Design Adjustment Committee Meeting – March 19, 2025
Design Adjustment Committee Meeting – March 19, 2025
The Design Adjustment Committee of the City of Wilmington held a public meeting on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. (adjourned at 2:21 p.m.) at Thalian Hall (though the agenda listed Council Chambers in the Skyline Center). The committee considered two design adjustment requests from the applicant John Tunstall for the Haven at Galleria residential project at 6750 & 6802 Wrightsville Avenue. Both requests sought relief from the required 10-foot non-municipal utility easement along Steadman Street.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dan Kohler (3742 Pergola Terrace, adjoining neighborhood) asked for clarification that the variance only affected the proposed development and utilities would not be impacted; after confirmation that Steadman Street is public, he expressed that the variance seemed reasonable.
- Tony Carter (1637 Arle Forest Court, representing St. Matthew AME Church) expressed concern about repeated variance requests, stating that approved designs should meet standards and that continual changes set a problematic precedent. He later raised concerns that eliminating the easement could affect utility access to the adjacent “Age” property, owned by an elderly resident.
Discussion Items
Haven at Galleria – Two Requests for Non-Municipal Utility Easement Relief Staff Planner Zac Smith presented the case: the 17.54-acre site (zoned UMX) had received prior preliminary subdivision approval in 2020 and a modification in 2023. The applicant now requested two adjustments:
- Complete elimination of the 10-foot non-municipal easement along a 227-foot segment on the west side of Steadman Street (station 0+48 to 2+27).
- Reduction of the easement from 10 feet to 6.19 feet along a separate segment on the north side of Steadman Street (near Galleria Boulevard).
Applicant John Tunstall explained that the changes resulted from final design of Parcel B, including a building shift and addition of a pool house, which encroached into the originally approved easement. He stated that all dry utility providers (Duke Energy, gas, fiber, telecom) had been consulted and the electrical line would be placed underground within the public right-of-way in a conduit. No sewer lines were planned in the affected segments.
Committee members questioned the applicant about design alternatives, including shifting the road to preserve the full easement. Tunstall responded that due to limited utilities needed (only one electrical conduit), the reduced easement was sufficient and road relocation was not considered. Discussion also covered existing utilities to adjacent properties, including the “Age” property, which staff noted is served by water and has access via the public right-of-way.
Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz expressed that eliminating the easement entirely placed an undue burden on the public right-of-way and limited future flexibility, while the reduction to 6.19 feet was more acceptable given the lack of sewer in that area.
Key Outcomes
- Request 1 – Eliminate the 10-foot easement (to 0 feet): Denied (motion by Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz, seconded by Chairman Gordon; vote 5–0). The committee found that further site design revisions could accommodate the 10-foot requirement, noting that the applicant had already received a waiver on one side and eliminating both sides was excessive.
- Request 2 – Reduce the 10-foot easement to 6.19 feet: Approved (motion by Mr. Seidel, seconded by Mr. Coleman; vote 5–0). The committee noted the absence of sewer in that area and that the remaining utilities could fit within the reduced easement.
- Preliminary Plan Approval: Approved (motion by Chairman Gordon, seconded by Vice-Chair Vielkanowitz; vote 5–0) with the condition that the plan must still comply with the standard 10-foot easement on the western portion (the denied elimination) unless future relief is granted.
Meeting Transcript
We'll call the meeting of the design adjustment committee to order. Um, before we get started, I have an introduction to read. 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, building design, 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 they're like a court hearing, and the committee's decisions are constrained by the standards in the ordinance and based upon the facts presented. All variances 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 on the clipboard at the back 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. If I could have all staff, applicants, and members of the public, anybody who wishes to be speaking this afternoon, please stand up and raise your right hand. You must be sworn in in order to speak. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. The first item on the agenda is approval of the February 19th minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes? And if so, are there any comments or a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor of approval of the minutes say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. The first and only item on the agenda today is the Haven at Galleria. Is there a staff presentation? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This is evidentiary hearing number one, located at 6750 and 6802 Riceville Avenue. The site contains 17.54 acres and is located within an existing UMX urban mixed use district. The site is located along Ricewell Avenue and contains the Haven at Galleria, a mixed use project. On September 16th, 2020, the subdivision review board approved a preliminary plan for a three-lock commercial subdivision that included the construction of private streets and utility extensions. The approved waivers for this approval are listed in your case summary for reference. On January 18th, 2023, the design adjustment committee, acting as a subdivision review board, approved a modification to the approved preliminary plan to adjust the street layout and modify the street cross sections. These approved waivers are also listed in your case summary for reference. The applicant is requesting relief from the minimum standards for a non-municipal easement. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the non-municipal easement along a portion of Studman Street of the Studman Street right of way. The technical standards and specification manual specifies that a non-municipal utility easement of 10 feet and width shall be provided on both sides of all public streets and alleys. The applicant has provide a justification for the request on attachment three of your package. The applicant is also proposing to reduce the width of the non-municipal easement to 6.19 feet along a separate portion of the Stadman Street right of way. This concludes staff's presentation. I'd like my case summary to be entered into the record. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. And the applicant is here as well. I have a question.
openpublica.com