|
|
Draft: Subject to Change
Planning Commission and City Council of New Castle Public Hearing to Discuss Changes to Section 230 of New Castle’s Zoning Regulations City Council Members in Attendance: Councilpersons Joseph DiAngelo, Somasunderam Padmalingam, Donald Reese. Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Chairperson James Steele and Members Mary Davis, George Freebery, Richard Mendelsohn, Teel Petty, Thomas Wilson Others Present: Jacquelyn Seneschal, AICP, of KCI Technologies Please note: The recommended zoning changes were either read or explained at the meeting. These zoning changes are summarized to permit interested parties to more easily consult the appropriate sections in the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Discussions concerning these changes are reported in some detail. Chairperson James Steele of the Planning Commission convened a public hearing at 6:00 PM to discuss recommended changes to the New Castle zoning code. The changes are part of the plan developed by Kise, Straw, and Kolonder, hired two years ago to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan of 1968. Chairperson Steele explained that the changes to be discussed focus mainly on regulations concerning home occupations and development in industrial areas. The plan was last changed on July 29, 2004. Jacquelyn Seneschal identified the salient points of the changes. She noted that the revision procedure had begun in February 2004 and that the Planning Commission had spent a great deal of time determining the recommended changes. She reported that Charles Cobb’s comprehensive review of the ordinance yielded a significant number of items to be deleted or amended. (The final section of the comprehensive plan has already been approved.) The copy distributed at the hearing was a partial copy of the complete ordinance; however, a complete copy is available at the Administrative Office for anyone wishing to peruse it. Ms. Seneschal then began a point-by-point discussion of the zoning recommendations. She noted that underlined areas identify changes and that crossed out areas identify deletions. She first defined the terms as explained in Section 230-1 of the ordinance. Section 230-1 Definitions Councilperson DiAngelo asked if businesses are permitted in residential areas. He learned that businesses are permitted in 25% of a home in a residential area if the business is:
In addition, the residential character of the residence must be maintained, the business can employ no more than one person, and it must not generate an inordinate amount of traffic. Councilperson DiAngelo asked if a renter could open a business and learned that a renter could open a business with the owner’s permission. She said that art studios, dressmaker establishments, and professional offices are permitted if occupied by the practitioner. Beauty parlors, physicians and dental offices, automotive repair and maintenance businesses, and restaurants are not permitted. Councilperson Padmalingam asked about the restrictions on physicians’ offices. He disclosed that having his physician’s office and his residence in the same house makes it affordable to practice here, thus providing an incentive to move here. He asked if a grandfather clause in the code will affect his business. Ms. Seneschal replied that another section of the ordinance covers do’s and don’t related to his business and that it contains fewer restrictions on doctors and dentists than the existing code. Councilperson DiAngelo asked why barbers and beauticians are not allowed in residential areas. He noted that some barbers and beauticians have been operating in residential areas without causing problems. He recommended making their operations legal. Chairperson Steele said that a person who has four or five clients a day probably doesn’t create a problem, but approving them could open the door to businesses that have 15 or 20. Councilperson Reese suggested limiting the approval to owners only. Teel Petty cited a Wilmington News Journal article concerning the hazards of beauty parlor chemicals. Ms. Seneschal asked if the Municipal Services Commission has a pretreatment program covering the discharge of chemicals into the sewer system. Councilperson DiAngelo revealed that this is a County issue and that he sees nothing wrong with owner-operated beauty parlors in residential sections. Mr. Wilson opposes permitting beauty parlors. He pointed out that an owner could extend operations with harmful effects. He questions whether or not the City could stop such an expansion. Mr. Freebery noted that the State Board of Cosmetology regulates beauty and barbershops. Ms. Petty noted that presently residential shops do not control or the use or disposal of chemicals in a prescribed manner. Mr. Steele noted that beauty parlor chemicals are as toxic as car chemicals, and that both go into the sewer system. He also noted that some beauty parlor owners do not have a license and do not observe relevant laws. Because they aren’t inspected, they could cause disease. Councilperson DiAngelo noted that the proscription against residential beauty and barbershops will be difficult to enforce and that they will probably continue. Mr. Wilson noted that including the restriction in the ordinance will make it easier to enforce. Mr. Freebery suggested that a person should be able to repair only his/her own vehicle(s) at his/her residence, but that in New Castle someone repairs up to 50 vehicles a week. Tom Wilson noted that the problem is not an ordinance issue, that existing rules cover the situation and that the City should enforce those rules. Councilperson DiAngelo agreed that such practices should be stopped. Lots Ms. Seneschal noted that the existing ordinance does not address the lots issue. She then discussed several new sections concerning lot consolidation, nonconforming lots, non-conforming structures, shared parking and shared parking agreement. See the attached zoning amendments. She noted that the existing ordinance does not address the lots issue. Collector Streets Ms. Seneschal listed the streets that collect traffic “from local streets and connect with minor and major arterials.” The list’s comprehensiveness was questioned and discussed near the end of the meeting. Councilperson Reese noted that there is no collector street for Van Dyke Village. Ms. Seneschal noted that if the street collects traffic from Van Dyke Village, it is a collector street. She also revealed that when streets selected as collector streets are those that collect traffic from more than one street. Councilperson DiAngelo disclosed that although Eleventh Street is listed as a collector street, there are Eleventh Streets in the City, Washington Park, and Shaw Town. Councilperson DiAngelo noted that there is no corner house on Fourteenth Street??. Mr. Wilson noted that there is a corner there. Councilperson DiAngelo asked why Eight Street is not a collector street. Ms. Seneschal explained that any street that intersects with Delaware Street can be a collector street. Mr. Wilson observed that unless Fourteenth Street is a collector street, there can’t be a commercial business there. Councilperson DiAngelo noted that Washington Street has little cxommercial business. Mary Davis asked if the purpose of having shops is to provide amenities for residents. Ms. Senescahal reminded that the point is to control the kinds and locations of businesses. Councilperson Reese observed that the City had 56 stores in the past. Councilperson DiAngelo said that there were ten stores on Ninth Street alone. Section 230-9 230-9 Non-Conforming Structures Ms. Seneschal noted that the revised ordinance allows more generous use of non-conforming buildings. Briefly stated, the revised Section 230-9 allows:
Section 230-18 Residential District R3 Section 230-18 regulates multifamily units. Ms. Seneschal noted that the changes to multifamily units “come straight out of the master plan recommendations.” She noted that the Planning Commission plans to review rules for all multifamily residences and that new construction must precisely echo plans approved by the Commission. Mr. Green said the newcomers must conform to the now code. Chairperson Steele noted that, for example, if the Trustees decide to construct a strip mall, Section 230-18 R3 guidelines will forbid an unsuitable construction. Ms. Seneschal reviewed the following requirements for multifamily units:
Sections 230-17.B, 23—18B, and 230-19B Corner Stores Ms. Seneschal remarked that this section is a significant departure from the existing ordinance. It returns the City to an earlier time when corner stores were permitted. The code defines corner stores as “limited neighborhood retail establishments serving primarily a pedestrian trade” and then explained the conditions. If the corner store concept succeeds, it could be expanded. The conditions are similar to Residential/Commercial regulations. Section 230-21 Retail Commercial (RC) This section establishes RC design standards. Ms. Seneschal noted that the language in Section 230-21 reinforces the language in the master plan and that many concepts discussed in the planning stage were only incorporated in the latest version. This section establishes design standards for RC buildings. They cover:
Councilperson DiAngelo noted that the required changes to the shopping center will require extensive work and money. He doesn’t see the logic of putting a red light on Harmony Street that will impact Fifth and Sixth Streets. He also expressed the opinion that Route 273 should be widened. Ms. Seneschal disclosed that the Department of Transportation would decide plans for Route 273 and that it is expected to be in the pipeline. Ms. Davis advised against having a public hearing and advised contacting Nathan Hayward directly. Ms. Seneschal recommended sending a letter to DelDOT even if no public hearing occurs. Councilperson DiAngelo said that Route 9 should also be widened. Ms. Seneschal again recommended contacting DelDOT often. Councilperson Padmalingam said there will be a hearing with DelDOT in two months concerning connecting Route 273 with Route 13. He believes that Route 273 should be four lanes, not three, and that three or four years is too long to wait to widen Route 273. Chairperson Steele explained that work on Sixth Street and Chestnut is expected to begin in 2007. Mr. Mendelsohn expressed the opinion that they should be connected. Section 230-22 Service Commercial (SC) The description of mixed use buildings primarily concerns first floor retail, personal services, or offices, with apartments or condominiums on subsequent floors. Front-yard setbacks cover:
Section 230-23 Light Industrial, Office District, LIO This section, which supplements Section 230-23B, establishes LIO requirements for open space and maximum net floor area. Section 230-24 Industrial Office Park, IOP This section, which supplements Section 230-23B, establishes IOP requirements for open space and the maximum net floor area. Section 230-25 Industrial District 1. This section, which supplements Section 230-23B, establishes open space and the maximum net floor area for required for Industrial District 1. Section 230-28 Supplemental District Regulations This section defines parking requirements for every new nonresidential and mixed-use development. Some requirements include provisions for screening parking areas from a public street. Approved screening includes solid brick walls and steel ornamental or evergreen fences. The Planning Commission and the Historic Commission will approve the fences. The Commission can reduce or rescind the requirement if necessary, for example, if rescinding the requirement will save a big tree. The Section also requires that loading and business areas must have auditory and visual screening. Councilperson Reese noted that some cities require 1½ spaces for each residence. Ms. Seneschal noted that it is not unusual to require two parking spaces. Councilperson DiAngelo noted that 1½ spaces does not make sense in a City where most dwellings have at least two cars. He suggested changing the requirement to two parking spaces. Mr. Mendelsohn noted that every resident will eventually require a parking permit. Ms. Seneschal asked if the City Council wanted to delay submitting the ordinance for approval to discuss the issue. Councilman DiAngelo advised against it. Councilperson Reese agreed with him. Ms. Seneschal agreed with the two-spaces requirement. Section 230-37 Signs This section defines the kinds of signs permitted in the City. Section 230-46 Site Plan Requirements Section 230-48 covers the requirements for applying for a building permit or a certificate of zoning compliance Section 230-48 Construction, Use and Arrangement Restricted Section 230-48 identifies the organizations responsible for approving building permits, certificates of zoning compliance, and historic review certificates. These include the Planning Commission, the Historic Area Commission, and the administrative official. The Planning Commission has authority over all construction in the City. Councilperson asked if the Planning Commission and the Historic Commission had been added to the ordinance. Mr. Freebery said that it had been. Councilperson DiAngelo also asked about a house on Third Street that does not conform to existing regulations. Ms. Seneschal replied that the zoning changes will ensure that only houses approved by the permit officer can be built. Miscellaneous Chairperson Steele reported that he met with Jeff Bergstrom about the parking lot on Third Street and that the City will retain the contractor’s $10,000 surety bond because the parking lot and other things are not finished. Councilperson DiAngelo asked if the parking lot on Third Street will stay a parking lot and learned that it would. Councilperson Padmalingam asked about Section 230-46, specifically about rezoning existing property. Ms. Seneschal advised him that to get a zoning change requires acquiring an ordinance change from the City. A new building requires a permit. Ms. Seneschal reported that she will make the suggested changes to the zoning code before the public hearing. She will also write a letter to DelDOT about Route 9 lanes. Chairperson Stele noted that suggestions for zoning changes have been considered since November 2003. They were first presented in February 2004. He reminded that the changes are designed to improve the City for everyone, not just a few, and that the changes will “make a big difference in the City.” He observed that no major changes were proposed at the current meeting. Meeting Adjourned Chairperson Steele adjourned the meeting at 7:29 PM. After the meeting was adjourned, Councilperson Reese suggested consulting the mayor about nominations to the Planning Commission. Mr. Freebery and Chairperson Steele suggested Charles Cobb. Councilperson DiAngelo promised to submit some names. Respectfully submitted Darcy Mozer |
