COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on February 23, 1998, at 6:15 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters, Mr. Weller and Mayor Hutchison. Councilman Carey was absent.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters requested the deletion of the Legislative and Finance Committee agenda item #3 - Purchase of Vehicles - Police Department. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Weller and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilman Leary, Councilwoman Malone and Mr. Merritt.
Request for Tax Abatement - Dover Housing Development, Inc. - 30 S. New Street
During their meeting of July 14, 1997, members of City Council denied the request of Mr. Dave Buches for tax abatement for the Dover Housing Development, Inc. for the New Hope Housing property (formerly Kent Apartments) located at 30 S. New Street. However, noting the absence of Mr. Buches, it was stipulated that the committee would entertain further discussion on the matter if requested by Mr. Buches.
Mr. Salters indicated that over the past year, tremendous progress has been made to the property at 30 S. New Street. He stated that Mr. Buches is requesting tax relief to free-up monies to use for the renovation of 30 S. New Street.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend that abatement of property taxes be approved for one year, based on the evaluation of the property located at 30 S. New Street, with tax abatement commencing at the time the property is completely renovated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary for discussion.
Mr. Leary stated that in accordance with the City’s past practices, relief of taxes has been granted for charitable or educational endeavors or in accordance with the City Code. It appears that the project for the New Hope Housing property does not fall under any of the categories. He relayed concern that the motion would be making an exception and suggested that a legal opinion be obtained to determine if the Dover Housing Development, Inc. could apply for tax exemption in accordance with §8105 of the Delaware Code or if there is any other means the City could use to grant a tax abatement.
Mr. Buches stated that the Dover Housing Development, Inc. is a non-profit, tax exempt organization under the laws of the State of Delaware and meets all the requirements of a charitable organization.
Mr. Salters stated that Mr. Buches has taken the initiative to revitalize the property at 30 S. New Street and has promised to do the same for property located at 134 S. New Street. He stated that he plans to replace the old frontage of the building and rehabilitate the entire unit for property located at 134 S. New Street.
Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. DePrima stated that Mr. Buches would not be able to apply for funding from Community Development Block Grant monies in lieu of taxes and that Mr. Buches has already received $138,000 CDBG monies for the revitalization of property located at 30 S. New Street.
Mrs. Malone relayed her concern that approval of the request for tax abatement would be precedent setting for other similar properties.
Mr. Weller asked if the property would qualify for historic district tax incentives. Responding, Mr. Buches stated that he was not sure how the City’s taxes would apply to historical structures; however, federal tax credits could be applied. He stated that federal tax credits would only be applied in conjunction with capital improvements of the building. He stated that he received $138,000 from CDBG monies, which was strictly for capital improvements and that the tax abatement would only relate to ongoing operations of the building.
Mr. Pitts relayed to members that prior to the renovations of the building, the fire and police departments would be dispatched to the area several times a month. He stated that the neighborhood finally seems at peace, partially due to the improvements that have been made to the area, and he felt that the request for a one year abatement of taxes was reasonable.
Mr. Leary reminded members that this issue was first brought to the Assessment Appeals Committee; however, since the request was for tax abatement rather than an appeal of a tax assessment, the City Solicitor suggested that the matter be considered by the Legislative and Finance Committee. Mr. Leary questioned the guidelines of the State’s statute regarding this type of request and requested that the City Assessor supply this information in the future.
Mr. Lucas stated that Mr. Buches is requesting tax relief for a one year period rather than a tax exemption, which would allow him additional flexibility on the initial operation and stabilization of the building at 30 S. New Street.
Mr. Leary moved to table action on this request pending a legal opinion from the City Solicitor, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Proposed Planned Neighborhood (Senior Housing Option) - Westminster Village - Assisted Living Community
Presbyterian Homes, Inc. is proposing three major additions to the Westminster Village Complex to include an 18-unit apartment building, a 48,854 sq. ft. Assisted Living Facility, and a 20,000 sq. ft. addition that links the Community Center with the Health Center. Mr. DePrima stated that the developers are seeking approval under the new “Planned Neighborhood Design Senior Citizen Housing Option” ordinance which was recently adopted by City Council.
Mr. DePrima explained that the Planned Neighborhood Design Option involves a three-step review and approval process. In the first step, the developer shall meet with the City Council and present a general sketch plan. The City Council shall determine whether the proposed project is of such a design and type that it warrants further review by the Planning Commission. The second step is a more detailed conditional use hearing before the Planning Commission. For this particular proposal, the Planning Commission will most likely conduct steps two and three in one conditional use/site plan hearing.
The “Senior Housing Option” was intended to encourage housing for senior citizens by allowing senior housing in nearly all zones through the “conditional use” process. The features of this proposal are as follows:
1. Active Recreation Space -- 2.29 acres of active recreation area already exists within the development. Recreation details have not been provided but the project will be required to meet the age oriented recreation activities standards within the ordinance.
2. Density -- The project currently proposes 72 new beds in the assisted living facility and 18 new apartments. These additions will bring the total dwelling units of the development to 140 dwelling units, and 182 beds in the nursing home and assisted living facility. The development has 24.9 acres total.
3. Unit Mix -- The development currently has apartments, duplexes, and a nursing home. These additions will bring a new assisted living facility to the complex.
Mr. Salters asked if a traffic impact study had been conducted on the area with the addition of senior citizen housing. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that senior housing complexes do not normally impact traffic because the majority of the residents no longer drive. He stated that if a traffic impact study is needed, the Planning Commission would certainly request that information.
Mrs. Malone moved to recommend that the proposed Assisted Living Facility - Westminster Village, be referred to the Planning Commission for further review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Safety Advisory Committee met with Chairman Truitt presiding. Members present were Councilman Pitts, Mr. Martin and Mr. Wolfe. Councilman Carey was absent.
Proposed Traffic Light - Intersection of Route #8 and Mifflin Road
A letter was received from the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association expressing their support for a traffic signal at the intersection of Route #8 and Mifflin Road. The Association indicated in their letter that the need for better traffic control at this intersection is imperative and requested that this matter be reviewed by the Safety Advisory Committee. It was also suggested that the traffic signal be synchronized with the traffic light at Dover Kenton Road.
It was noted that a petition was received from residents of Mifflin Road requesting City Council to urge the Department of Transportation to install a traffic control signal at the intersection of Route #8 and Mifflin Road.
Mr. O’Connor stated that funding for the installation of the traffic light is available through the Department of Transportation, which was obtained from developers in the general area. He stated that even if such a request is submitted to the Department of Transportation, there is no guarantee that the request will be initiated. He stated that the Planning Commission has made it known on several occasions that because of recent development in that area, a signal light is necessary at that intersection. Mr. O’Connor stated that in order to fulfill this request, it should be relayed to the Department of Transportation that the City endorses the concept.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend that a letter be written to the Department of Transportation from the City of Dover requesting that a traffic light be installed at the intersection of Route #8 and Mifflin Road and that the light be synchronized with the light at the intersection of Kenton Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Weller stated that a representative of Cannon Mill has also requested that a letter be prepared from the City of Dover to the Department of Transportation endorsing the concept. Mr. Weller indicated that, as Chairman of the Transportation Review Committee, he would write a letter to the Department of Transportation informing them that the City of Dover endorses the concept of a traffic light being installed at Route #8 and Mifflin Road. Mr. Weller felt that this request would also solve one of Dover’s transportation issues and requested that this matter be added to the Council agenda for approval.
Mr. Salters questioned the urgency of this matter, indicating that even if this request is submitted to the Department of Transportation, it does not necessarily mean that the request will be enacted.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. O’Connor stated that the sooner a letter is written to the Department of Transportation, the sooner the City will receive a response to this matter. Mr. Leary noted that the question of an addition to the Council agenda would be addressed during the Council Meeting.
On a call for the question by Mr. Weller, the motion, recommending that a letter be written to the Department of Transportation, was unanimously carried. Mr. Leary requested that the letter be submitted at the next Council meeting for approval (Attachment #1).
Proposed Pedestrian/Traffic Light - Forrest Street (in front of West Dover Elementary School)
During their Committee Meeting of July 22, 1996, members considered a request from several residents living near the West Dover Elementary School, requesting consideration of the installation of a control device to allow for pedestrian crossing at the school’s traffic signal located on Forrest Street. Although there is a crossing guard at this location before and after school, their main concern is that during other times of the day, there is no crossing guard available for children to cross the street safely. Since Forrest Street is a State maintained roadway, Mr. Salters requested that the Safety Advisory Committee review the matter for endorsement and recommendation to the State of Delaware, Department of Transportation.
Mr. O’Connor stated that in a letter to Mr. Bruce Littleton, Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Transportation, he indicated that the pedestrian crossing at Forrest Street is of concern to the City of Dover. He stated that the City has been told by area residents, and as indicated by the City’s traffic enforcement in this area, that there is the potential for a major safety problem. It was suggested that the light be moved to the intersection of Forrest Street and Gibbs Drive as the safest solution. Mr. O’Connor stated that he has had discussions with the superintendent of Capital School District and the principal of William Henry Middle School on this issue and both have indicated that they have no objections to the movement of the light, as long as it continues to have actuation by the crossing guard for the students going to and from school. It was indicated by the Department of Transportation in a previous letter that the relocation cost of $42,000 would be needed to accomplish this task.
Mr. O’Connor stated that Mr. Littleton indicated that if a letter of support is written from City Council and the Capital School District, the only concern would be obtaining the funds ($42,000) for installation of the light. Mr. O’Connor stated that these funds could possibly be obtained from our state legislators.
Ms. Penny Barkley, Transportation Supervisor for the Capital School District, relayed to members that the Capital School District is very much in favor of the movement of the light and suggested that a pedestrian push button be installed to allow students a safe crossing area outside of normal school hours. Ms. Barkley stated that the Capital School District provides training for the students regarding pedestrian safety.
Mr. O’Connor stated that a letter to the Department of Transportation was already written in August 1997 regarding these concerns and that he would follow-up on that letter. He stated that he would also write a letter on behalf of the City, informing the Department of Transportation that the Capital School District supports these efforts.
Ms. Barkley stated that she would have a letter of support sent to the Department of Transportation from the Capital School District as well.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend that the City Manager be authorized to write a letter to the Department of Transportation as a follow-up on a previous letter in support of the signalization change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mayor Hutchison requested that, in the future, any safety related issues be referred to the Chief of Police for a recommendation prior to the committee’s consideration.
Mr. Leary moved to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/nh