REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on December 8, 1997 with Council President Christiansen presiding. Council members present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters and Mr. Weller.
Council staff members present were Chief Faulkner, Mr. Lucas, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, Chief Carey, Mrs. Green and Mr. Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Christiansen declared the open forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.
The invocation was given by Elder Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which was led by Boy Scout Troop #640.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters requested the addition of item #8G - Purchase of 800 MHZ Radio System. Mr. Weller moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1997
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 24, 1997 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Leary, seconded by Mr. Truitt and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PRESENTATION - WILLIAM A. SCHAEFER, JR. - SERVICE ON CITY OF DOVER LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (1994-1997)
Mayor Hutchison, along with Mr. Salters, Chairman of the City of Dover Legislative and Finance Committee, presented Mr. William A. Schaefer, Jr., with a Dover Cup in recognition of service rendered on behalf of the City. Mr. Schaefer served as a member of the Legislative and Finance Committee from 1994 through 1997. On behalf of all members of Council, Mayor Hutchison and Mr. Salters relayed their gratitude for the contribution and assistance provided by Mr. Schaefer on financial matters of the City and wished him much success in future endeavors.
Mr. Schaefer thanked members for giving him the opportunity to serve the City, stating that it has been a privilege and an honor. It is his feeling that the success of the City is a direct result of the dedication and work performed by the Mayor, Council and City Staff.
PRESENTATION - SHERMAN TOWNSEND - SERVICE ON ST. JONES GREENWAY COMMISSION (1992-1997)
In recognition of his service to the City of Dover as a member of the St. Jones Greenway Commission, a Dover Cup was presented to Mr. Sherman Townsend. The Cup was presented by Mayor Hutchison and Mrs. Malone, Chairwoman of the Parks and Recreation Committee, recognizing the commitment of Mr. Townsend for the betterment of our City. On behalf of all members of Council, Mayor Hutchison and Mrs. Malone thanked Mr. Townsend for the many hours he has dedicated to the City, stating that much of the progress that has been made to the City’s waterways is due to the contributions of Mr. Townsend.
Mr. Townsend stated that his involvement and concern with the City’s waterways began several years ago and will continue with his membership on the Silver Lake Commission. He urged members to continue their efforts toward the clean-up of our waterways, especially Silver Lake, feeling that it is a major asset to the City.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING - FORREST AVENUE (ROUTE #8) - JANE MASSEY DRAPER
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of property located on the north side of Forrest Avenue (Route #8) 2,240+/- feet west of the intersection of Mifflin Road, owned by Jane Massey Draper. The current zoning is R-10 (Single Family Residential) and R-20 (Single Family Residential) and the proposed zoning is A (Agricultural).
Planner’s Review
City Planner, Mr. DePrima, reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning. In taking this position the Commissioners considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses - To the south and west of this property are lands located in the unincorporated areas of Kent County that are zoned and used for agriculture. To the north and across the Calhoun Branch is Hunters Pointe Subdivision, located in Kent County and zoned RS (Residential Single Family). To the northeast are vacant agricultural lands in Kent County zoned RS. To the east is the subdivision of Heatherfield, zoned RM-1 (Residential Single Family) and Cranberry Run (under construction), zoned R-10 (Single Family Residential).
The Comprehensive Plan designates this land for low density residential development. While it does not call for agricultural uses, Mr. DePrima noted that the Agricultural Zone is not exclusively used for agricultural purposes. In fact, within the Agricultural zone, this property could be developed for one acre lots. He also advised members that the applicant is seeking the rezoning as a prerequisite for having the land placed in an Agricultural Preservation District by the Delaware Department of Agriculture.
Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. DePrima stated that the agricultural zoning classification primarily permits agricultural uses, public recreational uses and single family, detached, homes on one-acre or larger lots. There are unique instances whereby stables and kennels would be permitted conditionally. He noted that the R-10 zoning classification also permits agricultural uses.
Public Hearing
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lambert and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 27, 1997).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FORREST AVENUE (RT. #8), 2,240' +/- WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MIFFLIN ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from R-10 (Single Family Residential) and R-20 (Single Family Residential) to A (Agricultural).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover has been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-10 and R-20 to A on that property located on the north side of Forrest Avenue (Rt. #8), 2,240' +/- west of the intersection of Mifflin Road, owned by Jane Massey Draper.
ADOPTED: December 8, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of a proposed zoning text amendment that is intended to bring the zoning provisions into alignment with the visions of the Main Street Program, while at the same time, making it easier to establish and operate new businesses in the Downtown area. Mr. DePrima advised members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Mrs. Malone moved that the final reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 10, 1997).
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Amend Article 3, Section 13, Central Commercial Zone (C-2) of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance by deleting it in its entirety and creating a new Section 13 to read as follows:
Section 13. Central Commercial Zone (C-2)
13.1 Uses Permitted. In a Central Commercial Zone C-2, no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part for any purposes except the following uses and their accessory structures and uses normally accessory thereto:
13.11 Retail Stores
13.12 Financial Institutions
13.13 Theaters and Restaurants
13.14 Hotels, including Bed and Breakfast Inns
13.15 Art Galleries and Studios, including dance studios, photography studios and interior decorating studios
13.16 Photocopy and Film Processing shops
13.17 Formal Wear Rental
13.18 Travel Agency
13.19 Optometrist
13.100 Personal Service Stores, including but not limited to, Barber Shops, Beauty Shops, Tailors, and other establishments in which the primary business is the sale of a service rather than a product, except that such stores located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
13.101 Business, Professional, and Government Offices, except that such offices located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
13.102 Apartments, provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted in the first floor and at least one off street parking space shall be provided in the area for each Apartment.
13.2 Conditional Uses The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in Article 10, § 10.1 of this ordinance and to any specified requirements set forth below. Any of the following uses in existence at the time this ordinance is adopted are considered permitted uses, and shall not loose their status as permitted uses in their existing locations unless the use is changed to one of the uses listed above in Section 13.1 of this ordinance. Changes from one conditional use to another will require conditional use approval.
13.21 Personal Service Stores, including but not limited to, Barber Shops, Beauty Shops, Tailors, and other establishments in which the primary business is the sale of a service rather than a product, located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street.
13.22 Business, Professional, or Government Offices located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street.
13.23 Outlets and pick-up stations for laundries and cleaning establishments.
13.24 Laundromats, limited to not more than thirty (30) washing machines per establishment.
13.25 Newspaper Printing, including incidental job printing.
13.26 Parking Lots and Parking Structures as a principal use.
13.27 Places of Worship.
13.28 Youth Clubs, Fraternal Clubs, Charitable Organizations, and similar institutions regardless of whether the club or organization is for private membership or open to the general public.
13.29 Social Service Agencies
13.200 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, or any other processing of products where goods so produced or processed are to be sold at retail exclusively on the premises, provided that:
(a) An area fully concealed from any street and equal to not more than twenty (20) percent of the area devoted to retail sales shall be so used;
(b) Electrical power not to exceed a total of five (5) rated horsepower and steam pressure not in excess of sixty (60) pounds of pressure per square inch shall be used exclusively;
(c) Not more than four (4) employees are engaged in such production or processing.
13.3 Submission Requirements for Conditional Uses in the C-2 Zone. The following submission requirements shall be used in lieu of the requirements of Article 10, § 1.6 in the event that the business, office, or establishment seeking conditional use approval will be occupying an existing structure.
(a) The applicant shall cause a site map to be prepared The applicant shall submit twenty one (21) copies of the site map at time of application. The site map shall conform to the following specifications and the following elements shall be included on the site map:
1. The map shall be at least eleven (11) by seventeen (17) inches but not more than twenty four (24) by thirty six (36) inches and at a scale of ten (10), twenty (20), thirty (30) or forty (40) feet to the inch, except that if the property has a maximum dimension over nine hundred (900) feet, a scale of fifty (50) feet to the inch may be used.
2. The existing building and conditions on the lot must be depicted. It is permissible to utilize the most recent mortgage survey of the property for this purpose. If conditions, such as landscaping and accessory structures, on the lot have changed since the survey was completed the applicant should depict these changes on the plan to the best of his/her ability. However, the nature and extent of such revisions must be approved by the City Planner at the required pre-application meeting.
3. A conceptual floor plan of the building is required. This floor plan must depict the location and percent of total floor area devoted to the proposed uses. Any uses on separate floors which are not the subject of the application must be referenced by a note on the plan. The City Planner may request more detailed information, including architectural floor plans, on a case by case basis at his/her discretion.
4. Legal Data:
(a) Lot, Block, and Section Number
(b) Name and address of the owner of record
(c) Name and address of the equitable owner, if any
(d) Name and address of the person, firm, or organization preparing the map
(e) Date, north point, and written and graphical scale
(f) The location and names of adjacent streets
(g) The location, zoning, and owners of record of all adjacent properties
13.4 All permitted and conditional uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than off-street parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides.
13.5 Multiple Establishments Permitted. Due to the mixed use nature of the downtown area, multiple establishments are permitted in individual structures in the C-2 Zone. All establishments must conform to the minimum bulk standards of the C-2 zone. This section does not relieve establishments from complying with any and all applicable building and fire codes.
13.6 Signs. The following sign types are permitted:
(a) One wall mounted sign per each wall facing a public street with a distance from the face of the building of twelve (12) inches or less, limited to an area of sixteen (16) square feet per establishment.
(b) One projecting sign, provided that:
(i) Such sign shall be limited to nine (9) square feet
(ii) The maximum projection from the wall shall not exceed three (3) feet and the sign panel shall be limited to four (4) inches in thickness
(iii) Minimum clear height from grade to the bottom of the sign shall be no less than seven and five tenths (7.5) feet.
(iv) Such sign shall be perpendicular to the face of the building
(v) Such sign shall be externally illuminated with incandescent lighting. Internally illuminated projecting sign panels shall be prohibited.
(c) One portable easel sign may be permitted per establishment. Such sign shall be situated in front of the business and shall be limited to a maximum size of two (2) feet by three (3) feet, and shall be situated in such a manner which does not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic nor interfere with the reasonable ingress and egress to the building. Such sign shall be located on private property, unless written approval is obtained from the City Manager for placement of the sign in the public right-of-way. Such signs shall be removed by the business operator during nonbusiness hours.
(d) The provisions of Article 5, § 4 (Supplementary Sign Regulations) shall be applicable to all properties in the C-2 Zone.
(e) In lieu of the above regulations the property owner or business owner may seek review and approval of proposed sign(s) by the Historic District Commission. The Historic District Commission must find that the building is a contributing historic structure and that proposed sign(s) conform to the “recommended” standards set forth in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District.
13.7 Uses Prohibited. Residences, other than living quarters, for not more than one family incidental to each permitted building on each lot for the use of the owner or caretaker of such building or of the owner or caretaker of the permitted use or uses housed in such building, provided that apartments shall be permitted in accordance with § 13.102.
13.8 Performance Standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in Article 5, § 8.1.
13.9 Site Development Plan Approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with Article 10, § 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures.
ADOPTED: December 8, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - HISTORIC DISTRICT ZONE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of a proposed zoning text amendment that will expand the Historic District Zone into the commercial areas centered around Loockerman Street from State Street to the Train Station, in accordance with the recommendation of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. DePrima advised members that Main Street Dover, Friends of Old Dover and the Historic District Commission have reviewed and endorsed the proposed amendments and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
Mr. DePrima advised members that two (2) letters were received regarding the proposed amendments, as follows:
► John A. Hartnett, President of M.A. Hartnett, Inc., owner of property known as the Hartnett Lumber Company at 600 Forest Street (north side) - stating opposition to the property being included in the Historic District Zone.
► Robert M. Duncan, Duncan Petroleum Corporation, equitable owner of property known as the Hartnett Lumber Company at 600 Forest Street (north side) - stating no objections to the property being included in the proposed Historic District Zone.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Leary moved that the final reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 10, 1997).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY EXPANDING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH “EXHIBIT A AS AMENDED”, ENTITLED “PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT AMENDMENT” AND KEPT ON FILE IN THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ADOPTED: December 8, 1997
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on November 24, 1997 with Chairman Lambert presiding.
Request for Street Waivers - Village of Cannon Mill
Mr. DePrima, City Planner, relayed that a petition to waive certain subdivision street design standards has been received for the Village of Cannon Mill, located on the north side of Hazlettville Road immediately west of the Village of Westover. Mr. DePrima indicated that the total size of the tract is 65.8+/- acres and will come in under the Planned Residential Neighborhood Design Option in which they are preserving 27% open space. The subdivision contains a total of 353 dwelling units, with a mix of residential structures including 55 single family detached units, 78 duplex units, 100 townhouses, and 120 apartment dwellings. The total density is 5.39 dwelling units/acre and the allowed density in the RM-1 zone is 6 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. DePrima stated that the project is served by one large circular collector road, four small access streets and one cul-de-sac street. The width of paving on the collector road is 38' and conforms with our street standards. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the required 60' right-of-way to permit a 56' right-of-way on the main loop road. The access streets and cul-de-sac are proposed to be 32' paved which requires a 6' waiver from our current 38' standard. The right-of-way is to be 51', which requires a 9' waiver from our current 60' standard. Mr. DePrima indicated that the Electric Department preferred a wider right-of-way to allow the electric equipment use of the City street. In lieu of the wider right-of-way, the developer is proposing to grant the City a blanket easement for placement of electric lines and equipment. The Electric Department supported the right-of-way reduction if the blanket easement is granted.
Mr. Lambert asked if parking would be allowed on the access streets and cul-de-sac. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the developer is proposing that parking only be permitted on one side of the street, since the road width they are proposing is 32'. The main road is a 38' street so there is no need to restrict parking.
In response to Mr. Kramedas, Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed cul-de-sac will have 32' of paving and 51' of right-of-way. He indicated that there will only be nine houses that will front on the proposed cul-de-sac.
Mr. Leary asked what the difference was between this request and the John Hunn Brown street waiver request. Mr. DePrima indicated that for the John Hunn Brown property, the main road was 36' and the access roads were 28' with parking on one side of the street.
Mr. DePrima indicated that the proposed waivers were reviewed and recommended for approval by City staff and the Planning Commission.
For informational purposes, Mrs. Malone noted that the Parks and Recreation Open Space Committee met on November 20, 1997 to discuss the open space requirements for the Village of Cannon Mill. Considering that the subdivision consists of 65.6817+/- acres, the developer is required to provide 25% total open space area, which is 16.3 acres. They are proposing 17.17 acres of open space. The developer is required to provide 2.23 acres of active open space, but are proposing active open space totaling 5.3 acres.
The central open space area, located in the center of the project, will contain pedestrian walkways, play equipment and benches. In the rear of the development they are preserving wooded open space and plan a stormwater management pond. In front of the development, a small park is planned. Since the large park is included with Phase II of the project, this small park will provide a recreation area for those residing in the first phase of the project, prior to completion of Phase II. The small recreation area is approximately 2.7 acres. The recreation area will contain playground equipment and a bench.
In the larger, center recreation area, there will be a swimming pool which will be owned by the apartment complex. Membership for pool use will be open to other homeowners within the development. This park will also house tennis courts and a large playground area. The playground areas will contain wood carpet. It was explained that the wood carpet is made up of chips of particle board, which contain some form of glue that helps to keep splintering to a minimum. It also provides a good drainage system and is handicapped accessible. The open space is owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The committee recommended approval of the proposal for open space for the Village of Cannon Mill.
Mr. Lambert asked if the stormwater retention pond, running along the southern edge of the property, was adequate. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the project is being designed in such a way that the retention pond will not contribute to the drainage problem at the Village of Westover. He advised members that the drainage problem at the Village of Westover was not caused by the development of the property and that there was berming being done by an area farmer which is causing water to back-up onto the property. Mr. DePrima informed members that the infiltration system for the Village of Cannon Mill will have a very shallow slope and is engineered to clear water within 48 hours. He stated that he has had discussions with the Kent Conservation District who is working with a local legislator to fund some solution to the drainage problem.
Mr. Salters asked if the recreation area will be open to the public. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the park will be for the use of the residents of the Village of Cannon Mill.
Mr. Salters stated that there was some opposition at the Planning Commission Meeting regarding the traffic and felt that a plan is needed to address traffic concerns and road improvements in that area. Mr. O’Connor stated that currently the only plan being considered is for improvements on the eastern portion of North Street. He indicated that there are no planned improvements for Hazlettville Road at this time other than the recent signalization at Mifflin Road. He reminded Council that Mr. Lambert and other members of Council have been encouraging the development of a western bypass.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. DePrima stated that approval from DelDOT for this project has not yet been received but they have been informed verbally that the traffic study performed met all DelDOT standards. He assured members that construction will not commence until written notification is received from DelDOT.
Mr. O’Connor stated that DelDOT has expressed some concern with a proposal for placement of a traffic light at the intersection of Mifflin Road and Route #8. He stated that DelDOT has criteria that would have to be met regarding distance, explaining that the main concern is the distance between the light at Dover Kenton Road and Mifflin Road. It was noted that this problem is exacerbated by traffic attempting to make a left hand turn out of McDonald’s onto Route #8.
Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, a resident of Mifflin Road, stated that if a traffic light is placed at the end of Mifflin Road at Route #8, then this entire area will need extensive review. She noted that this is the same part of Route #8 that narrows down from four lanes to two lanes and it was her feeling that the addition of a traffic light would only add to the confusion at this intersection. She noted the difficulty for those making a left turn onto Route #8 coming out of McDonald’s, informing Council that there was a very bad accident that occurred recently at that intersection. Although she does not know if a traffic light at Mifflin Road and Route #8 would help with traffic flow, she feels that other improvements would be a necessary part of such a plan.
The committee recommended approval of the request for street waivers for the Village of Cannon Mill, as recommended by City staff and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lambert moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Christiansen).
Mr. Lambert moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on November 24, 1997 with Chairman Salters presiding.
Proposed Ordinance - Tax Credits for Historic Property Improvements
Committee members reviewed a proposal for tax credits for historic property improvements. The committee tabled action on the proposal to provide Mr. DePrima an opportunity to amend portions of the ordinance for clarification purposes and to gather any available information relative to the financial impact of the ordinance. During their committee meeting of November 24, 1997, members reviewed additional information submitted by Mr. DePrima.
Mr. DePrima stated that his department researched building permits from January 1997 through October 1997 for the existing Historic District boundary and the proposed boundary (the Commercial District) and found that there were a total of 35 building permits issued in 1997. Of these, 32 would not qualify for abatement of taxes. He indicated that 18 projects were less than the $1,200 threshold for improvements, 10 were interior projects, one (1) was a non-taxable property, one (1) was not a historic property; and one (1) was a repair that was reimbursed as the result of an insurance claim.
Mr. DePrima stated that of the three (3) that would likely qualify, two (2) were in the existing Historic District boundary, and one (1) was in the proposed Historic District boundary. The total value of all three was $11,310; therefore, the total abatement would be $5,655 spread over a ten year period. Since this was a ten month period, a simple extrapolation yields a $678 annual tax impact. He stated that the reason the projection was so low is because it does not include all repairs since there are many instances where repairs do not require a building permit. He stated that it is likely that the abatement program itself will attract activity.
Realizing that his estimates may be low, he felt it would be fair to double or even triple the impact, which would yield between a $1,500 and $2,000 impact per year. Mr. DePrima stated that he also made adjustments to the ordinance as follows:
► Removed references that would imply that credits be received for landscaping.
► Disqualify repairs that would otherwise be paid for through insurance claims because of covered damages. For example, if a tree falls on a porch and repairs would be covered by insurance, the project would not qualify.
► A property owner can apply more than once for a credit, but the annual credit can not exceed $1,000, with a lifetime cap of $15,000 in credit.
► The Historic District Commission would have greater discretion to determine that proposed preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation treatments are not appropriate.
Mr. Leary stated that some citizens have contacted him about the proposal and asked if such an incentive has caused a rash of improvements in other cities. Mr. DePrima stated that in his experience, he has not seen a serious increase in improvements due to the program. In Newark, their construction benefit program has been in existence for 1½ years and to date, no one has participated in the program.
Asked by Mr. Truitt if he believes the proposal will reap positive results, Mr. DePrima reiterated that the purpose of a tax credit proposal is to inspire improvements and encourage property owners to take care of their historic properties by improving them in the highest standards of our guidelines. Mr. Truitt felt that it was important for a property owner of a historic building to keep their property at the highest standard of repair, which would benefit the City; however, expressed concern with the way this was being presented. He stated that if this proposal does not benefit the City or motivate property owners to perform the highest standard of repair, then the City should look at other alternatives. Mr. Truitt suggested that the $10,000 tax credit per year be reduced to $6,000 per year, stating that the tax credit could be raised in the future if needed.
Mr. DePrima stated that property improvements may or may not increase property values. However, in the long run property improvements, at a minimum, keep property values level which is an improvement over allowing properties to deteriorate and property values to decrease.
Mr. Salters reiterated previous concerns with offering a property tax credit to only certain types of property owners. He reminded members of Council that property owners within the downtown area are required to pay an additional tax for improvements in their area. Mrs. Malone reminded Mr. Salters that the Downtown Dover Business Improvement District Tax is a tax that was requested by downtown property owners for improvements in their particular area. The majority of property owners in the downtown area voted favorably for this tax.
Mr. Lambert reminded members that property owners in the historic district have more restrictions on how they can improve their properties which can be more costly than improvements to properties outside the historic district. Should the ordinance be approved by the committee, Mr. Lambert reminded committee members that it was suggested in earlier meetings that a sunset provision be included in the ordinance.
If this ordinance is approved, Council President reque