|
|
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on September 25, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall. Members Present: Thomas Wilson, Chairman Members Absent: Melissa Pavonne Approval of Minutes – There were no corrections made to the minutes of our last meeting. NEW BUSINESS NOTE: The Chair reminded everyone that the deadline for complete submission for items for the 10/23/06 Planning Commission Meeting is 10/6/06. Minor Subdivision for Tidwell, 100 E. 4th Street – The Chair described the property and what is proposed. Mr. DiAngelo said that he and Jeff Bergstrom went over the plans and what they are seeking is very reasonable. The Chair asked if moving the two mature holly trees in the yard has been considered rather than taking them down. Mr. William Wichess, WT and Sons, said that is a decision of the property owner. They can look into the cost involved with moving the trees but he could not speak for the property owners. Mr. Steel will talk to them after the meeting. Mr. Bergstrom added that this is a concept request; the application has not been submitted yet. The property owners were interested in getting the Planning Commission’s input as this will be an expensive project. They went to the HAC last week and they recommended the size of the two lots be reduced to 24 feet and the lot lines be parallel with the lot line for parcel 139 as opposed to perpendicular. Based on that the HAC gave their approval for subdivision. Mr. Steel made a motion to tentatively approve this subdivision with expectations that it will be redrawn per the HAC’s request then has to come back to the Planning Commission for recommendation to council; Mr. Tatum seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Subdivision/Development Plan for Riverbend – This is to subdivide into three parcels. The Chair introduced Mr. Douglas Lloyd, a senior planner with URS, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bergstrom said this subdivision is designed to separate the open space and recreation area from the developmental property. The Chair read the URS review of the plan to Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes members. (Brief discussion about the access easement took place.) Mr. Steel questioned what their plans are for the drainage culvert that runs down the property line. Mr. Wichess responded that it is his understanding that those pipes will not be affected by what is being done. If they are the drainage calculations they will be submitted and sized adequately to handle any drainage. They are not proposing to direct any drainage from on the site to off site in that direction other than what is already there. (Additional discussion about the drainage took place.) The Chair asked Mr. Lloyd if he had any concerns about this subdivision as it appears. He said he has made several minor comments to the applicant. Mr. Don Isken, who represents the developers, said the purpose of this plan is to realign a property line with the existing zoning line. Today this is a single parcel and it’s bisected by a zoning line that makes approximately half the property residential and the other half open space/recreational. We need to divide the property so the property line and zoning line match up. The residential parcel will be subdivided into two pieces and the reason is because of the method in which the property will be developed. One parcel will be developed as a first phase and transferred to the organization that will build the homes. They hope that transfer will take place later this year. The balance of the property will be sold subsequently in the future. Next month they plan to appear again with the comprehensive land development plan that will show the residential zone property as a 210-lot subdivision consistent with what was shown previously. When they sell the property to the home builder they will take it right away and begin construction. The Chair asked Mr. Bergstrom to confirm that this meets the zoning lines. Mr. Bergstrom said it is very close to the zoning line. They will do the metes and bounds to the wetlands to make sure it matches up. Mr. Isken added that it may not match up exactly because some of the wetlands were a part of the original industrial zone. He also said that Parkway Gravel, current owner of the entire parcel, will retain ownership of the open space/recreation land. We will further subdivide the residential parcel so it can be sold to the home builder in phases. Mr. Norsworthy made a motion to approve the plans provided they meet the zoning lines and the city engineer confirms they have met regulations; Mr. Steel seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Minor Subdivision of Riveredge Park, Lot 71 – Mr. David R. Sills, representing the Riveredge and Twin Spans projects, took the floor. He announced that the minor subdivision of Twin Spans, Lot 7C, is being tabled. He provided a brief summary of the Lot 71 project. The plan will take a small piece of property off a larger piece of property and join that to the existing property where the Pencader Charter School is so the new property would be one property where the school will be. They plan on putting an identical-sized building on the new property as the building that current exists and the purpose is to expand the school. The school currently houses 9th and 10th grades with the 11th grade being added next year. The Chair reported that two members did visit the property yesterday. Mr. Steel made a motion to approve the project; Mr. DiAngelo seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Site Plan Review for Twin Spans, Lot 7D – Mr. Sills reported the purpose of this plan is to construct a 404,000-square foot warehouse similar to other buildings within the park. The Chair questioned the height of the building; Mr. Sills informed the dirt would be moved around to make it consistent with other buildings in the park. The Chair asked if there would be railroad access within the building; Mr. Sills responded there will be no rail access inside the building. Mr. Steel asked what they plan on doing with the storm water off the property. Mr. Sills said there could be an enlargement of the existing storm management or filter strips, which is a new technology. Also, bio-filtration swales. All of this runs through soil conservation. Mr. Steel said that last year Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they approached the Corps of Engineers and government officials to open up the Buttonwood ditch and to redo the sluice gates out at the river. He asked Mr. Sills what they propose to do with the sluice gates and deepening the channel to get rid of the water. Mr. Sills said the run-off on the project, which is in a tidal area, has had a quantity waiver but not a quality waiver. In tidal areas you don’t deal with quantity control, only with quality control. Mr. Steel said the project was to be done last year; he has asked why this hasn’t happened. Ms. Cathie Thomas said she spoke with Larry Irelan, The Conservation District, who informed the money is still there but they are still searching for a disposal area once dredging is done. Mr. Bergstrom clarified this project doesn’t involve the sluice gates or the Buttonwood ditch. The Chair said the PLUS program said there are flood plain disturbances they are concerned with which would incorporate the Buttonwood area. (Additional discussion about this issue took place.) Review Item from City Council Concerning Code Change and HAC – The Chair read Commission members a letter dated 9/18/06 from City Council President Blest that refers to the Planning Commission proposed ordinance 439 to amend city code section 230-45 historic review certification requirement for historic district. Mr. Bergstrom feels this is a good concept. (Discussion took place about the parameters of the amendment.) Mr. Bergstrom does inspections currently. Councilman John DiMondi said the amendment only affects certificates of occupancy, one out of every fifty submissions to HAC. It is for a new house or a major addition only. They have to go and review a project to make sure the drawings/plans are being adhered to. Mr. DiAngelo suggested adding the language “new construction or major addition”, however, the Chair feels the language submitted is clear. The Chair asked Mr. Bergstrom if we have guidelines for certificates of occupancy. Mr. Bergstrom said we are talking about certificates of occupancy that require historic review certificates to start with. The Chair asked why this is needed. Councilman DiMondi said there currently is nothing on paper that says that anyone has to go out and review a project to make sure all agreed upon terms for the historic review Planning Commission Meeting Minutes certificate has been complied with. HAC should have the opportunity before they receive a certificate of occupancy to inspect to make sure that residents know things have been done in accordance to what has been agreed to. HAC does use a set of circumstances that they adhere to and what we would like to do is make sure those initiatives are adhered to before Planning Commission Ethics Code – The Chair presented ethical principles in planning guidelines indicating how we are expected to conduct ourselves. Every member of the Planning Commission will receive a copy. He requested that Ms. Thomas mail same to everyone. Nominations for New Planning Commission Chair – Chairman Wilson announced that due to job constraints it is necessary for him to step down as chairperson. He will remain on the Planning Commission as a member. He reported that neither Ms. Miller nor Ms. Pavonne would accept a nomination. The Chair nominated Jack Norsworthy to complete his term as chair. GENERAL DISCUSSION Communications – Mr. Norsworthy commented that he had received information for tonight’s meeting in his email just prior to the meeting. He asked to receive information earlier. Mr. Lloyd said he is working with Ms. Thomas to set up a schedule. The Chair has requested that all Planning Commission members be copied on all emails that he receives and informed we should have all materials 15 days prior to our meeting. Professional Planner – The Chair read a letter from council concerning resolution 2006-32 adopted on 9/12/06 informing the city invited professional firms to interview to provide planning consultant services for the city of New Castle. On 9/5/06 council appointed URS Corporation to provide planning consultation services to the city of New Castle. This will take effect immediately. He then welcomed Mr. Lloyd onboard. Mr. Lloyd informed he has read the minutes of recent meetings to get a sense of what we are doing. Mr. Norsworthy asked Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Design Review Proposal Sheet – The Chair presented the city of Wilmington’s Design Review Proposal Sheet indicating some of the procedures that an applicant would have to go through and bring with them to Planning Commission meetings. It is comprehensive and we need to review it to see if it can apply to us. This plan belongs to the Wilmington Review and Preservation Commission, City of Wilmington, Department of Planning. Checklist – The checklist discussed at a previous meeting is still in the development stage. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Turner
|
