|
|
DRAFT The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on December 19, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall. Members Present: Thomas Wilson, Chairman Staff Present: Jackie Seneschal Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Roll call was taken. Minutes – Mr. Freebery made a motion to accept
the minutes of the 11/28/05 meeting; Business from the Mayor – None Business from the City Council – The Chair received a call concerning miscommunication on our amending (11/28/05) Section 230-18 of the zoning code to include private clubs and lodges. We made a motion for the amendment and it was seconded and sent on to Council. We also have a letter from Council President Blest requesting the Planning Commission to review Parkway Gravel (Riverbend Project) for rezoning. This is on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. SUBDIVISION & SITE PLANS Minor Subdivision – 104 Buttonwood Avenue – Chairman Wilson informed this subdivision is signed by owners of both properties to move the property line because the property cuts through the new building that was built. Mr. Steele made a motion to approve a recommendation to Council in favor of this subdivision. Mr. Mendelsohn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Site Plan – 0 Delaware Street (Family Foundations Academy, Inc. Charter School) – The Chair said this is going to the Plus Program and we would like to wait until we get information from them before making any decisions. All Commission members agreed. Minor Subdivision - 226 East 2nd Street (Vivian Wilhelm)
– Carmine Casper spoke on behalf of Ms. Wilhelm. The property
is 43’ wide and we intend to make a new lot that is 23.7’
wide and leave 19.28’ of the existing house. This is a result
of our meeting with the Historic Area Commission (HAC) on Thursday
which recommended and required we have 3’ side yard with each
dwelling unit. (Brief discussion about the project took place between
Commission members and Mr. Casper.) Ms. Seneschal handed out copies
of her memo to Commission members concerning this property. She noted
the property is in the floodplain and inside is to be elevated and
is noted in the document. The subdivision regulation would usually
require they show the elevations, but given the minor nature of the
subdivision and the fact they are not building any infrastructure,
it can be waived. Mr. Bergstrom showed Ms. Seneschal a copy of the
HAC approval. She noted that there was not any recommendation from
HAC regarding parking on this property. While the amendment that the
Planning Commission has recommended is in the process, it has not
yet been adopted by City Council or signed by the Mayor and is not in effect today. The garage holds two vehicles and they could establish a driveway on the adjacent lot (confirmed by Mr. Bergstrom) containing two parking places. The garage was less than 5’ from the rear property line and even an accessory building has to be 5’ from the rear property line; this has been amended. There is a restriction that no more than 30% of the required rear yard can be in the garage and they must take note of this when applying for a building permit. A motion was made by Ms. Davis that we recommend to Council the approval of the subdivision for the Wilhelm property and seconded by Mr. Steele. The motion carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Technical Issues to be Considered During Review of Parkway
Gravel – Ms. Seneschal reported the Technical Review Committee
met last Thursday, the meeting was duly advertised, and the applicant
was in attendance. (She read the names of the attendees and reviewed
her memo detailing what took place at the meeting.) Ms. Seneschal
asked what other information the Commission wants addressed that was
not in her report or raised by the Plus Project. At last month’s
meeting Mr. Wilson asked to know the average number of vehicles per
household in the city of New Castle. That information has been obtained
and will be provided. Data concerning the differences of traffic with
residential versus industrial was requested. (Lengthy discussion took
place among Commission members about connections to the property and
their impact on surrounding roadways.) city of New Castle at the end of September. They would like to see that property be used for recreational purposes. He added they will provide any information the Planning Commission needs for the meeting in January. He touched on voluntary contribution which is different from an impact fee. This would be used at the discretion of City Council for whatever betterment they felt appropriate. ** Proposed Impact Fee Ordinance – Ms. Seneschal
said during a meeting with the New Castle County Land Use Department
on 11/30/05 the issue of how they develop impact fees was discussed.
They work with Tischler and Associates, who are very knowledgeable
on impact fees. They look at the budget and the level of service to
each area where the city provides capital funding for a given activity.
Ms. Seneschal detailed how impact fees are calculated. She asked in
preparation of the impact fee ordinance does the Commission want to
do it internally or do they want to engage a company to do the review.
The cost would have to be budgeted. The cost is over $300,000. Ms.
Seneschal suggested maybe the City could piggy-back on the County’s
study when it becomes available and other smaller jurisdictions have
impact fee ordinances in place. You can pick what areas you want to
collect impact fees on and those fees can be changed from year to
year. You cannot use impact fees to correct existing deficiencies.
(Examples were discussed.) Mr. Mendelsohn feels we should be inventive
and make our own decisions because jurisdictions do differ. (Additional
discussion about what should be in the impact fee ordinance and how
other jurisdictions operate took place.) (Fire Chief Bill Simpson
provided information on how the fire department receives funds from
impact fees.) NEW BUSINESS Current Vacancies on the Planning Commission – The Chair informed that currently we have two vacancies. Mr. Mendelsohn informed he would be retiring and stepping down, effective after tonight. He thanked everyone for allowing him the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Mendelsohn added that you need members who possess common sense, the time and the love to do the job. There is a lot of literature to review and read in order to do the job properly. The Chair said he would send a letter to the Mayor informing there are two vacancies. Report from City Planner on Meeting w/NCC Land Use Department
– Ms. Seneschal said she and Mr. Steele met with a number of
staff members on 11/30/05 to discuss some of the things going on in
the city and the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Concerning improvements
to SR273 and Route 9, the County has already sent a letter to DelDOT
in support of the City’s request for improvements in the area.
We talked about impact fees. Development in the vicinity of Army Creek
included an upgrade to the sewer line on the site. The old Amoco site
has been purchased by Commonwealth Corporation. It is a brownfield
site that has been certified by DNREC for non-residential use. There
is a potential purchaser for the Amoco site. They intend to develop
it for warehouses. There will be improvements to landscaping to frontage
along Route 9. Improvements by DelDOT will fix drainage problems at
Army Creek. Print Package on the river side of Route 9 is planning
a minor expansion and they expect a slight increase in jobs. They
have had one request for rezoning to high density residential to permit
an age-restricted community at Deemer’s Beach which is currently
zoned industrial. We talked to them about Parkway Gravel and they expressed the same concerns in the loss of industrial land to residential. They suggested visiting their website to look at all the development sites by parcel. They are updating their Comprehensive Plan at this time. (County President) Chris Coons is going to request a visit with each municipality to talk about the Comprehensive Plan. We talked about having Dave Culver (of New Castle County) attend the February Planning Commission Meeting to review what the County’s proposal’s are and anticipate the development around the edges of the city of New Castle. He will make a presentation on development activity in the area surrounding the County. He provided us with the names of people in New Castle County involved with redevelopment and also asked about revitalization along US 13. Mr. Steele said Mr. Culver is very knowledgeable about the area around Grantham Lane and the area around the Amoco site. Ms. Seneschal asked the Commission if they would like her to move forward with inviting Mr. Culver to our February meeting. Everyone agreed and Ms. Seneschal will extend the invitation. **Mr. Steele asked if the comments from Plus concerning Parkway Gravel will be returned by 1/9/06. Ms. Seneschal said she had forwarded their response, but does not know to what extent the State will make comments. The Technical Committee will provide details and you will then add whatever changes you feel are appropriate and what your recommendation is. The Chair reminded that we are not deciding whether this will happen, we are only recommending to Council. Ms. Seneschal added that how much the developer is willing to commit to in writing as part of the rezoning process might be considered. Today the R3 zone allows a lot more than an age-restricted residential development. It is not unusual for property owners to change because circumstances have changed. The City needs to be clear and make a zoning decision what that zoning decision covers or doesn’t cover. The Chair asked if we should we be considering a new zoning code for 55 and above residents. Ms. Seneschal said there are jurisdictions that have specialized options. The Chair inquired about getting a copy for consideration. Adjournment – Mr. Mendelsohn made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and approved. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Debbie Turner
|
