DRAFT
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting
took place on August 22, 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
Jane Miller
Dr. John Norsworthy*
Members Absent: Mary Davis
Elliott Tatum
Staff Present: Jackie Seneschal
Chairman Steele called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
Minutes -- Copies of the July minutes will be distributed to all members
for review and will be voted on at the next meeting.
The Chair informed that the last item on tonight’s agenda concerning
the minor sub-division of 79-81 and 83 W. 5th Street is being discussed
first.
Minor Sub-Division 79-81 & 83 W. 5th Street into 4 Lots –
Carmen Casper, civil engineer, said they had their second visit to
HAC for the set backs last Thursday (8/11/05) because of the non-granting
of the off-street parking variance we were seeking. In order to get
the off-street parking we had to adjust our setbacks. Formerly there
was 9 feet then we tried to get no onsite parking and that was denied
except for the existing house. In order to accommodate the off-street
parking we had to move the buildings 11 feet off the line and also
provide off-street parking in a different position for lot #4 because
HAC didn’t want so many driveways coming off South Street. HAC
recommended we come off 5th Street with off-street parking. In order
not to limit the size of that house they granted the lesser setback
and the Town consultant recommended there be no fences put down the
line so the doors wouldn’t have any problems with the lesser
setbacks. There were four different motions approved at that meeting,
two related to the parking. They also moved that if we needed steps
they would approve them on the front of the house that encroachs the
City right-of-way. They also would not count decks as encroaching
into the required rear yard. There is an ordinance that may do away
with off-street parking in the historic district and we would like
an opinion on what happens if that ordinance gets passed. (According
to the Chair, this will be discussed under another agenda item this
evening.) The Chair asked if they would keep the setback from Mr.
Evans’ property. Mr. Barthel said, ‘yes.’ Mr. Casper
asked that if the ordinance passes before he gets to construction,
would there be a problem? Commission members did not feel there would
be any problem. (Discussion about the project and the off-street parking
ordinance took place among Commission members and the audience.) Ms.
Miller moved to table the issue until we talk about what we will recommend
to Council about off-street parking. The Chair suggested discussing
the Comprehensive Plan before voting on the sub-division.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 2
SR 9 Comments to DelDOT – Everyone has a copy of our comments
on SR 9. The Chair informed there has been no response to date. Ms.
Seneschal informed that projects in New Castle, with the exception
of improvements along River Road, had been removed from the 2006 Transportation
Program. The Route 9 improvements in New Castle along with the bicycle/pedestrian
improvements have been put on hold. Ms. Miller questioned the development
south of the City causing traffic problems. Can a moratorium on development
be put in place until we see how it will impact traffic? Ms. Seneschal
said local governments usually have jurisdiction over development.
The Chair reiterated to everyone that the Planning Commission is not
happy with DelDOT’s plans and would like to meet with them again
to discuss SR 9 and 273. Mr. Evans said there have been instances
where the DelDOT has stopped development because it put so much traffic
on the road that it couldn’t be handled safely or adequately.
He suggested following up on the matter. A member of the audience
said that Charles Baker in the Land Use Department for New Castle
County is in charge of the program and concerns should be directed
to him. The Chair said they will try to contact Mr. Baker.
Comprehensive Plan Review on Sec. 230-28 – The Chair reported
that a letter from Councilman DiMondi informing that a motion had
been unanimously passed by Council at their special meeting on 7/28/05
for us to modify Section 230-28 as it relates to new and existing
constructions, enlargements, alterations, change or use, off-street
parking. This is to be able to react to situations more readily that
affect quality of life issues surrounding this issue. The key points
of this modification are to change it from being “required”
off-street to “recommended” thus making it reviewable
and subject to Council’s pleasure. Second, a determining factor
in reversing the recommendation would be the availability of off-street
parking at the property. This would negate any negative effect of
the neighborhood. A professional traffic study if offered by either
party would take precedence if a dispute arose. Neighborhood concerns
or effect on quality of life issues would factor in on a decision
to override recommendations. If and when a dispute arose from the
recommendations out of any City Commission involving this modified
ordinance it would be reviewable and subject to City Council’s
pleasure.
The Chair read an excerpt from another letter from Councilman DiMondi
stating the reason for this motion is the result of what he perceives
as unreasonable and non-responsive directive to neighborhood concerns
in that the requirement in our present zoning code that all new construction
in the historic district is subject to off-street parking ordinance
directives. He charged the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation
to modify this requirement subject to underlying parameters. To take
into account after an application from the property owner for an exception
to this requirement these variables: impact and quality of life issues
on the neighborhood and adjoining properties; availability of on-street
parking which would negate any negative impact on others in the property’s
area. He is requesting we define building classifications that pertain
to this modification: R1, R2, Historical Residential, Historic Commercial
and minor sub-divisions. Despite clarification by the City Planner
he feels the issue of off-street parking pertaining to existing residents
should be formally clarified classifying every dwelling without off-street
parking as non-conforming. Zoning classifications that can be modified
under this directive he believes because of limited authoritative
powers vested in the Planning Commission only the historic zoning
classifications can be effected by this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 3modification, historic residential. Historic Area Commission
recommends carrying authoritative powers only reviewable and subject
to change by Council. As such this becomes a simple modification.
Requirement in relation to off-street parking in the historic district,
historic residential becomes subject to HAC review. Exceptions to
recommended off-street recommendations states that availability of
on-street parking and neighbor and neighborhood impact. Recommendations
for exceptions to off-street parking goes to the Planning Commission
with issue recommendations to Council for final review. Mr. Mendelsohn
feels that most of the homes in the historic district don’t
have room for off-street parking so they should be grandfathered.
Ms. Miller feels it should be changed based on the recommendations
just read. Ms. Seneschal suggested that Mr. DiMondi is correct that
this is most appropriate in the historic residential zone. She suggested
the language be adjusted to say that residential structures, single
family detached, two-family dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and
attached dwellings only in the historic area that were created prior
to the most recent amendment to the zoning ordinance (2004) would
not require any on-street parking for existing dwellings. Parking
requirements would still apply to multi-family houses. How do we then
handle parking requirements for new residential units in the historic
residential district? Mr. DiMondi’s recommendation is that there
not be a requirement for off-street parking in those instances and
that the requirement for parking would be based on circumstances that
arise. The last set of amendments before the most recent was 8/28/01
and says for houses created after that the off-street parking requirement
would be recommended by the HAC and reviewed by the Planning Commission
with a final decision made by City Council. Councilman DiMondi said
he definitely wants off-street parking to be part of the ordinance,
I only want it subject to recommendation and not absolutely required
so there is some sort of review. He agrees with the standard now it
is just when there is an exception it should be reviewable and changed
without going through variance requirements. He feels this should
be done by HAC. (Lengthy discussion including traffic and parking
studies followed.)
Ms. Seneschal will draft language this week and get it back to Planning
Commission members and HAC members for review and comment. Since the
ordinance says we need to respond within 40 days of submission, we
may want to have a special meeting. The Chair said a special meeting
will be held on 9/12/05.
General Discussion – The Chair said he would like to change
the meeting time to 6:30 p.m. Ms. Miller expressed concern with the
later time, but agreed to try it. Mr. Wilson said every meeting in
the City occurs at 7 p.m. Ms. Monigle said HAC meets at 5:30 p.m.
The next meeting is on 9/12/05 at 6:30 p.m. We will have a formal
write-up on our recommendation to Council and vote on it.
Minor Sub-Division 79-81 & 83 W. 5th Street into 4 Lots –
The Chair said that the sub-division we have at 5th and South shows
three parking spaces. If our recommendation goes through and City
Council passes an ordinance that would take the off-street parking
off, but the footprint would remain the same, it would be up to Mr.
Barthel to go back to the HAC and the Planning Commission for a review
of his plans. A motion was made to approve the sub-division at 5th
and South; Mr. Mendelsohn seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 4Adjournment – Mr. Wilson made a motion to adjourn the
meeting; Mr. Mendelsohn seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned
at 7:10 p.m.
* Dr. Norsworthy arrived at 7:05 p.m.
