Wilmington Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - November 21, 2023
Wilmington Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - November 21, 2023
The Design Adjustment Committee of the City of Wilmington held a public meeting on November 21, 2023, at 7:15 p.m. in City Council Chambers. The committee considered a single new business item: a request for design adjustments at 4201 Maple Avenue to construct a non-standard minor street. After discussion and public comments, the applicant requested a continuance to the December 13, 2023 meeting, which the committee approved unanimously.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of the minutes from the October 18, 2023 meeting was moved by Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz, seconded by Captain Elrod, and carried unanimously (5-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- John Thuerson (1030 43rd Street) spoke in support of the roadway but expressed concerns about drainage, potential spot zoning, and requested no curb/gutter and pervious concrete. He also highlighted an unmaintained retention pond and suggested creative access alternatives from Wrightsville Avenue.
- Adam Rogers (1034 43rd Street) expressed concerns about spot zoning and flooding impacts from the new road.
- Alvin Rogers (corner of 43rd and Wrightsville) voiced concerns about existing drainage issues, noting that ditches became ineffective after road widening, and questioned how future density would affect the road standard.
- Robert Gaddy (across 43rd Street) echoed drainage concerns and noted confusion between city and state responsibility for ditch maintenance.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Patrick O’Mahony summarized the request for five design adjustments from city technical standards, including relief for minimum tangent length, roadway radius, residential driveway apron, and a non-standard minor street cross-section (16-foot pavement width at pinch point, no sidewalks, inverse crown, 33-foot existing right-of-way vs. 40-foot standard). The site is 0.33 acres, zoned R-10 (medium-density single-dwelling), currently vacant, with frontage on an unimproved 33-foot public right-of-way along Maple Avenue.
- Applicant Presentation: Luke Menius of Stroud Engineering explained that adjustments were driven by a desire to preserve a 22-inch multi-stemmed laurel oak. He noted pre-TRC coordination with fire and utilities, and that the inverse crown and header curb would minimize tree and drainage impacts. He confirmed that the road could serve future parcels along Maple Avenue.
- Committee Deliberation: Members discussed the balance between tree preservation and public safety/connectivity. Concerns were raised about the 16-foot pinch point for emergency vehicle clearance (fire truck roof clearance), lack of sidewalks (especially with potential future development), and whether one tree justified waiving multiple standards. Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz noted that alley standards might be more appropriate but are only allowed in certain areas. Ms. Bonevac cited the comprehensive plan’s preference for sidewalks and connectivity. Mr. Vandermeyden questioned the tree’s long-term survival given utility and construction impacts. Chairman Gordon stated that sidewalk on at least one side and a header curb are warranted, and that the tree should not dictate removal of essential features.
- Public Comments on Design: During the public hearing, additional testimony focused on drainage inadequacies and fears of high-density development. Staff clarified that formal TRC review (not yet completed) would address drainage details. The applicant offered to upsize drainage pipes if the city later improves 43rd Street.
Key Outcomes
- Continuance Approved: On a motion by Chairman Gordon, seconded by Ms. Bonevac, the committee voted unanimously (5-0) to continue the item to the December 13, 2023 meeting at the applicant’s request. The applicant needed time to discuss committee concerns (potential removal of the oak tree, requirement for at least one sidewalk, and a 20-foot pavement width) with the property owner.
- No other items were considered; the meeting adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Sorry, get used to this mic here. We're gonna call the committee meeting to order. Um before we get started, I have to read an introduction. 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 specification manual. The committee does not consider housing type, cost of the proposed unit, occupants, building material, unit size, number of bedrooms, or the architectural design of the structures. These hearings are quasi judicial evidentiary hearings. That means it's like a court hearing, and the committee's decisions are constrained by the standards in the ordinance and based upon the facts presented. All variance requests require a four-fifths vote of the committee to grant the variance. Appeals of the design adjustment committee decisions are to superior court. 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, a close relationship with an 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 committee members may ask questions. The applicant may present additional information about the project, and members may ask questions. If anyone wishes to provide evidence at today's hearing, witnesses must sign in the clipboard at the front of the room and be sworn in. Because witnesses are to provide sworn testimony, please focus on the facts and 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 the oath for all individuals who intend to provide witness testimony. If I could have all staff applicants and members of the public who may wish to this afternoon, 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. First item agenda is approval of the minutes from October the 18th meeting. If so, any uh any discussion or motion. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor of approval of the minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. First item on the agenda, or the only item on the agenda is 4201 Maple Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the DAC. Um, as of cases for uh 4201 4201 Maple Avenue. Um the property itself contains approximately 0.33 acres. Um there is the uh proposed construction of a cross section and improvements within the Maple Avenue right-of-way. Um the property itself is zoned R10, medium density residential. Uh it's currently vacant. Uh the applicant has proposed uh a number of adjustments uh from the technical standards uh for the proposed uh improvements within Maple Avenue, which is shown on your screen. Uh these are the relief from the minimum tangent length for a roadway, the relief from the minimum standards for a roadway radius, relief from the minimum standards for residential driveways, and really from the minimum standards for a minor street. Uh the site uh 4201 may along this unimproved uh portion of Maple Avenue, which is a public right of way. Um this is unimproved and it's 33 feet wide. Um, the proposal includes the construction of a minor street with a non-standard cross section to provide access to 4201 Maple Avenue from 43rd Street. Um the requested adjustments are listed in the case summary. Um I'll just briefly cover them. Um the first uh request, the relief and maximum length of a private driveway, um, the minimum requirement being 100 feet, uh the uh second request being the uh radius of a roadway, um that minimum requirement being 35 feet, um the third request, um the minimum standard for a residential driveway, um, the applicant's proposing a non standard um driveway connection, which I believe is a previous uh technical standard. Um then finally the non-standard cross section includes um about five uh separate items that we've broken down in the case summary, um the requirement for sidewalks um being five feet wide along both sides of the street, a uh minimum 20 feet uh of pavement width, um, the typical crown cross slope, um, the right-of-way itself uh being 40 feet wide, it's currently 33 feet wide, um, and then the pavement offset within the right-of-way is proposed as well. So I've got those listed in the case summary. Um if the DAC elects to approve um these adjustments, um staff has recommended the following conditions um listed in the case summary, um fairly standard conditions there on page five of your case summary. Um that concludes my presentation. I'd like to enter this case summary into the record.
openpublica.com