review the use of a sliding scale to determine percentage amounts for commercial
use. Commissioner Lyle seconded the motion.
Chairman Collier and Mr. Harbeck reminded the Commission regarding the importance
of advancing this item, rather than continuing it. Chairman Collier questioned if a continuance
would provide any additional information since it has been determined that the issues are open
space and the percentage of commercial within the development.
There was a discussion about the procedures for the amendment to move forward and
whether the Planning Commission could recommend an alternative amendment. According to

3
PH1-33
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 2, 2020

Attorney Evans, that was an option and City Council could accept the recommendation or alter it
as they see fit.
Chairman Collier answered Commissioner Sharp’s question about projects that might be
submitted within the next 30 days, stating that until City Council approved the amendment, any
submissions would fall under the existing regulations.
After additional discussion Commissioner Bowman withdrew his motion to continue the
item and made an alternative motion to approve the amendment as written with the following
revisions:
 Parking under the building or in parking structures would be considered towards the
commercial requirement up to a maximum of 50% of the total commercial
component requirement.
 For parcels with a total perimeter less than or equal to 25% frontage on an arterial
corridor, the commercial requirement be less than 10%
 For parcels with a total perimeter of more than 25% frontage on an arterial corridor,
the commercial requirement could be a minimum of 20% commercial.
 To reduce the open space requirement to 20% from the 25%.

Commissioner Sharp seconded the motion. Vice-Chairman Hovis read the consistency
statement.
The motion to approve with the revisions stated carried 6-1. Commissioner Cortes
voted “nay”.

4
PH1-34