COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on November 24, 1997, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Leary, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters, Mr. Weller, Mr. Truitt and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Council President Christiansen requested that the Utility Committee meet prior to the Legislative and Finance Committee. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Lambert presiding. Members present were Councilman Weller, Mr. Kramedas and Mr. Carey. Due to the absence of Councilman Pitts (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Councilman Leary was deputized to serve as a temporary member.
Request for Street Waivers - Village of Cannon Mill
The 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.
The City Planner 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.
The City Planner 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. The City Planner 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 to Mr. Lambert, 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.
Responding 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.
Mrs. Malone stated that the Village of Cannon Mill is a subdivision 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. Mr. DePrima indicated that the drainage problem at the Village of Westover was not caused by the development of the property. He stated 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 suggested 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 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. It was indicated that formal construction would 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 and 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.
Mr. Weller moved to recommend approval of the requested waivers, as recommended by City staff and the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:20 P.M.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilman Leary and Councilwoman Malone and Mr. Merritt. Due the absence of Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Truitt was deputized to serve as a temporary member.
Proposed Ordinance - Tax Credits for Historic Property Improvements
During the committee meeting of November 10, 1997, 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.
Mr. Salters moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
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 eighteen (18) projects were less than the $1,200 threshold for improvements, ten (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 Commission boundary, and one (1) was in the proposed Historic District Commission 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 attached to the ordinance.
If this ordinance is approved, Council President requested that City Staff submit a monthly report to Council depicting the impact to the City from this ordinance. This information could be incorporated within the confines of the City Assessor’s Report or the Building Inspector’s Report. He relayed his opinion that although we need to protect our tax base, he felt it very important to address the needs of specific projects, such as downtown revitalization and historic district improvements. If these areas are permitted to deteriorate, the negative effect of the deterioration will effect the entire City of Dover.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance for Tax Credits for Historic Property Improvements, incorporating the changes outlined in the Planner’s Report under paragraph 2, items A - D, with the maximum tax credit being amended to $600 annually and the addition of a provision that states that the ordinance will expire within two years of the adoption date. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried. It was noted that the ordinance would be amended throughout to coincide with the maximum tax credit of $600. (Attachment #1 - as revised)
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 2-7(g) Awards Committee, Nomination Procedures
In reviewing the nomination procedures for a City of Dover Medal (CDM), staff realized that nominations for a CDM, other than a gold or silver lifesaving, must contain a statement from the City Manager. It was Mrs. Boaman’s feeling that this requirement was difficult to meet since there are many situations where the City Manager would have no knowledge of the qualifying act; therefore, staff recommends that the requirement of a statement from the City Manager be eliminated.
Although currently practiced, it is not stipulated that nominations must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office for processing. Staff is recommending that the proposed ordinance be amended to indicate that all nominations must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office. Mrs. Boaman stated that this will assure that all aspects of the ordinance have been met prior to a nomination being forwarded to the Awards Committee for their review and recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment #2), seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Proposed Charter Change - Section 13, Filling Vacancies for Council (or Mayor)
In accordance with Section 13 of the City of Dover Charter, if a vacancy is created in the Office of Mayor or Council, and the vacancy is less than six (6) months in duration, Council shall fill such vacancy. According to the City Solicitor, Council must make the appointment as prescribed by the City Charter if there is less than six (6) months remaining on the term.
Mrs. Malone recommended that consideration be given to amending Section 13 of the City of Dover Charter that would require any vacancy of the Mayor or Council to remain vacant, if such vacancy is for less than six (6) months in duration. This would require a Charter change to be presented by our local legislators to the General Assembly to amend Section 13 of the City of Dover Charter.
Mrs. Malone relayed that she recently had discussions with other constituents about this matter who felt that they would prefer to see a Council seat remain vacant when less than six (6) months of the term is remaining. She stated her feeling that Council works very well together and since the vacancy would be for less than six (6) months in duration, she felt that Council could continue dealing with issues for the short period of time with only eight (8) members of Council. Mrs. Malone stated that the other alternative would be to hold a special election; however, she expressed concern with the additional costs that would be incurred.
Mrs. Malone suggested that the language be amended to state that the seat shall remain vacant if such vacancy should be less than six (6) months in duration. She stated that during discussions with Councilman Leary, he expressed concern with the possible occurrence of tie votes when only eight members of Council are voting. She stated that a tie vote is considered a “no” vote and did not envision this as a problem.
Mr. Leary stated that from the stand point of management issues and in the spirit of offering a compromise, he suggested that the word “shall” be changed to “may” in order that Council may fill a vacated seat on a case by case basis. He stated that he is against the proposed ordinance, but would be willing to compromise if the word “shall” were changed to the word “may”.
Responding to questions by Mr. Truitt, Mrs. Malone stated that in the absence of the Mayor, the Council President would serve as the Mayor. Mr. Truitt stated that in that case, Council would then loose a vote from Council. Mr. Truitt stated that he supports Mr. Leary’s suggestion, which would give Council the opportunity to fill a vacated seat if needed.
(Note from City Clerk’s Office - In accordance with Sec. 15 of the City Charter, there are provisions for the Council President (vice-mayor) to serve in the Mayor’s absence and still maintain his right to vote as a member of Council. It is only in an extended absence, that Council may appoint the vice-mayor to assume the full role as Mayor (right to veto Council actions), and the Council seat vacated by the Council President would then be filled as required in Sec. 13.)
Mayor Hutchison addressed Council stating that he concurs with the language of the ordinance. He stated that he firmly believes that this ordinance is good for the City and the City’s future. Mayor Hutchison reminded members of Council that they were elected by the people and felt that it would be unethical to deny the citizens that serve this community the right to fill such a vacancy.
Mr. Weller stated that he concurred with Mr. Leary’s suggestion to change the word “shall” to “may” and felt that changing the language would give Council the opportunity to fill a vacated seat on an as needed basis.
Mr. Lambert stated that he respects Mr. Leary’s suggestion and Mayor Hutchison’s comments; however, he felt that Council should be more definitive. He felt that six (6) months was not a long period of time for a Council seat to be vacated, stating that it may be a dangerous choice to take that right away from the citizens of Dover.
Mr. Salters stated that he felt a Charter change was not needed, stating that he sees no problem with Council appointing someone to fill a vacated seat for less than a six (6) month period.
Mr. Christiansen suggested that the ordinance be reviewed further to afford Council time to devise definitive language to the ordinance.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend that this matter be tabled to afford Council time to review the positive and negative aspects of the proposed ordinance; however, the motion failed due to lack of a second.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as presented, seconded by Mrs. Malone. The motion failed by a vote of one (1) yes (Mrs. Malone) and four (4) no.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of an amendment to Section 13 of the Charter (Attachment #3), replacing the word “shall” with the word “may”. (The sentence would then read, “In the case of any such vacancy or of any vacancy created by death, resignation or otherwise, for which said vacancy shall be less than six (6) months in duration, the Council may fill such vacancy”). The motion was seconded by Mr. Merritt and carried with Mrs. Malone voting no.
Historic District Expansion
In accordance with the recommendation of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the Historic District Commission studied expanding the Historic District Zone into the commercial areas centered around Loockerman Street from State Street to the Train Station. After considering this matter, the Historic District Commission found that it meets the criteria set forth in Article 10, Section 3.3 Historic District Amendments.
Mr. DePrima relayed to members that a Comprehensive Plan Workshop was held on August 14, 1997, at which time all downtown property owners and businesses were invited. A survey was conducted concerning expansion of the Historic District with seventy-six percent (76%) in support of the expansion, eighty-eight percent (88%) who thought that the current Historic District Regulations were appropriate, and ninety-four percent (94%) who thought that Historic Preservation was important for downtown re-development. A second workshop for property owners was held on November 12, 1997 and there were no comments in opposition to the proposal. At their Executive Committee Meeting, the Friends of Old Dover reviewed and endorsed the proposal.
Mr. DePrima indicated that the proposed expansion of the Historic District into the commercial area along Loockerman Street was supported during the Comprehensive Plan Workshops, and at more recent public workshops, is supported by the Historic District Commission, is consistent with the goals of the Main Street Dover, Inc., and is a recognized economic development strategy. Based upon the above, staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning amendment.
Mr. Salters noted that this presentation was for informational purposes only and that a public hearing is scheduled for December 8, 1997 for official action by Council.
C-2 Zone Regulation Changes
Mr. DePrima informed members that the C-2 zone is intended to bring our 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.
Mr. DePrima stated that the greatest weakness of our existing ordinance is that it requires all “changes of use” to obtain a “conditional use” approval from the Planning Commission. The intent of this requirement was to allow public review of new downtown businesses to determine if the use may be detrimental to the commercial district. He stated that all too often new uses that are ideally suited for downtown are caught in the requirement. Mr. DePrima stated that a conditional use requires an application fee, a 45 day review period, and the need of a professional designer to prepare the site plans. The proposed ordinance amendment eliminates the “change in use” trigger and instead, divides uses into permitted uses.
Mr. DePrima indicated other important changes and protections of the ordinance as follows:
► If there is a conditional use already in place, that use would be recognized as a permitted use, and would remain a permitted use even if the building remains vacant. However, if changed to a permitted use, then the property could not change back to a conditional use without a conditional use hearing. In short, current owners of uses that are listed as conditional do not have to worry about their status changing, even if the store remains vacant for a period of time.
► The proposal makes the need for a conditional use very clear. Under our current ordinance, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether there has been a change of use.
► The proposed ordinance significantly simplifies the submission requirement for a conditional use hearing in an existing building. The use of an engineer or architect is no longer necessary. It has been amended so that a reasonably intelligent person could draw and submit the site plans.
► It allows easel signs in the public sidewalk area as long as it does not impede the flow of walkers with the City Managers permission.
► It allows some relaxation of sign requirements if the property is an historic property and the proposed sign is in keeping with the Historic District Guidelines as determined by the Historic District Commission.
Mr. Salters asked if personal service stores will migrate farther west. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that there are two sub-areas within the downtown. The area along Loockerman Street from State Street to New Street is planned as a core retail and entertainment district. The remaining areas (Loockerman Street from New Street to the Train Station, Governors Avenue, Bradford, and State Street from Reed Street to North Street) have a greater amount of non-retail activity. He indicated that the only difference between the two is that in the core area, offices and personal service shops on the first floor are a conditional use, whereas they are permitted outside the core area. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that signs are permitted for second floor offices and retail businesses provided they fall within the context of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Salters noted that this presentation was for informational purposes only and that a public hearing has been scheduled for December 8, 1997 for official Council action.
Budget Revisions #2
To meet the changing needs of the City’s operations and to update revenues, the City revises the budget three or four times a year. The Finance Director/Treasurer submitted the second proposed revisions to the 1997/98 budget.
Mr. Salters highlighted the receipt of $141,820 in municipal street aid funds and stated that he expects the City to receive additional funds next fiscal year. He also indicated that the City received $260,000 for the use of the City’s rights-of-way which has been incorporated into the City’s Water/Wastewater and Electric Revenue Funds for calendar year 1998, which will be payable to the City in January 1998.
Mrs. Malone moved to recommend acceptance of the proposed revisions (Attachment #4) as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:18 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/nh