LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on April 23, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Weyandt presiding. Members present were Councilman Lynn and Mr. Leary. Mr. Hall was absent. Other members of Council present were Mr. Levitt and Mr. Daisey.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Weyandt requested the addition of agenda item #3A to discuss a moratorium on the conversion of single family dwellings into multiple occupancy buildings.
Mr. Lynn moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
PLAYTEX FAMILY PRODUCTS - APPEAL FOR WATER/SEWER BILL
Playtex Family Products Corporation appealed the 5% late charges that were assessed on their water/sewer billings for the fourth quarter of 1990. The City received a payment from Playtex in the amount of $41,061.80 on February 6, 1991. In order to avoid a 5% penalty, the bill would have to have been paid on February 4, 1991. It is the City’s policy to allow a one day grace period before accessing the late charge. The payment by Playtex exceeded the one day grace period and they were assessed $2, 053.09 in late fees.
Mr. Eugene Langenhan, Vice-President and Controller of Playtex, addressed the committee on the late fee assessment. He stated that a check for the bill was disbursed and mailed to the City on the due date. The City should have received the bill in the mail on the next day which would have been within the one day grace period. Since the two day delivery time for the check was beyond the control of Playtex, Mr. Langenhan requested that the City waive the late fee charge. He assured members of the committee that Playtex has always been prompt with payment of their bill and that they are changing their payment procedure to ensure that the problem does not reoccur.
City staff recommended that the request be denied since the same rules must apply to all customers, regardless of the size of the bill. Playtex was fully aware of the City’s policy regarding penalties and they chose to wait until the day the bill was due to release the check.
Realizing the importance of not releasing sizeable checks before it is necessary, members of the committee expressed their understanding of holding the check until it was due. However, the responsibility of making sure that the check was received on time is the responsibility of Playtex and cannot be blamed on the postal service or the City. It was suggested that in the future, Playtex have someone hand deliver the check.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend denial of the request by Playtex Family Products Corp. To waive the late fee assessed for their fourth quarter water/sewer billing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - REQUEST FOR PROPOSED BUILDING - DOUBLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME
A letter was received from the Delaware State Police requesting permission to place a 26'x58' double-wide mobile home behind the State Police Headquarters on Route #13. The double-wide mobile home was seized by the State Police during a criminal arrest and they would like to utilize the unit for general office space and a treatment room for K-9's.
City Planner, Ed Cregar, explained that the zoning classification for the property does not permit placement of the mobile unit and approval would require Council waiving certain provisions of the Zoning Code.
Major Robert Gooch explained that they would like permission to permanently place the mobile home on concrete and block pillars with block underpinning.
Responding to questions by committee members, Mr. Cregar explained that modular units are permitted in the City if they are built to BOCA standards. Mobile homes, which do not meet BOCA standards, are only permitted in parks in the mobile home park zoning classification. He stated that it is possible to restructure the unit to meet BOCA standards but he was unsure of the costs involved in such an endeavor.
Realizing that approval of a permanent zoning violation could se t a dangerous precedent for the City, the committee felt that the State Police should investigate the possibility of restructuring the unit so that it meets building and zoning code specifications in the City.
Mr. Lynn moved to table action on the request to allow time for the applicant and the city Planner to investigate the possibility and costs of restructuring the unit to meet City building code specifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
MORATORIUM - CONVERSION OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS INTO MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS
Stemming from complaints from property owners in certain areas of the City, staff has been asked to review operating procedures relative to the conversion of single-family dwellings into multiple occupancy buildings.
Due to the proliferation in the conversions of one-family residential dwellings into multiple occupancy structures, more commonly referred to as apartments, and the associated problems of inadequate provisions for off-street parking, apparent violations of adopted life safety regulations and non-conformity with provisions of the Zoning code relative to residential density limitations. Staff recommended a moratorium on such conversions of single family residential dwellings into multiple occupancy structures. The moratorium would provide the City Planning staff and City Council the opportunity to review current procedures and operating policies and to consider alternatives which would address the problems associated with such conversions. Upon completion of its investigation, the Planning staff with such conversions. Upon completion of its investigation, the Planning staff shall submit a formal recommendation to Council for review and consideration. The moratorium should remain in effect until it is rescinded by City Council.
Mr. Lynn moved to recommend enactment of a moratorium on conversions of single family residential dwellings into multiple occupancy structures, effective April 23, 1991 and to remain in effect until such time as it is rescinded by Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCES TO PERMIT PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN IPM ZONE
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of a proposed amendment to the IPM district of the City’s Zoning Ordinances which would allow, in addition to public utility uses, public parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. The City Parks and Recreation Department supports the amendment.
Mr. Lynn moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinances that would allow ppublic parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities, as well as public utility uses, in the IPM district and that a public hearing be set to consider the amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (It is recommended that the public hearing be set for June 10, 1991 at 7:30 p.m.)
QUARTERLY UNCOLLECTIBLE’S REPORTS
Ambulance
A list of uncollectible ambulance bills, in the amount of $27,832.77, was submitted for the committee’s review. The list represents the fourth list of prior years write-offs of uncollectible ambulance bills for FY91
Mr. Weyandt voiced his opinion that nursing homes should be held responsible for ambulance bulls incurred by their residents, noting that most of the nursing homes are tax exempt and contribute nothing for City services.
Mr. Lynn moved to recommend that $27,832.77 in ambulance fees be written off, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Electric
A list of uncollectible electric bills, totaling $52,597.29, was submitted for the committee’s review. The list consisted of those accounts from the period prior to and including 1989 which have shown no collection activity for a period of one year or longer. The list contained write-offs for several businesses that have declared bankruptcy. Federal law prohibits the City from making attempts to collect these outstanding debts.
Members of the committee voiced concern with delinquent customers being able to gain City services by slightly altering their name. Mrs. Tieman explained that it is very difficult to catch such patterns with our current manual system. The City’s new computer system, however, will have the capability of catching this type of fraud.
Mr. Weyandt stated his feeling that higher electric deposits are needed to ensure that the City is not left with such high outstanding bills. Mr. Worley stated that this type of policy change effects all users rather than only affecting the violators. He reminded the committee that the City of Dover’s electric write-off is .16 percent of 1989 revenue. According to The American Public Power Association, the industry standard for bad debt write-offs among public utilities is .318 percent of total electric revenue, which is double Dover’s ratio.
Mr. Levitt assured committee members that the Utility Committee will review the proposal for increased electric deposits.
Mr. Lynn moved to recommend that $52,597.29 in uncollectible electric fees be written off, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Mr. Weyandt requested detailed information on the write-off for Howard Johnson’s in the amount of $3,778.83. He also warned members of the committee that the Reserve Accounts for the current budget year is now depleted.
SET DATES - BUDGET HEARINGS SCHEDULE
City staff plan to submit the 1991/92 operating budget to City Council on May 6, 1991. The city Manager Requested that budget hearings be set for the week of May 20th.
The committee agreed to the following proposed schedule:
May 20, 1991 - 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
May 21, 1991 - 7:00 p.m to 9:00 p.m.
May 22, 1991* 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. * (if needed)
CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT - MARCH
The committee reviewed various sections of the City Manager’s Report for the Month of March, but took no official action
REVIEW OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT SECTIONS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Committee reviewed the general government sections of the 1991 - 1996 Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Weyandt reminded members that they were only reviewing the concept of the projects; final approval will take place during budget review.
Mr. Worley stated that the following projects will be funded through a proposed bond issue:
Page 4 - Expansion of City Hall, Police Department and Warehouse
Page 5 - West Dover Fire Station
Page 6 - Material Storage Building
Page 7 - Library Basement Remodeling
Page 13 Brick Sidewalk Replacement - Library
The Committee reviewed the various proposed projects, but made no revisions. Mr. Lynn moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:00 P. M.
Respectfully submitted.
Francis Weyandt
FW/djb
ATTACHMENT #1
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER AND COUNCIL MET:
The Dover Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a new section be designated §19.5-19.1 to read as follows:
Section 19.5-19.1. Transfer Tax Applicable to Certain Construction.
(a) Notwithstanding §19.5-19 of this Article, there shall be included in the definition of “document” for purposes of this Article any contract or other agreement or undertaking for the construction of all or a part of any building all or a portion of which contract, agreement or undertaking (or any amendment to the foregoing) is entered into, or labor and materials are supplied, either prior to the date of the transfer of the land or which the building is to be constructed or within one year of the date of the transfer of the land on which the building is to be constructed or within one year of the date of the transfer to the grantee.
(b) No building permit shall be issued unless and until the person or persons (including corporations and/or other associations) requesting such permit shall demonstrate in whatever form may be specified by the City Manager, including at his discretion, a form of affidavit, that:
(1) No transfer as described in this section has occurred within the preceding year;
(ii) No portion of the contract for construction for which the permit is being requested was entered into and no materials or labor with respect to the building have been provided within one year of the date on which the property was transferred; or
(iii) There has been paid a realty transfer tax on the document as defined in this section.
© In addition, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued relative to any building on which a tax is provided by this section unless and until the owner re-certifies the actual cost of the building and pays any additional tax due as a result of such re-certification.
(d) A “building” for purposes of this section shall mean any structure having a roof support by columns or walls which structure is intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy but shall not include any alteration of or additional to an existing building where the cost of said alteration or addition is less that 50% of the value of the property transferred.
(e) A “transfer” for purposes of this section shall include any transfer made by a “document” as described in §19.5-19 of this article and shall not include any transaction excluded from the definition of “document” under the provisions of subparagraphs (1) through (18) of § 19.5-20 of this Article, the rate of tax on documents described in subsection (a) of this section shall be 1% on amounts exceeding $10,000, which shall be borne by the owner of the building whose construction is made subject to tax under subsection (a) of this section.
ATTACHMENT #2
FIRST READING
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE
RGO (GENERAL RESIDENCE & OFFICE)DISTRICT AND
CPO (COMMERCIAL/’PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) DISTRICT SIGN REGULATIONS
Amend Dover Code Appendix B, Article 3, Section 9.14 (RGO - General Residence & Office) by deleting this section in ti’s entirety and inserting in lieu thereof, the following:
9.14 Signs announcing the name or insignia, or both, of the occupants of office space on the same lot, provided that:
a) Sign Area. Sign area shall not exceed an area equivalent to 1% of the total floor area of the first floor of the principal building on a lot.
b) Free - Standing Signs. One (1) free-standing sign shall be permitted, only on lots with at least 75 feet of lot width. In no case shall there be more than one (1) free-standing sign on a lot. Sign height shall not exceed 5 feet. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be maintained from the front lot line. A minimum setback of 5 feet shall be maintained from all other property lines. The maximum sign area permitted for a free-standing sign shall be 32 square feet.
c) Wall - Mounted Signs. Wall-mounted signs are limited to one (1) sign for each wall
facing a public street, limited to a maximum area of 10% of the area of the wall.
d) Projecting Signs.Projecting signs shall be prohibited in this district, except that projecting signs may be permitted on properties within this district which are located within the Dover Historic District boundaries if approved by the City of Dover Planning Commission through the Architectural Review Certification process as set forth in Article 10, Section 3. Where permitted, projecting sign shall be limited to one (1) sign for every 75 linear feet of street frontage, or portion thereof, per lot. Projecting signs on the same building shall be separated by at least 50 linear feet of wall surface. Projecting signs shall not extend greater than 3.5 feet from the wall surface and shall be limited in sign area to 9 square feet per sign. At least 7.5 feet of vertical clearance shall be maintained from grade to the bottom of the projecting sign.
e) Directory Signs .One (1) directory sign shall be permitted in office complexes with more than three (3) buildings with an aggregate floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet. Directory signs shall be limited in total area to 25 square feet and shall not exceed a height of 5 feet.
f) Illumination. Signs may be internally illuminated only. All light sources shielded
from view of adjacent properties and streets. If situated within 200 feet of any residence in a residential zone, hours of illumination shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M.
g) Directional Signs. Necessary traffic directional signs shall be permitted on a lot, limited
in area to 2 square feet per sign.
Amend Appendix B, Article 3, Section 26.5 (CPO - Commercial/Professional Office District Sign Standards) by deleting this section in it’s entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following”
26.5 Signs announcing the name or insignia, or both, of the occupants of office space on the same lot, provided that:
a) Sign Area. Sign area shall not exceed and area equivalent to 1% of the total floor area of the first floor of the principal building on a lot.
b) Free-Standing Signs. One (1) free-standing sign shall be permitted, only on lots with at least 75 feet of lot width. In no case shall there be more than one (1) free-standing sign on a lot. Sign height shall not exceed 5 feet. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be maintained from the front lot line. A minimum setback of 5 feet shall be maintained from all other property lines. The maximum sign area permitted for a free-standing sign shall be 32 square feet.
c) Wall-Mounted signs. Wall-mounted signs are limited to one (1) sign for each wall facing a public street, limited to a maximum area of 10% of the area of the wall.
d) Projecting Signs. Projecting signs shall be prohibited in this district, except that projecting signs may be permitted on properties within this district which are located within the Dover Historic District boundaries if approved by the city of Dover Planning Commission through the Architectural Review Certification process as set forth in Article 10, Section 3. Where permitted, projecting sign shall be limited to one (1) sign for every 75 linear feet of street frontage, or portion there of, per lot. Projecting signs on the same building shall be separated by at least 50 linear feet of wall surface. Projecting signs shall not extend greater than 3.5 feet from the wall surface and shall be limited in sign area to 9 square feet per sign. At least 7.5 feet of vertical clearance shall be maintained from grade to the bottom of the projecting sign.
e) Directory Signs. One (1) directory sign shall be permitted in office complexes with more than three (3) buildings with an aggregate floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet. Directory signs shall be limited in total area to 25 square feet and shall not exceed a height of 5 feet.
f) Illumination. Signs may be internally illuminated only. All light sources shielded from view of adjacent properties and streets. If situated within 200 feet of any residence in a residential zone, hours of illumination shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M.
g) Directional Signs. Necessary traffic directional signs shall be permitted on a lot, limited in area to 2 square feet per sign.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE
C-4 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT SIGN REGULATIONS
Amend Dover code Appendix B, Article 3, Section 16.2 (C-4 - Highway Commercial) by deleting this section in its’ entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
16.2 Signs and Illumination. Signs and illumination are permitted as provided in Article 5, Section 4 and as follows:
a) Sign Area. Each commercial establishment in this district shall be permitted at least 150 square feet of aggregate sign area. For buildings with a first floor area greater than 5000 square feet, additional sign area shall be permitted, calculated at a rate of 0.5% of the area of the first floor. In no case shall a commercial establishment be permitted an aggregate sign area in excess of 500 square feet.
Example:
1)Building with a first floor area of 10,000 sq. Ft. would be permitted 200 square feet of sign area.
(10,000 sq. ft. x 0.005) + 150 sq. ft. = 200 sq. ft.
2) Building with a first floor area of 30,000 sq. ft. would be permitted 300 square feet of sign area.
(30,000 sq. ft. x 0.005)+ 150 sq. ft. = 300 sq. ft.
3) Buildings with a first floor area of 50,000 sq. ft. would be permitted 400 square feet of sign area.
(50,000 sq. ft. x 0.005) + 150 sq. ft. = 400 sq. ft.
b) Free-Standing Signs. One (1) free-standing sign shall be permitted for every 200 linear feet of street frontage, or portion thereof, per lot. Free-standing signs are limited to a maximum sign area of 150 square feet per sign. No sign shall be situated closer than 15 Feet of the front property line. The following minimum setback distances are required based on the area of the free-standing sign:
Distance From Front Maximum Sign Area
Property Line Permitted
Less Than 15 Feet....................................................None Permitted
15 to 25 Feet...........................................................50 Square Feet
Greater Than 25 Feet to 30 Feet-----------------------100 Square Feet
Greater than 30 Feet................................................150 Square Feet
c) Wall-Mounted Signs. Wall-Mounted signs are limited to one (1) sign for each wall facing a public street, limited to a maximum area of 15% of the area of a wall.
d) Sign Height Signs shall not exceed a vertical height 30 feet from grade.
e) Set Back Requirement. All signs shall maintain a minimum setback from the front lot line of at least 15 feet.
f) Sign Composition. Signs shall not be of a brilliance, design, color, of location so as to detract from or be confused with emergency vehicle warning lights, traffic signals or other official warning, directional or informational signs.
g) Illumination. Lighting within two hundred (200) feet of a property being used for residential purposes shall be designed and installed so as to prevent direct illumination upon such zones. Where necessary, screening shall be installed for such purpose.
h) Real Estate Sale and Construction Project Signs. Real estate sale signs and construction project signs shall be limited to 32 square feet in sign area and shall maintain a minimum setback of at least 15 feet from the front property line. One such sign shall be permitted for each 200 linear feet of street frontage for a parcel.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING SIGN AREA
LIMITATION IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT
Each of the following were considered as possible methods for developing a flexible sign area limitation which would be directly related to the building size of a commercial establishment:
1) Street Frontage/Lot Width.
Example.
Commercial establishments on individual lots with 150 feet or less for road frontage shall be permitted a maximum of 150 square feet of aggregate sign area. For commercial establishments on individual lots with road frontage in excess of 150 square feet, the aggregate sign area permitted shall not exceed 1.5 square feet per 1.0 linear foot of building frontage.
Building Frontage. The term “Building Frontage” means the horizontal distance in linear feet of a wall or walls of a building facing a street.
Example.
The aggregate sign area permitted per business establishment shall be limited to an area equivalent to 15% of the building front of the structure in which a business establishment is situated.
Building Front The term “Building Front” means the area in square feet of the exterior wall or walls of a building which face a street, calculated by multiplying the horizontal dimension by the vertical dimension of the wall or walls of the building facing a street.
Synopsis
After review of the three alternatives (Floor Area, Street Frontage and Building Frontage) for developing a flexible Sign Area Limit it appears, at last in concept, that the method employing a percentage of the First Floor Area would be the most responsive in terms of the size of an establishment.
The Street Frontage alternative appears to present a potential for creating inequities among properties. For example, a service station may have in excess of 200 feet of street frontage, but may only have a building with less than 1000 Sq. Ft. Of floor area, while a retail store along the highway may have 10,000 Sq. Ft. Of floor area but only 75 Feet of road frontage.
Similarly, upon our testing, the Building front formula seems to result in large variations depending on the physical layout of buildings rather than the actual size of an establishment. For instance, a grocery store may have 30,000 Sq. Ft. Of floor area under rood and be arranged in such a way that it would have 170 linear feet of Building Front, resulting in a large amount of sign area. A small retailer, on the other hand with 2,000 Sq .Ft. Of floor area and only 30 linear feet of building Front. Would be allowed very little sign age,
We tested each of these methods on existing properties to get an understanding of how each would perform. It is our conclusion that the method based on a percentage of the Floor Area of the first floor of an establishment would be the most fair and equitable way to limit sign area in this district..