|
|
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on September 24,
2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall. Members Present: Dr. Jack Norsworthy, Chair Jim Steele, Co-Chair George Freebery David Bird Elliott Tatum Joe DiAngelo Bill Simpson Staff Present: Douglas
Lloyd, City Planner City Council: John Gaworski Mr. Steele called the
meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Approval of Minutes
– Mr. DiAngelo noted that there are two ‘Adjournment’ paragraphs
on the last page. Mr. Steele
made a motion to accept the minutes as amended; Mr. Tatum seconded the
motion. The motion was unanimously passed. F. DeAscanis
– Subdivide 21-0014.00-175 & 178 and add to 179 & 178 (McIntire
Drive and Washington Street Properties – No one was present representing
the applicant. Mr. Bergstrom said Mr. DeAscanis is reconfiguring
lot lines and the application is being presented tonight for preliminary
review and public comment. It would be on next month’s agenda
for vote. Drawings were reviewed by Commission members.
No new lots are being created. Mr. Bergstrom reviewed the drawings
and intent of the application with Commission members.
Mr. DiAngelo is interested in knowing the purpose for the application.
Mr. Lloyd said the plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and there
is correspondence to that effect. There may be some minor changes
to the plan based on the engineer’s letter. If plans are updated
copies will be made available to Commission members for review along
with emailed copies of the engineer’s letter. R. M. Williams – Subdivide 21-014.00-243 & 244 into 8 lots – Mr. Jeff Williams of Kercher Engineering represented the applicant and provided an overview for a proposed 8-lot major subdivision on 801 and 811 Gray Street. (Discussion about the location of the property took place.) They are proposing to demolish everything on the site including the existing curb along Ninth Street and along School Street. No debris will be buried on the site. They are looking to improve School Street to a width of 18 feet and extend it back to where the proposed lots are, thus allowing the three lots in the back to have access to the roadway. Plans include replacing curbing and match it in kind with curbing taking place with Ninth Street improvements. They will also look at improving curbing on the opposite side of School Street and including handicapped ramps. They plan on replacing the existing sidewalk that runs along Ninth Street with a 6-foot wide sidewalk and run the sidewalk around the corner and down School Street so the lots in the rear (lots 6,7,8) will have access. That sidewalk will be 5-feet wide. They are Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2007 Page 2 proposing five lots along
Ninth Street which are in line with the code, proper setbacks and lot
areas. Also, at the city’s recommendation, rear-entry garages
are proposed to keep the city streetscape in mind. Rear access
driveways of 18-feet wide will be incorporated. For the three
rear lots we propose front-entry garages because of the wetlands behind
those lots. They are promoting doing a low-impact development
in the area. They will try to handle as much storm water through
green technology and best management practices using grass that will
be planted and filter out sediment before directing storm water run-off
into the wetlands. The site will be raised so all the lots will
be above the hundred-foot flood plain and will be graded as such.
Adjacent property owners will be contacted about a defined ditch that
the applicant is going to ask to maintain for storm water run-off into
the wetlands. Mr. Steele asked if they intend to dedicate the
street to the city. Mr. Williams informed that the city asked
that the street not be dedicated; it will be part of the open space.
Anything not included in the lot we want to dedicate as open space and
the homeowners’ maintenance association would then maintain the roadway,
the wetlands and other areas (as he indicated on the map). Proper
language will be incorporated in the maintenance agreement so that if
the homeowner’s do not maintain, the city can then do so and charge
accordingly. The units will be 20 feet wide by 40 feet deep.
Garages are single-car and driveways will be shared. (Discussion
about plans for the wetlands on the property
and parking concerns followed.) This plan has been sent to
City Engineer David Athey who has made comments and the applicant has
addressed those comments. A revised plan has been developed and
will be provided to Commission members. This project is a major
sub-division and will appear again next month before the Planning Commission.
Parking concerns and how they impact the areas were reiterated by Mr.
Bird. He suggested attaching recommendations concerning parking
as a condition of approval. Mr. DiAngelo asked if the applicant
had gone before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Bergstrom confirmed
they had appeared and the applicant had withdrawn the first part of
the appeal dealing with lot area. He feels the Board of Adjustment
felt the lot could be developed in compliance with the code.
(Additional concerns were related to the applicant about water problems
and drainage in the area and lengthy discussion followed. Discussion
included grading of the property.)
Mr. Williams informed their storm water plan has not been submitted
to the Conservation District; they are waiting to receive plan approval
from the city. CPR Construction-Subdivide 21-001.00-013 & 21-002.00-020 to Create 6 Parcels (Buttonwood Avenue between New Castle Avenue and Route 9) – Mr. Bergstrom used the plans distributed to Commission members to describe the project and answered questions presented by Commission members. (Dr. Norsworthy read aloud a comment letter received by the city engineer.) Mr. Bird noted a vacant property at the end and he is concerned that a variance may be requested in the future for the smaller portion of the lot. (Discussion about lot size and size of houses to be built followed.) The developer is not present, therefore, Dr. Norsworthy suggested tabling this issue to allow Commission members time to look at the property
and allow the developer to answer their concerns. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2007 Page 3 Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Updates & Review – Dr. Norsworthy received an email from Cathie Thomas about the plan. He is concerned that URS’ proposal has been slightly dictated by city proceedings rather than doing a standard comprehensive plan review and review by PLUS seems unnecessary. We have done comprehensive plan reviews in the past and know what needs to be done and he doesn’t see any need to waste time and money. Mr. Lloyd indicated that URS shares the Commission’s concerns about the new procedure. A meeting with PLUS would not be scheduled until 10/31/07 and their response would take a month longer before we could even begin our review. Dr. Norsworthy said it is a good process for those who are on their timetable but we are not on our timetable for getting the comprehensive plan done for a number of reasons. He spoke to Ms. Thomas and expressed his concerns but she indicated the city would move forward with the new procedure without having any meetings to discuss. He also feels that updating of the comprehensive plan is a Planning Commission duty. Mr. Simpson suggested having URS meet with the State person who indicated our plan is not acceptable and learn how that conclusion was made. Mr. Bird said it appears as though we are being pushed into the new process and we should inform them (State) what we want to do and see if it meets with State requirements. Mr. Lloyd noted there was a 9-page checklist attached to the email which is applicable for new applicants and he is confused as to why we received it. City Council passed a resolution supporting URS’ procedure and he is disturbed by language in the letter giving him the impression that the State Planning Office thought we were focusing only on the action plan and not the comprehensive plan itself. He feels the action plan is the implementation of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Bird suggested meeting with Mr. Herb Inden of the State Planning Office immediately to get clarification. Commission members and Ms. Thomas would be included. Mr. Steele reminded Commission members that Mr. Inden is familiar with our plan and has used it as an example for other municipalities in Delaware. Mr. Simpson made a motion to direct URS to schedule a meeting with Mr. Inden and have that meeting audited by any member of the Planning Commission who would like to attend. Mr. Bird seconded the motion. Mr. Gaworski asked if the City Administrator and City Council members would be invited. Mr. Simpson amended his motion to open the meeting to the City Administrator and members of Council. Mr. Bird seconded the motion. (Discussion about the number of members to invite took place; if more than three members it constitutes a quorum and is a meeting.) Mr. Simpson changed the number of Council members to no more than two. Mr. DiAngelo said he does not understand why PLUS is involved in this process. Mr. Bird added that his concern is that this may lead the groundwork for future comprehensive plans needing to be approved by PLUS. Mr. DiAngelo said the city has a Memorandum of Understanding with PLUS that deals with land use and has nothing to do with comprehensive plans. Mr. Lloyd reiterated his concern that this process could be the governing factor and could set the scope of work. He will try to schedule a meeting within the next week to 10 days. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Simpson withdrew both of his previous motions and moved to direct URS to meet with Herb Inden with the State of Delaware to discuss the matter of why our URS proposal did not seem to meet State requirements and further to find out what we need to do to make it meet State require- ments and allow that
meeting to be open and be audited by members of the Planning Commission,
City Administrator and no more than two members of City Council.
Mr. Bird seconded the motion. The motion was passed by unanimous
vote. Budget Review
– Dr. Norsworthy reported that there have been no charges paid out
of our budget to date. Planning Checklist
Review – Messrs. Bergstrom and Lloyd have reviewed the checklist
and no changes were made. Dr. Norsworthy suggested it be emailed
to the city office for their review and/or input. He will inform
Ms. Thomas that the checklist is being sent to their office. General Discussion
– Mr. Steele is very concerned with the lack of parking in the area
of the R. M. Williams sub-division. Drainage issues were also
revisited. (Discussion followed.) Mr. Simpson will
follow up with Sen. Dori Conner about drainage problems. Adjournment –
Mr. Steele made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Mr. Bird
seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. The meeting
was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Next Meeting --
Our next meeting is scheduled for October 22, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Turner Stenographer |
