|
|
TOWN OF OCEAN VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2007
Chairman Dick Logue called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. with Commission Members Carol Goodhand, Joe Evans, Perry Mitchell, and Gene Brendel were present. Town Administrative Official Charles McMullen and Town Solicitor Dennis Schrader were also in attendance. Planning and Zoning Consultant Susan Frederick was not required to attend this meeting.
1. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. The Town Administrative Official explained that Application P-229 is a continuation of an application heard at the Board of Adjustment and should be heard before Application P-228. Perry Mitchell made a motion to approve the agenda as modified. Carol Goodhand seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.
3. There were no changes to the Minutes of the October 18, 2007, meeting. Carol Goodhand made a motion to approve the minutes. Perry Mitchell seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
4. Old Business
None
5. New Business
A. Public Hearing Application P-229 submitted by Patrick and Ximena Dowling for subdivision of a parcel located at 35 Central Avenue (PIDN 241.000) Robert Witsil, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Dowling, thanked the Commission for moving this application on the agenda and introduced Mr. and Mrs. Dowling and Bruce Horn from ECI, the firm that provided the plats and studies for this application. He then distributed six pictures of the parcel and explained them. He reported that the Board of Adjustment granted three variances at its meeting tonight and said that he and Mr. McMullen agree that this is a permitted use as long as the application meets the requirements of the subdivision code. He briefly explained the variances that were approved. Lot One, which has a historic building on it, contains 15,733 SF, and Lot Two, which has no structures, has 15,825 SF. He noted that the applicants agreed to remove the shed that encroaches onto Lot Two, which was a condition of the approval of the variance. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 14,000 SF and both have larger than minimum lot widths; i.e., 80.3 and 89.49 feet in front footage, and the perpendicular widths exceed the 75 foot minimum. He said that the lots have public sewer and public water, are zoned R-1, the present structure does not exceed the maximum height requirement, and any proposed structure on Lot Two will not exceed the maximum height requirement. Bruce Horn, ECI in Rehoboth Beach, explained his qualifications and confirmed that the two-lot subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Ocean View Subdivision Code and that he has met with Mr. McMullen and DelDOT representatives about this subdivision. There were no questions for Mr. Horn. Mr. Witsil then referred to §222-53 of the Code and said that they are prepared to present this for preliminary and final site-plan approval. Mr. Witsil then reviewed §222-53 G. (1) (a) through (p) as follows: (a) These two lots are similar to other lots in the area. (b) there are no wetlands or floodplains on these lots. (c) In response to questions from Mr. Witsil, Mr. Patrick Dowling said that this house was built in 1863 and would preserve the natural historic features of the surrounding area. (d) no comment. (e) Mr. Witsil said that there are no significant vegetation features and there will be little disturbance of vegetation during construction on Lot Two. (f) Mr. Witsil said that there are no objectionable features on this property. (g) and (h) Water and sewer are available. (i) The availability of sewer will prevent pollution of surface and ground water. (j) Mr. Witsil read this section, and Mr. Horn said that the development of Lot Two will meet all these qualifications. (i) Mr. Witsil said that the applicants had to dedicate an extra 20 feet of their front footage on Lot Two to DelDOT to ensure the provision of safe vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to adjacent ways. He also referred to the placement of the second driveway. (l) Mr. Witsil referred to the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), which states that this should be a growth area, and the subdivision of this parcel would help not be detrimental to this goal. He also referred to several other pages in the CLUP that discuss the Town’s desire to retain historic buildings. (m) and (n) are not applicable. (o) Already discussed. (p) Has been met. (q) Not applicable. He said that there will be two off-street parking spots on each lot and also said that his clients firmly believe that this is the best plan that could be designed for this property and asked that the Commission give preliminary and final approval for this plan. In response to a request from Mr. Witsil, Mr. Dowling confirmed that all of Mr. Witsil’s representations on his behalf are true and correct. The Town Solicitor asked about DelDot’s intention when putting in a 20 foot right of way on this property when it will run right into the side of a 150 year old house and was told by Mr. Horn that this happens frequently. The road has been classified as a major collector, and Mr. Horn briefly explained DelDOT’s need for an 80 foot right of way, which will be aided by this 20-foot right of way. The Town Administrative Official referred to his overview and said that Susan Frederick’s comments can be incorporated into his comments since they have similar viewpoints. Mr. McMullen then read comments from his overview and said that the site plan meets all of the requirements in §190-69 with the exception of deed restrictions and covenants, which are not applicable to this subdivision. He noted Susan Frederick’s comment that no landscaping was mentioned but said that this was not necessary. He noted that 10 foot drainage easements have been granted to the Town and referred to the 20 foot right of way dedication and noted that the 1,700 SF for the right of way was extracted from the lot but the lot is still over the 14,000 SF minimum lot requirement. He explained that the DelDOT approval was for a similar subdivision as is indicated on the plat the Commission members are reviewing, it is not exactly the same. He said that this application can be approved as a final site plan because no only streets are created, he did not want the fact that DelDOT’s approval was for a similar lot rather than this one to hold up approval and noted that approval could be conditioned upon recordation if they so chose. He noted that DelDOT rather than the Town established the driveway and noted that it is 5 feet off of the side lot line, which is a requirement of the Town’s single lot ordinance. In answer to a request from Chairman Logue, Mr. McMullen said that if the Commission wants to approve this application as proposed, he suggested that if the Commission decides to approve the application, it require that the plat that is being approved be also approved and signed off by DelDOT before Mr. McMullen approves it prior to recordation in Georgetown. In answer to a question from the Town Solicitor, Mr. Horn explained that they will seek a letter of no objection from DelDOT and said that DelDOT is concerned about driveways in relation to adjacent driveways. Mr. McMullen said that DelDOT has asked that any subdivision bordering a State highway receive a letter of no objection and said that it is especially important because this agency must approve the driveway and stressed that it is a different subdivision that the Commission will approve, and it is necessary that the Commission require that the subdivision that it approves also receives DelDOT approval in order to avoid future confusion. Mr. Horn noted that as a condition of issuing a driveway permit, DelDOT will require the applicant to provide a copy of the recorded plat and if the agency sees significant changes, it will not issue a permit. The Town Solicitor noted that there are significant changes because the plat with the letter of no objection shows a street frontage of 83.28 feet, and the plat seeking approval tonight shows a front footage of 89.49 feet, which is a difference of over 5 feet. Mr. Witsil said that the applicants will accept the condition of seeking DelDOT approval prior to recordation. The Town Solicitor said that it is implicit in all Commission approvals that the applicant will comply with all other agency requirements. There were no questions or comments from the public. Chairman Logue declared the public hearing to have been held. Carol Goodhand made a motion to approve Application P-229, the parcel that is located on 35 Central Avenue, for subdivision of two parcels with the condition of approval of this site plan by DelDOT. Joe Evans seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
B. Public Hearing Application P-228 submitted by David Myers on behalf of Roger and Susan Knox to construct a building on a parcel located at 69 Atlantic Avenue (PIDN 201.160) Chairman Logue said that this application is not before the Commission for approval tonight because none of the approvals from other agencies have been submitted; he noted that this is a conceptual type of presentation in order to determine potential problems. David Myers, GMB, said that he understood that it would be a preliminary site plan review and thought that they needed approvals from other agencies prior to final site plan approval. The Town Administrative Official explained that other agencies often make changes after the Town approves the preliminary site plan and agreed that no site plan can receive final approval without receipt of all outside agency approvals. He said that he decided to go forward with this application because changes may take place as the plan is reviewed by other agencies, and he explained to Mr. Myers that they may have to return for preliminary approval if significant changes are made. Mr. McMullen said that the Commission members are reviewing it for conceptual purposes but it is a preliminary hearing. David Myers, GMB, Seaford, Delaware, said that he is representing WSFS Bank, which is proposing a 3,900 SF building with a drive-through and parking lot at 69 Atlantic Avenue. He explained that the property is zoned general business and gave the setbacks. Mr. Myers said that the existing building, a gym, will be demolished, and public utilities are or will soon be available. He said that storm water management is proposed for the southwest part of the property and went into brief detail about this. He said that 13 parking spaces are required, and they will provide 19 parking spaces. He said that he didn’t provide much detail for landscaping and lighting but will add whatever is required. He explained that the Town Administrative Official told him that they may need to show the location for a dumpster, and this has not been done on this plan but did indicate a possible location for a dumpster on the site plan. In answer to a request from Chairman Logue, Mr. McMullen said that the 40 foot building setback line is indicated across the back of the parking places. A brief discussion about this issue took place among the Commission members, the Town Administrative Official, and the Town Solicitor. Mr. McMullen said that he interprets the Code to state that no more than 50% of the setback area can be used for parking but the Code does not specify a particular setback area and briefly explained the calculations that must be done in order to determine if they have exceeded that requirement. After a brief discussion, the Town Solicitor said that less than half of the setback area is occupied by parking but noted that they must do a landscaping plan. In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Mr. Myers said that the applicants do not own any of the adjacent corner parcel and said that if the storm water management pond will not fit into their property, they will have other options for storm water management. In answer to a question from Perry Mitchell, Don Hadley, the Director of Facilities for WSFS said that the bank’s full name is the Wilmington Savings Fund Society. Gene Brendel said that he has a problem with Evans Avenue, which is only about 12 feet wide, and the difficulty that people will have when using it. Mr. Myers said that the pavement width of Evans Avenue is at least 16 feet. In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Mr. Myers said that there will be no commercial space for rent in this building. In answer to questions from Perry Mitchell, Mr. Hadley said that they will have four tellers on the inside and two drive-through tellers and will ultimately have six to eight positions, which would leave 13 parking spaces for customers. Mr. Hadley noted that they are building a prototype at this location and may wind up with six rather than eight positions, which would result in 15 parking spaces for customers. Mr. Myer noted that the Code requirements for bank parking are one parking space per 300 square feet of building or one space per employee; either way they have exceeded the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Mitchell expressed concerns about the traffic impact on Woodland Avenue. In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Mr. Hadley said that he would estimate having 30 to 40 people initially through a bank of this size in a day and said that this would vary and agreed that 40 cars would be an above average count and noted that some of these cars would go through the drive-in. He also agreed that there would not be a great deal of traffic. The Town Solicitor reminded attendees that when people cannot be permitted to make left-hand turns onto Atlantic Avenue, they will need to exit via Evans Avenue and get to Atlantic Avenue via Woodland Avenue. Mr. Myers agreed that this will be a DelDOT requirement. The issue of the impact of traffic on Woodland Avenue was briefly discussed. Chairman Logue said banks have a low traffic count. In answer to a question from Perry Mitchell, Mr. Hadley described the façade of the building. He said that the landscaping will be appropriate for the site and the inside furnishings are upscale. In answer to a question from Perry Mitchell, Chairman Logue said that the Town does not have architectural standards. Perry Mitchell said that he would like the façade to blend in with the residences behind the building. Mr. Hadley said that their building is a traditional brick building, and the company’s color scheme, which is the same throughout the State, has always been well received. In answer to a question from Perry Mitchell, Mr. Hadley identified the windows on the site plan. In answer to a question from Joe Evans, Mr. Hadley said that have kept construction workers’ vehicles on site when constructing other buildings and will do the same with this building. Perry Mitchell referred to the depressed area in the rear of the property. Mr. Myers said that it is a swale and said that they will put in a culvert if necessary to avoid blocking the drainage. The Town Administrative Official said that Susan Frederick could not review this plan because she is employed by GMB; therefore, Alan Kercher reviewed this plan. Mr. McMullen referred to his overview of the application. He went onto to say that the Town would require road and swale restoration on Evans Avenue after construction is finished; he said that the 12” culvert in the swale previously mentioned by Mr. Myers is required by the Town Code. He then noted that the parcel is located in the GB district and is a permissible use in that district. He then said that the lot meets minimum square footage and width and length requirements and noted that 19 parking spaces are provided and explained that the 3,900 building requires 13 parking spaces, which would permit 6 employees. He then read the plan’s omissions or improper information: under Zoning, the setbacks should reflect the Code requirements; the site should reflect a 10 foot easement for utility and drainage on all lot lines; deed restrictions/covenants should be provided if they exist; if they do not, make note as property may be leased; flood zone should indicate that the parcel is in flood zone (X); and sidewalk will be required on Atlantic Avenue to meet DelDOT’s SR 26 project and should be noted by DelDOT with their entrance review. His overview also stated that there are no reports indicating that reviews have been done by any outside agencies, and no landscaping plan has been submitted for the project to date. He said that there are no parking lights on the plan and noted that security lights around the building will be required. He said that if the Commission is concerned about the color scheme of the building, it could request that color schemes or color photos of similar properties be submitted. He said that he would like to see the delineation of the width of the parking spaces and isn’t sure that one handicapped parking space would be sufficient. He said that Mr. Kercher’s report indicated similar concerns and said that the lot coverage for the proposed use should be indicated on the Site Data Table. Mr. McMullen said that the lot coverage cannot be more than 50% of the lot and said that the parking lot is not included in lot coverage. In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Mr. McMullen referred to § 222-53 E of the Code and said that he has commented on most of these requirements. There were no questions or comments from the public. Chairman Logue declared the public hearing to have been held. Chairman Logue said that they must be very specific about detailing the conditions if they choose to approve this as a preliminary site plan. The Town Solicitor said that they could approve this as a preliminary site plan with one condition; i.e., this approval is subject to all other applicable rules and regulations, ordinances, statutes, and law. No site preparation, site disturbance, excavation, or other construction shall be commenced until all permits required by all other laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations shall have been issued, and the approved final site plan is recorded. Mr. Schrader said that all of the comments from Messrs. McMullen and Kercher must be addressed by the applicant prior to submission of the final site plan. In response to a comment from Chairman Logue, Mr. McMullen said that neither a dumpster nor dumpster pad is indicated on the plan and said that the Commission requires that a dumpster be enclosed on all four sides so that it is not an eyesore to the public. Mr. Hadley said that a janitorial service removes their trash at night but they would have no problem with setting up a dumpster. The Town Solicitor said that the applicants should understand that if they chose to have a dumpster, it must not be adjacent to residential properties, must be be part of the landscaping plan and must be enclosed. Mr. McMullen said that if they wish to have a dumpster, they should put it on the plan now because it could be considered an amendment to the plan if they decide to add it at a later date. The applicant said that they would be willing to put one on the plan but would prefer to do without one. In response to a comment from Perry Mitchell, Mr. McMullen said that he already requested the addition of security lights and said that Mr. Mitchell could indicate the number of lights he would like them to place on the building. Mr. Mitchell noted that there are homes behind the banks, and the lights could not shine on them. Mr. Hadley mentioned the need to light up the ATM machines in the building. Mr. Myers said that they plan to submit detailed landscaping and light plans. Carol Goodhand made a motion to approve the preliminary site plan for Application P-228. She then asked about the appropriate way to include the comments of Messrs. McMullen and Kercher as conditions and was told by the Town Solicitor that it would be sufficient to refer to the two reports and their dates and incorporate them in that manner. Ms. Goodhand added the condition as stated by Mr. Schrader. Mr. McMullen then noted several items that were not included in his report; e.g., the dumpster, the color scheme, the restoration of Evans Avenue, and the parking lights. In response to a question from Gene Brendel, Mr. Hadley said that the ATM will be placed in the first drive-in lane rather than the lobby because they have found that this is a more secure location. Chairman Logue then stated that this approval will contain the following conditions:
Perry Mitchell seconded the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously.
C. Discussion and Consideration of Canceling December Meeting Carol Goodhand made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission not meet in December. Perry Mitchell, seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
D. Discussion and Consideration of Establishing Committee to Review Annexation Procedures and Code Changes The Town Administrative Official said that he will draft some annexation procedures and set up a meeting with Commission members to discuss them.
Gene Brendel made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Carol Goodhand seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard J. Logue Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission
Transcribed from noted: January 13, 2008
Top of Page Copyright© 2001-2004 Town of Ocean View, Delaware |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||