Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - February 15, 2023: Wilmington Transload Facility Approvals
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - February 15, 2023
The Design Adjustment Committee of Wilmington held a public meeting on Wednesday, February 15, 2023 (starting at 1:30 p.m. per minutes, though the agenda listed 1:15 p.m.) to consider three adjustment requests from the city's technical standards for the proposed Wilmington Transload Facility at 187 Raleigh Street. The applicant, SPH-Wilmington, LLC, seeks to build a 151,200-square-foot transload facility on an approximately 42.25-acre parcel zoned IND (General Industry). All three adjustment requests were approved 5-0 with conditions.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes Approval (January 18, 2023): Approved 5-0 after an amendment to clarify that access to the Age property would be limited to emergency vehicles, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority vehicles, and residents of the Age property.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the requests. The public comment period was opened and closed without testimony.
Discussion Items
1. Wilmington Transload Facility – Adjustment Requests
Senior Planner Brian Chambers presented the three waivers:
- Waiver 1 – Maximum Private Drive Length (500 ft): Proposed driveway exceeds 500 ft. Approved due to site constraints (large parcel, extensive wetlands) and adequate on-site connectivity.
- Waiver 2 – Maximum Driveway Width (62 ft at edge of roadway, 50 ft at property line): Proposed widths of 145/114 ft (River Road/Raleigh Street) at curb line and 50/65 ft at property line. Approved with conditions: (a) applicant must provide truck turning movement diagrams to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to verify no conflicts, (b) TRC may modify driveway width by up to 10% to resolve conflicts, (c) sidewalks at each driveway must be placed at the narrowest point, requiring easement if necessary.
- Waiver 3 – Minimum Driveway Property Line Offset (75 ft): Proposed 70 ft offset (River Road driveway) due to encroaching wetlands. Approved with condition that vertical sight distance along River Road be reviewed and approved by TRC.
Key Discussion Points:
- Traffic and Turning Movements: Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz raised concerns about trucks crossing the centerline on River Road and the lack of diagrams showing simultaneous left/right turns. Applicant experts (Chris Hayes, Port City Logistics; Justin Zuidema, Alliance Consulting) explained that peak truck traffic is 11 trucks per hour maximum, and operations are coordinated with the port. Gates on both driveways will be open during business hours, with a guard at the Raleigh Street gate who can remotely open the River Road gate.
- Wetland Constraints: The site contains significant wetlands that limit driveway placement, justifying the reduced offset (Waiver 3).
- Emergency Vehicle Access: Chairman Gordon confirmed that a gravel driveway and bulb at loading docks allow emergency vehicle turnaround and circulation.
- Ex Parte Communication: Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz disclosed a brief conversation with the applicant about the DAC process and TRC comments, but not the specifics of the waivers. The applicant's attorney expressed no objection, and the committee agreed he could remain impartial.
Key Outcomes
- All three adjustment requests were approved 5-0 (unanimous).
- Motion 1 (driveway length): Motion by Ms. Bonevac, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Approved 5-0.
- Motion 2 (driveway width): Motion by Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz with two conditions (turning movement review and sidewalk placement), seconded by Mr. Gordon. Amendment by Mr. Gordon to allow TRC to modify width up to 10% was accepted. Approved 5-0.
- Motion 3 (property line offset): Motion by Chairman Gordon with condition (vertical sight distance check by TRC), seconded by Captain Elrod. Approved 5-0.
- The meeting adjourned at 2:31 p.m.
- The next regular Design Adjustment Committee meeting is scheduled for March 15, 2023.
Meeting Transcript
Oh they could work to have one. Yeah, we can get break out of that. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, we don't want to work. Call the design adjustment committee meeting to order. I have an introduction to read before we get started. The design adjustment committee's purpose is to establish clear and measurable review criteria for the consideration of major deviations from the city's technical standards and specifications manual. The parties in these cases are entitled to an impartial board. If a board member has a fixed opinion on the matter, a financial interest in the outcome, or 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. Do you swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from January. Mr. Chair. Yep. Um I would like to make or propose a slight umendment to the minutes. Page four, which is under item uh one, the Havenet Galleria. The fifth waiver at the bottom of that page on page four. Uh we had some discussions at the last meeting about providing access uh for emergency vehicles and CFUA vehicles to the H property, which is not entirely captured in in the minutes. And I just worried that you know when this goes back to TRC that they don't have that clarity. So I just wanted to modify that to state uh that an additional condition that would provide adequate access for emergency and CFPA vehicles to public infrastructure at the H property. Okay. Changes have been noted with that adjustment. Um do I have a motion? So moved. Second. I'll make second. Um all in favor say aye of approval of the minutes with that with that with that adjustment. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. First item is of the adjustment for the Wilmington Transload facility. Brian, do you have a Mr. Chair? Before the city makes their presentation, um Dennis called me yesterday and and let me know that he he did have a brief conversation with um the applicant, but before he recognized that there was a potential you know, variance involved. Um we talked through it. Um it's not my opinion that matters. I didn't I really didn't think it rose to the level of a of a conflict, but I just asked that he disclose that to the board, which is required in our rules. Um, I've also had a brief um conversation about that with the applicant's attorney. But um if it's determined by by the board that there is a conflict, his um backup is here so that we can have a full uh a full five-person um committee. But um, I I would just ask that he disclose what what that was, and then if the applicant wishes to speak on that, they they certainly can. Thank you, Sean. Um applicant called me Monday afternoon or Monday morning, I'm sorry, um, with some questions about the site plan that may have revolved around some comments I made on the site plan for TRC purposes. Um we did not speak about those specifications at all. Um I said I need to reach out to legal um see if I I should be speaking to you about this anyway. Um he called back later in the afternoon with some general questions about the DAC process, if they get approval and do something of a lesser extent, would they have to go back through the process? I provided my opinion was that they probably would not, but to reach out to Brian Chambers um if there were any additional if he if he wanted some more clarity on the DAC process. So I don't think we spoke about any we didn't speak about anything specific to the waivers or the site plan.
openpublica.com