Wilmington Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - November 20, 2024
Wilmington Design Adjustment Committee Meeting
Date: November 20, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m. (called to order at 1:32 p.m.) – 3:38 p.m.
Location: City Council Chambers, Skyline Center, Wilmington, NC
The Design Adjustment Committee (DAC) considered three requests for waivers from the city's Technical Standards and Specifications Manual (TSSM). All three items were approved unanimously (5-0) after deliberation and public testimony. The meeting began with approval of the October minutes, then proceeded to agenda item 2 (due to a delay for item 1), followed by items 1 and 3.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes – October 16, 2024: Moved by Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz, seconded by Chairman Gordon. Approved 4-0 (Member Henley abstained, having not been present at the September meeting).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 2 (6430 & 6436 Head Road): Two residents spoke in opposition:
- Laura Head Lambert (6432 Head Road) argued the existing 10–11 ft wide easement is insufficient, fences prevent passing, and the proposed pull-offs are inadequate for emergency vehicles or trailers. She stated the applicant was told in 1998 that a fourth house would require widening and paving.
- Rob McEachern emphasized safety risks for emergency vehicles on the narrow, curved, and fenced road, noting that three homes already cause frequent conflicts.
- Item 1 (901 S. Front St.): Scott Anderson, owner of adjacent property, expressed concerns about increased on-street parking on Dawson and 2nd Streets, stating the area is already heavily parked.
- Item 3 (802 N. 23rd St.): No public comments.
Discussion Items
1. 901 S. Front St. – Two Design Adjustments for a 10‑Unit Townhome Development
- Applicant: Jimmy Fentress (Stroud Engineering), representing Cape Fear Solar.
- Proposal: Construct 10 townhomes on a 2.6‑acre parcel (zoned UMX). Five shared driveways (each serving two units) proposed along Dawson Street.
- Staff Presentation: Patrick O’Mahony summarized two waivers:
- Driveway Offset: City requires 26 ft from intersection; proposed 13 ft.
- Driveway Taper: City requires 5‑ft taper; proposed none (slab driveway design).
- Applicant Justification: Site constraints due to maximum 10‑ft setback requirement; shared driveways minimize number of curb cuts; slab design matches existing neighborhood; garages provide off‑street parking for two vehicles per unit.
- Committee Discussion: Concerns about sightlines and safety were eased because 2nd Street has a stop condition and Dawson Street is wide (37 ft). The reduction in taper allows for better municipal service access (trash/recycling).
2. 6430 & 6436 Head Road – Two Design Adjustments for a Single‑Family Lot
- Applicant: Cindee Wolf (Lobo del Mar), representing JMG Stem Trust.
- Proposal: Construct one new single‑family dwelling on either of two vacant lots (total 1.21 acres, zoned R‑20(L)) using an existing non‑conforming private access easement.
- Staff Presentation: Zac Smith detailed two waivers:
- Non‑standard cross‑section: Required 34‑ft easement width (proposed 11 ft) and 20‑ft paved surface (proposed 10 ft with 16‑ft gravel turnouts at two locations).
- Maximum length: Required 400 ft; proposed 1,115 ft.
- Applicant Justification: Easement predates city annexation; fences installed by neighbors restrict width; proposed gravel widening and a city‑standard turnaround will improve safety; only one additional dwelling unit.
- Committee Discussion: Members weighed the existing constraints (fences, limited width) against the benefit of one unit. A condition was added that the applicant clear underbrush and trees from the easement. The motion included both waivers.
3. 802 N. 23rd Street – Three Design Adjustments for a Commercial Parking Expansion
- Applicant: Jeremy Blair (Paramounte Engineering), representing Merit House (warehouse/distribution).
- Proposal: Add parking to a 13.06‑acre site (zoned LI) with existing warehouse. Parking at front and rear, accessed via existing driveway on N. 23rd St.
- Staff Presentation: Patrick O’Mahony summarized three waivers:
- Driveway Property Line Offset: Required >75 ft; proposed 28.6 ft (existing driveway location).
- Private Driveway Length: Max 500 ft; proposed 1,375 ft (extension of existing).
- Parking Lot Turning Radius: Required 25 ft; proposed 15 ft (front parking area).
- Applicant Justification: Site geometry and operational needs (truck traffic) necessitate the deviations; the front parking area serves only passenger vehicles; DOT review will address driveway design.
- Committee Discussion: Members noted the site is in pre‑TRC stage and that DOT approval would be required. Concerns about parking count were addressed with assurance that minimum/maximum will be met. The long driveway extension was deemed acceptable because it includes an adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1 – 901 S. Front St.: Both waivers approved 5‑0.
- Waiver 1 (driveway offset to 13 ft) – motion by Vice‑Chair Vielkanowitz, seconded by Chairman Gordon.
- Waiver 2 (no driveway taper) – motion by Chairman Gordon, seconded by Member Henley.
- Item 2 – 6430 & 6436 Head Road: Both waivers approved 5‑0 as a combined motion by Chairman Gordon, seconded by Member Seidel.
- Condition: Applicant must provide gravel widening at two locations (16 ft wide, approx. 30 ft long), a city‑standard gravel turnaround, and clear the easement of underbrush and trees, subject to engineering and zoning review.
- Item 3 – 802 N. 23rd St.: All three waivers approved 5‑0.
- Waiver 1 (driveway offset) – motion by Chairman Gordon, seconded by Member Henley, conditioned on DOT review and approval.
- Waiver 2 (driveway length) – motion by Vice‑Chair Vielkanowitz, seconded by Member Coleman.
- Waiver 3 (turning radius) – motion by Chairman Gordon, seconded by Member Henley.
- Next Meeting: The December meeting will be moved up one week to Wednesday, December 11, 2024, at City Council chambers in Thalian Hall.
Meeting Transcript
Call the uh meeting of the design adjustment committee 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 specifications manual, building design and material standards, and subdivision standards. The design adjustment 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 committee decisions are to superior court. The parties of 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 a 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 on 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 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 the oath for all individuals who intend to provide witness testimony. Applicants and then publicists this afternoon or may speak this afternoon. All of you stand up. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? First item on the agenda is approval of the October minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes? And if so, do we have a motion? Motion to approve the minutes. I will second that. All in favor of approval of the minutes say aye. Aye. Opposed. Um, I believe we have a delay. Um, the applicant is delayed on the on the first item. So we are going to skip ahead to the second item on the agenda, which is uh 6430 and 6436 head road. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. The site includes 0.5.071 acres and is located within the R20 presidential legacy district. The applicant proposes a new single family dwelling unit along an existing non-conforming private access easement. Proposed dwelling units will be the fourth dwelling units utilized the private access easement for the access easement. It's not meet certain standards. That says following relief with ethical standards and specifications. Private access us require width of 32 feet. The easement is 10 feet at its narrowest point and relations request. Private access easements require a pavement width of 20 feet. The maximum length of private accessment is 400 feet to the furthest unit in the public street. The length of private access us from head road to the subject property is roughly 1,115 feet. The applicant has provided justifications for the request on that. This proposal includes trends wide and the 16 feet three locations. These are some photos of the existing site provided by the applicant where they're proposing to absorb gravel for client. That's another picture. I haven't answered any questions about things here. Yeah, I have one question. Um there were two turnarounds per they I think they indicated that the it's for access to a single parcel.
openpublica.com