The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place
on July 25, 2005 at 6 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town
Hall.
Members Present: James Steele, Chairman
Thomas Wilson
Richard Mendelsohn
George Freebery
Dr. John Norsworthy
Members Absent: Mary Davis
Jane Miller
Elliott Tatum
Staff Present: Jackie Seneschal
Chairman Steele called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
Minutes -- Chairman Steele advised that language on page 8 stating
that the subdivision of 219 East 2nd Street was being tabled until
next month should be corrected. He said that counsel advised it wasn’t
tabled; rather we sent a letter to City Council with no recommendation
for this property. Ms. Seneschal has a copy of that letter.
Correspondence – Chairman Steele received a letter from DelDOT
informing the Governor and General Assembly have pledged to fix the
problem of ____________ in the fiscal year.
Mr. Swanson provided us with a copy of a letter from Mr. Al _________,
City of ___________ soliciting comments on the Pennsylvania Storage
Tank and Spill Prevention Action Notice. The City of New Castle has
sulfuric acid and propane comes through on a daily basis via rail.
Mr. Swanson and the Chief of Police are requesting any ideas we have
be given to them. (Brief discussion about Delaware’s code and
that the City should have a copy of this code on file.)
The Mid-Atlantic Pedestrian Safety Forum will be held at the University
of Delaware on September 7th. If any Commission member is interested
we will get you enrolled.
Minor Sub-Division 79-81 & 83 W. 5th Street into 4 Lots –
This has been tabled by the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Steele spoke
with Mr. Barthel today. His latest set of drawings haven’t gone
to HAC yet. This issue will remain tabled.
SR 9 Planning Review for DELDOT – This review stems from the
April workshop at Saint Peter’s. They are looking for recommendations
or ideas the Planning Commission has on the project. Ms. Steinbeck
of DelDOT would like something formal from the Planning Commission.
Everyone has been provided with a copy of the questions.
How do you think the two-lane corridor concept addresses these issues?
How do you think the four-lane corridor concept addresses these issues?
(Discussion about the flow of traffic in the City, the proposed roundabout,
traffic signals, effect on businesses, crosswalks, and railroad traffic
took place.) Ms. Seneschal will prepare the response to DelDOT for
the Chair’s approval. Councilman DiMondi informed that if the
City rejects DelDOT’s concepts, we will lose the funding. This
project is slated to begin next year.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2005
Page 2
Mr. Wilson suggested routing through the area near the Wm. Penn football
field or the high school. There is ample open space. This suggestion
will be added to our response. He added another concern from the owners
of the Ice Cream Coral that four lanes would destroy their parking
lot. A solution is if something could be worked out with the Trustees
towards the Dialysis Building for safer access and egress. This could
be part of the recommendations. The Planning Commission’s preference
is a four-lane corridor concept. Ms. Seneschal will suggest an alternative
solution to go ahead and build the four-lanes and put sidewalks in
and stripe it for two lanes until they do the extension. They want
to do it in sections. This way we get the improvements in the intersection
and the sidewalks where we want them to be, but they stripe it for
two lanes until they have some place to put the traffic on the other
side of the railroad tracks. Concern was expressed about no shoulder
space between the railroad tracks and the 141 intersection. We should
look at the safety aspect with the volume of traffic coming through
New Castle. The whole area needs to be widened from the railroad tracks
to the Farmer’s Market. (A discussion about railroad traffic
took place.)
What is your preference (traffic signal or roundabout) at Harmony
Street? The Chair will inform that a traffic signal is the Planning
Commission’s preference.
Are there aspects of the corridor that deserve more examination? The
Chair’s response is that safety is the main priority. Ms. Seneschal
suggested including better signage to make it easier for those not
familiar with New Castle to get where they want to go. Also, how do
the plans for the intersection and Harmony Street impact the existing
one-way system throughout the City and how does it affect traffic
patterns in the City. Dr. Norsworthy inquired whether traffic studies
have been done. The Chair informed studies have been done by DelDOT.
The Chair asked whether the Trustees have received a response from
Dover on the PLUS process for the St. Francis property? Mr. Wilson
replied they have not. Ms. Seneschal informed they will only look
at where the edge of the right-of-way has to be and where your entrances
have to be.
(Lengthy discussion concerning traffic flow within the City took place.)
Mr. Wilson suggested inviting local representatives to a future meeting.
The Chair would like to submit our comments to DelDOT first. Mr. Wilson
suggested telling them (DelDOT) we don’t understand what either
concept will accomplish. Ms. Seneschal suggested telling DelDOT all
the problems that are created with either concept. The Chair informed
that when the Comprehensive Plan questionnaire was sent out to determine
what the people want to see done first, the majority wanted to correct
the situation at the ferry cut-off and 6th Street. Mr. Wilson further
suggested we should request a light at 6th and Chestnut now.
Ms. Seneschal will include in our response that removal of traffic
is our first choice.
Comprehensive Plan Review – Ms. Seneschal asked if the City
still has a Parking Commission. The feeling was that it was a temporary
group. Parking in downtown New Castle comes from four sources: visitors
coming to Battery Park, visitors coming here for special festival
days, commercial redevelopment in the downtown area including some
limited residential uses associated with those commercial redevelopments,
and residential infill in the historic area. The City center is the
ideal place to park if you are trying to reach Battery Park or the
historic area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2005
Page 3Most people will walk about 1,000 feet in a nice pedestrian
environment. The central part of New Castle accommodates the park
user, the downtown center resident, visitors to historic sites and
people coming to patronize businesses. According to the Comprehensive
Plan there are parking problems outside this area also. Washington
Park and Van Dyke Village were cited. The City increased the parking
requirement for new residential uses from one space to two spaces
per unit. The Historic Preservation Commission and residents of the
historical area have objected to additions of paved areas and new
parking within the historic area.
The Chair informed a letter was sent to Council dated 4/28/05 recommending
a parking lot task force. This hasn’t been activated to date.
Ms. Seneschal added that the Transportation Plan, the Comprehensive
Plan and the Planning Commission have recommended a variety of alternatives
since 1999. Very few have been implemented because of financial issues
or objections from residents. (Requirements concerning other jurisdictions
that have parking issues such as New Castle were covered.)
Consistent recommendations include residential parking permits, two-hour
parking limits if you don’t have a residential parking permit
and improvements to existing parking lots to maximize the number of
cars in those lots and signage telling people where they can park.
Mr. Wilson asked why you would put a parking lot anywhere other than
downtown if you don’t have transportation?
Ms. Seneschal said the Transportation Plan suggested extending Battery
Park to areas of the City where you might have additional parking
available and a trail parking facility south of Dobbinsville. The
Chair said he spoke with the people in Dobbinsville. If you had a
parking area at the second bend you could start there. Mr. Wilson
expressed concern about people needing transportation into the City
from that location. Ms. Seneschal said for event days there are other
recommendations such as where the senior center is located parking
would be available. They also suggested at the Third Street turnaround
paving the area on the west side of the right-of-way and putting a
grass parking area in with protective barriers that can be removed
when you don’t have special events.
Councilman DiMondi questioned building a parking lot for out-of-town
visitors. He doesn’t want to inconvenience the citizens.
Mr. Mendelsohn said the business climate in New Castle is bad. We
don’t have any B&B’s because they have to have off-street
parking. Having a parking lot would enhance business. We have the
4th and Chestnut parking lot approved. Signage is needed there. Councilman
DiMondi agreed with the 4th and Chestnut location. He objects to a
Dobbinsville location.
Mr. Mendelsohn said plans are needed and no one has provided funds
to have the plans drawn up. Ms. Seneschal said there was a concept
plan prepared for 4th and Chestnut. The minutes of the City Council
meeting that evening indicated that Mr. Martin showed the concept
of the plan facility and its landscaping and said only the paved area
would be the parking area; the grassy area would be landscaped. Having
a plan would allow us to move forward to get financing, bids, etc.
(Discussion about expenses involved with creating a parking facility
took place.)
Mr. Wilson would like to see more thought put on downtown parking.
He doesn’t feel as though the 4th and Chestnut parking facility
would be a wise investment.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2005
Page 4Mr. Mendelsohn said we might be able to get some outside financing
that wouldn’t cost the City anything.
Mr. Wilson asked how we would keep the area from becoming a place
for broken down vehicles or abandoned vehicles.
Mr. Mendelsohn said signs would be posted.
Ms. Senescal said you need to pass ordinances to make it legal, but
you can bid out to a towing company and give them instructions on
managing vehicles in the lot after hours.
Councilman DiMondi suggested going to the Building Department and
get a plot plan of 4th and Chestnut and get an estimate. He added
that an estimate will be needed before coming before Council.
Mr. Wilson said there are plot plans, drawings, everything for that
property because there has been much debate between the Trustees and
the City. He said the Trustees has a copy and will get same.
Ms. Susan Keyser (audience) suggested that if something has been approved
it should be made known to the public. Information such as the size
of the facility, the number of spaces.
Mr. Mendelsohn added that before this was done there was a hearing
in New Castle and was posted in advance. No one came to the Council
in opposition to the plan. We need to get the plan to the City Engineer.
Ms. Keyser said it is important to get the plan that was approved
by Council and move forward with that plan.
The Chair will look into the parking lot plan and bring it up next
month and continue on.
Mr. Wilson recommended that Mr. Mendelsohn be our representative to
the parking task force. Mr. Mendelsohn accepted.
Adjournment – Mr. Wilson made a motion to adjourn the meeting;
Mr. Mendelsohn seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50
p.m.
Back to Index
