COUNCIL COMMITTEES

The Council Committees Meeting was held on June 9, 1997 at 6:45 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters and Mayor Hutchison. Mr. Fenimore and Mr. Weller were absent.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mrs. Malone moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Leary 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. Schaefer and Mr. Merritt.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Senior Citizen Housing Zone

Through the development of The Dover Plan, the lack of zoning provisions which address senior citizen housing options was identified as an element which needs to be addressed. The Comprehensive Plan Implementation chapter recommends the development of such provisions. The proposed amendment is intended to address this issue. The proposed amendment would permit various senior citizen housing opportunities as Conditional Uses requiring City Council review and Planning Commission approval as part of the Planned Neighborhood Design Option.

Under this amendment, senior citizen housing proposals may be considered in all zones except the C-4, M and IPM zoning districts. Prior to submission to the Planning Commission, such proposals are first reviewed by City Council in conceptual form or determination as to whether or not the proposal warrants further review and consideration by the Planning Commission.

This amendment sets forth general design parameters and performance standards, and stipulates a minimum age requirement of 55 years for heads of households within such projects. The Planned Neighborhood Design Option currently is limited to projects which involve land subdivision. In recognition of the probability that some, if not most, senior housing proposals will not involve subdivision of land, the amendment outlines the process for such projects.

Mr. Lambert questioned the requirement for review by City Council, stating that he thought it would require Council review only if it were a Planned Neighborhood Design Option. Mr. DePrima explained that it is a Planned Neighborhood Design Option project, but a special set of rules have been set aside for the Senior Housing Zone Option. This provides for different requirements and provides more flexibility. As an example, Mr. DePrima stated that seniors generally do not require as much parking spaces, especially for nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The senior citizen housing requirements have been imbedded in the Planned Neighborhood Design Option.

Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment and that a public hearing be held on June 23, 1997 to consider adoption of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinances for the Senior Housing Zone Option, as recommended by the City Planner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:00 P.M.

UTILITY COMMITTEE

The Utility Committee met with Chairman Lambert presiding. Members present were Councilmen Pitts and Mr. Carey and Mr. Kramedas. Mr. Salters was appointed to serve as a member in the absence of Mr. Fenimore.

Bid - Electric Stock Material

The City purchases electric stock material through a blanket bid process. This method has proven to be very cost effective as vendors will guarantee their bid price for materials during the entire fiscal year. It was noted that 673 individual items were bid. Due to the complexity of the bid, bid summaries were not provided to each member, but was available for discussion purposes. When reviewing the individual bids, City staff considered low bid as well as local vendor preference. Following a thorough evaluation of bids, staff recommends that purchases be made with the following vendors, for the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998:

                   Dixie Electric Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,886.43

                   Graybar Electric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,865.94

                   Hamby Young. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,611.00

                   Hesco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,872.38

                   National Transformer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76,976.00

                   Rumsey Electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60,415.51

                   Tecot Electric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,103.28

                   United Electric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,056.42

                   Vanyo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .906,214.40

                   Wesco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,472,322.00

Mr. O’Connor reminded members that the amounts are estimated, based on projected purchases and that the City is not obligated to purchase materials for the total bidded price.

Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the purchases from the above vendors for the period of July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.

Street Waiver Request - John Hunn Brown Property

Subdivision Regulations, Appendix A of the City Code, Article VI, Section A, specify a street pavement width of 38' within a 60' right-of-way with no variation given for whether on-street parking is controlled. A petition to waive certain subdivision street design standards has been received for the John Hunn Brown subdivision. The street waiver requests are summarized as follows:

1)    Proposed Collector Streets: 60' Right-of-Way, 30' street pavement when no parking allowed on street, 38' when parking is allowed on one side of the street.

2)    Proposed Access Streets: 50' Right-of-Way, 24' street pavement when no parking is allowed, 32' when parking is allowed on one side of the street.

Waivers are also sought to permit a tighter centerline radius than permitted at the following locations:

1)    The proposed traffic circle calls for a 115'+/- centerline radius on the collector street, code calls for a minimum 300' radius on collector streets.

2)    One proposed expanded cul-de-sac street calls for a 90' centerline radius, the code calls for a 150' radius.

Mr. DePrima explained that the staff worked carefully with the developer to design a street system that is creative and serves the City’s need for streets that are safe, that promote efficient travel ways for public and emergency service vehicles, and enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.

The street system proposes looping residential access streets of varying lengths linked to a main collector street that runs from South Little Creek Road to North Little Creek Road. A defining feature of the collector street is a proposed round-about (circle) which is intended to create a distinctive visual attribute while serving as a discouragement to high-speed through traffic. Other unique features are: rear access alleys mostly in association with townhouse blocks with five or more units; smaller townhouse blocks will have an expanded cul-de-sac design to provide for overflow and guest parking; only one true cul-de-sac street is proposed within a single family portion of the site; three (3) common boat and recreation vehicle parking areas.

The developer is proposing reduced street widths of varying sizes throughout the subdivision. The varying widths are a function of on-street parking. The developer is seeking to control on-street parking for reasons of safety and attractiveness by having designated areas for parallel parking. Where designated areas exist, the parking width increases by 8'. Where it does not exist, the extra area will be dedicated to the landscaped area between the road and sidewalk.

The Planning staff and the Planning Commission support the reduced street waivers for the following reasons:

1.    The reduced street widths are a part of the overall design which relegates parking to controlled areas including: designated on-street areas, rear parking areas of alleys, parking islands, front driveways and garages, and long term storage areas. In addition, the alleys will have the effect of drawing traffic away from the streets.

2.    Reduced street widths will create increased “green ways” along the street which will improve the look of the development and reduce stormwater discharge.

3.    The City’s cost of maintaining the streets will be less in the long term.

4.    Narrower streets have the effect of slowing traffic and are easier to cross for pedestrians.

5.    There are a number of established and successful developments in Dover which have similar streets widths, with a number of developments having even less street widths than what is being proposed.

The staff and Planning Commission also support the reduced radius for the collector street circle and expanded cul-de-sac because they are a part of the overall unique design. Both have been determined to be safe by the City Engineer.

Mr. DePrima stated that our current street standards need to be updated and they are currently working with the MPO and DelDOT on revising street standards state-wide. He stated his feeling that our street width requirements may be excessive. Mr. DePrima also explained that with the regulation of parking, there would actually be more travel area on the streets than if our standards of 38' were adhered to with no restricted parking.

Mr. Lambert encouraged possible revisions to the City’s street standards, stating his opinion that 38' streets are very wide and often encourages speeding.

Mr. Ted Williams of Landmark Engineering gave an overview of how the development would look with the requested waivers. He explained that they plan designated areas for boat and recreation vehicle parking so that the development remains aesthetically pleasing. Guest parking areas will also be provided to eliminate the need for vehicles to be parked along the street. They are required to provide a minimum of 2.75 parking stalls per unit, but intend to provide something in excess of the requirement. At the current time, it is estimated at approximately 2.8 to 2.9 parking stalls, with the final determination to be made as the plans are finalized.

Referring to questions on the boat and recreation vehicle parking areas, Mr. DePrima stated that such a parking area would be advantageous for enforcement purposes. During the summer months, the Inspectors respond to many complaints of boats being improperly parked in residential developments.

Asked by members of the committee if the reduction would have an adverse effect on emergency vehicles or for service vehicles, such as garbage trucks, Mr. DePrima stated that the needs of all departments have been met.

Council President Christiansen stated his opinion that if the waivers are approved, the limited parking will ultimately cause problems and will result in complaints from homeowners.

Mrs. Malone asked Mr. O’Connor if the requested reductions would adversely effect the City’s snow removal process. Mr. O’Connor stated that although there is some concern, it is felt that it would be no more of a problem than with other similar streets in the City. Referring to the reduced costs of maintenance, Mr. O’Connor stated his opinion that the tradeoff will ultimately be to the City’s benefit.

Mr. Leary asked if enforcement problems are anticipated for areas where parking is limited or prohibited. Chief Smith stated that they have not encountered enforcement problems where similar restrictions are placed in other areas of the City.

Mr. Kramedas stated his opinion that the proposal is very innovative, especially in times where everyone is trying to do more with less. He suggested, however, that the developers make every attempt to provide as much parking space for parking stalls per unit as possible. Although he understands the aesthetic benefits of having no regulatory signs in the development, he suggested that at least a few “no parking” signs be erected so that everyone clearly knows where they can and cannot park.

Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the requested waivers, as recommended by City staff and the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kramedas and unanimously carried.

Mr. Leary moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:40 P.M.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Robin R. Christiansen

                                                                                    Council President 

RRC/DJB