Design Adjustment Committee Special Meeting - July 27, 2022: The Avenue Waivers and Preliminary Plan Approval
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Design Adjustment Committee Special Meeting - July 27, 2022: The Avenue Waivers and Preliminary Plan Approval
The Wilmington Design Adjustment Committee held a special meeting on Wednesday, July 27, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. (called to order at 1:32 p.m.) in City Council Chambers, Skyline Center. The meeting was adjourned at 4:04 p.m. The sole agenda item was a request from Paramounte Engineering, LLC on behalf of The Avenue, a large-scale mixed-use development at 349 Military Cutoff Road. The applicant sought 13 design waivers from the city's technical standards to accommodate a dense, pedestrian-oriented layout. After extensive discussion, the committee conditionally approved 11 waivers, the applicant withdrew one, and the preliminary plan was conditionally approved 5-0. The project includes 525 apartment units, a 247-room hotel, 131,700 sq ft of office, 115,000 sq ft of retail, and 16,000 sq ft of restaurant space on a 44.5-acre site zoned UMX(CD).
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke. The evidentiary hearing was opened and closed with no speakers.
Discussion Items
- Project Overview: Senior Planner Brian Chambers summarized the request for preliminary plan approval and design adjustments. The applicant, Rob Balland (PE, Paramounte Engineering), and landscape architect Mike Nichols presented the project. The development will include private streets, utility extensions, and off-site road improvements (new traffic signals, turn lanes, and a three-lane cross-section on Station Road).
- Waiver Requests (13 total): The committee discussed each waiver individually. Key concerns included:
- Block length / intersection offsets (Waivers #1 & #2): The proposed block lengths (centerline-to-centerline about 175 ft) are significantly less than the 400-ft standard. Committee members (especially Mr. Cramer) argued that such short blocks create conflicting turning movements, limited queuing space, and potential pedestrian safety issues. The applicant argued that Road C and Road D function as back-of-house alleys, not primary streets, and that the design meets the UMX district intent of a compact, walkable grid. After debate, Chairman Gordon moved to conditionally approve both waivers upon eliminating the right-of-way for Road C (making it a private access/driveway) and requiring TRC review of vehicle and pedestrian circulation. The motion carried 4-1 (Mr. Cramer opposed).
- Non-municipal easements (Waiver #3): Relief from 10-ft non-municipal easements. CFPUA (Mr. McSmith) expressed concern about utility conflicts. The committee conditionally approved, requiring the applicant to provide a detailed utility layout to TRC and resolve conflicts there. Motion carried 5-0.
- Non-standard right-of-way widths (Waiver #4) and street cross-sections (Waivers #5, #9, #11, #12): Approved because the design includes on-street parking, landscaping, medians, and traffic calming. Conditions included no on-street parking over public utility easements. All carried 5-0.
- Tangent lengths and curve radii (Waivers #6, #7, #8): Approved due to site constraints, with conditions requiring auto-turn analysis for fire apparatus and delivery vehicles at TRC. All carried 5-0 (Waiver #6 seconded by Mr. Cramer).
- Cul-de-sac and drop-off area (Waiver #10): Withdrawn by the applicant after it was clarified that the drop-off area is not within a right-of-way.
- Alley F cross-section (Waiver #13): Approved because the alley is designed for minimal vehicular use (removable bollards, pedestrian promenade). Motion carried 5-0.
- Emergency Access: Captain Elrod expressed concerns about maneuverability for fire apparatus in tight spaces, but noted that the TRC process would address these issues.
- Preliminary Plan Approval: Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz moved to approve the preliminary plan with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the waiver conditions. The motion was seconded and carried 5-0.
Key Outcomes
- Waiver #1 (offset same side): Conditionally approved 4-1 (Mr. Cramer opposed). Condition: eliminate right-of-way for Road C; TRC to review circulation.
- Waiver #2 (offset opposite sides): Conditionally approved 4-1 (Mr. Cramer opposed). Same conditions as #1.
- Waiver #3 (non-municipal easements): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: applicant to provide utility layout to TRC and resolve conflicts.
- Waiver #4 (non-standard ROW widths on Street A): Approved 5-0.
- Waiver #5 (non-standard cross-section on Street B): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: no on-street parking over utility easements.
- Waiver #6 (minimum tangent lengths): Approved 5-0.
- Waiver #7 (centerline curve radii): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: auto-turn analysis for fire apparatus.
- Waiver #8 (median width on collector): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: demonstrate adequate maneuverability for fire and delivery vehicles.
- Waiver #9 (non-standard cross-section on Street C): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: no on-street parking over utility easements.
- Waiver #10 (non-standard cul-de-sac bulb): Withdrawn by applicant.
- Waiver #11 (non-standard cross-section on Street D): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: no on-street parking over utility easements.
- Waiver #12 (non-standard cross-section on Street E): Conditionally approved 5-0. Condition: no on-street parking over utility easements.
- Waiver #13 (non-standard cross-section on Alley F): Approved 5-0.
- Preliminary Plan: Conditionally approved 5-0, incorporating all conditions from the staff report and waiver approvals.
- Next Steps: The project will proceed to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for detailed review of emergency access, turning movements, utility conflicts, and other technical components.
Meeting Transcript
So I know you don't like batch approvals. But there's a lot of same things about these. I mean there's thirteen different variances, I think, to go through each one of the thirteen of them. You know, it was gonna be very, very challenging to go through each and every one of them. So my issue really is if you if you put them together, it is gonna be the same vote. You know, for all of them, like if there's a difference between D, E, and F, or even C for that matter, I give this like the same request. You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, if it if if through discussion, it's clear that everybody's in shape or I'm on the way up with the same justification, same adjustment by rationality. Okay, that's why. I'm fine with that, but I mean, like if I'm just using that example. Just for a different intersection, same analysis. These hearings are quasi judicial evidentiary hearings. That means it's like a court hearing, and the committee's decisions are constrained by this by the standards in the ordinance and based on the facts presented. All variance requests require a four-fifths vote of the committee to grant the variance. Appeals of the design adjustment committee are to the board of adjustment. A written notice of appeal must be filed with the city clerk within thirty days of the design adjustment committee's decision. Appeals are set for hearing before the board of adjustment within thirty days or as soon thereafter as practicable. If a board member has a fixed opinion on the matter, a financial interest in the outcome, a close relationship with the affected person, or has had any ex parte communication about the matter, please disclose that information to determine if a recusal is necessary. City staff will introduce the proposed project to the committee, and the committee members may ask questions. The applicant may present additional information about the project, and the members may ask questions. If anyone wishes to provide evidence at today's hearing, witnesses must sign in on the clipboard and be sworn in. Because witnesses are to provide sworn testimony. Please focus on the facts and the standards, not personal preference or opinion. When a witness comes forward to give testimony, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record and speak clearly. At this time, staff will administer oath to all individuals who intend to provide witness testimony. If I could have all staff applicants and members of the public who wish to speak to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. This is a special meeting of the committee, so there's no other business items. Um and we will jump right into agenda item one for the avenue. The staff has a presentation afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Uh the item on your agenda today is for 349 military cutoff road. This is a preliminary plan. They're seeking preliminary plan approval and design adjustments for a large scale mixed use development, which will include the construction of private streets and utility extensions. The site includes approximately 44.5 acres of land and is currently zoned UMX CD, which is an urban mixed use conditional district. The existing conditional district includes 525 apartment units, 247 room hotel, 131,000 uh square feet of office space, 115,000 square feet of retail, and 16,000 square feet of restaurant space. The project requires a number of of road improvements to the adjacent network, including but not limited to to a two new traffic signal and medium break on military cutoff road. A new travel lane and turn lanes on military cutoff road and a new three-lane cross section on station road at the eastern approach to military cutoff road. A driveway connection is also being provided to the south to Old McCumber Station Road. The site has access to water and sewer mains located along military cutoff and along the rear of the site. The applicant is requesting a number of waivers, and I'll go through these. Relief from the 10-foot non-municipal easements along proposed rights way within the project. Allow for a non-standard right-of-way width on street A, allow for a non-standard street cross section on Street B. It would be requesting a reduction in the medium tangent length between horizontal curves, reduction in the minimum standard center line, curve radii for local streets, reduction in the minimum width of a median on a collector street. They would like for an allowance for non-standard street cross-section on street C, allowance for a non-standard cul-de-sac bulb and drop off area on Street C, and then non-standard street cross sections for streets D and E and a non-standard cross section for alley F. That's all staff has prepared right now. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them, and the applicant is available for questions as well.
openpublica.com