LEWES PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes August 28, 2018

Transcription

1 LEWES PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes August 28, 2018 The special meeting of the Lewes Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 6:00 P.M. in Lewes City Hall in accordance with proper notification with the following present: Chairman Drew McKay, Kay Carnahan, Nina Cannata, Mark Harris, Thomas Panetta, Joe Hoechner, Richard Kirschner, James Linnen, City Planner Tom West, Planning Consultant Savannah Edwards, City Solicitor Glenn Mandalas, City Manager Ann Marie Townshend, Building Official Henry Baynum, City Councilwoman Bonnie Osler for Ex-Officio City Councilman Dennis Reardon, and Recording Secretary Jackie Doherty. Steve Rogers was excused. 1. Call to Order and Announcements Chairman McKay called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. thanking Ms. Edwards and Mr. West for their memo regarding the zoning updates including information on other municipalities. 2. Presentation and consideration of a code amendment to clarify minor and major subdivisions. Mr. West stated these two terms are in the current ordinance, but there has been confusion on how these are applied to different developments as discussed by the Mapping Working Group. Ms. Edwards reviewed samples of neighboring cities, counties, and others recommended by the American Planning Association. Based on the research by Ms. Edwards and Mr. West, the recommendation for minor is three to six lots; DelDOT is five or less. Addition to definition stating not more than five lots ; Flow charts show six steps for minor and six pages for major; clause in major states some steps may be waived; Ordinance requires application be reviewed by building official to determine minor or major and impact on adjacent neighbors including if an undeveloped lot is being changed to developed; Define adverse effect ; minor subdivision to require subsurface evaluation since major contains the analysis; Code states minor requirements are followed for lot combinations (2 to 1). Mr. Harris made a motion to recommend to Mayor and City Council adoption of the recommendation of Staff for the addition to the definition stating not more than five lots in addition to the other requirements for minor subdivision; Mr. Hoechner seconded the motion. In discussion of the motion, Ms. Cannata questioned if five lots is too many; Mr. Hoechner stated he prefers six lots. Mr. West stated the other criteria of extension of roads, water and sewer lines covers the issue of three lots vs. five lots. The motion in favor of the amendment as proposed for five lots passed unanimously. 3. Presentation and consideration of a code amendment to add buffers to development requirements. Mr. West stated this has also been discussed by the Mapping Working Group and Committee for annexation because there are wetlands and flooding issues around the edge of the City including Canary Creek. The Sussex County Code includes the use of buffers, but this is not included for within the City. The question is if there should be consideration for some forms of buffers within the City with this being a Planning Commission discussion. Ms. Edwards reviewed other municipalities, counties, and states, but there are conflicting numbers in their research. The 50-foot buffer (Sussex County Code) around wetlands added to the annexation district was the most appropriate to bring into the City for the other residential districts. At this time, forested buffers for subdivisions are not being recommended as appropriate for the City. The County is considering an increase to 100 for tidal and non-tidal wetlands. Mr. West stated there has been discussion regarding averaging for buffer widths based on site analysis. Page 1 of 6

2 Mr. Panetta stated the last County Comprehensive Plan was rejected by the State multiple times for the use of 50- foot buffers with New Castle County requiring larger buffers. Maybe the City should follow State recommendations. Standard buffer unless it would deny reasonable use of property ; State of Maryland allowing property owners to pay a fee if there is no reasonable buffer; Forest Conservation Act; Sussex County also uses the fee process for open space; Beach, White s Pond, and Rollins property being directly impacted. Mr. McKay asked Commissioners their opinion on the 50-foot-buffer recommendation within the City. Mr. Linnen stated he feels a buffer over 50 within the City would be intrusive. Mr. Kirschner stated he would agree with 50. Mr. Panetta stated based on the larger properties with wetlands mentioned, he would prefer 75. Mr. Hoechner stated he would prefer 50. Mr. Harris stated he questions the size of the property required to have 50-foot buffers; what happens to the adjacent lots; organized around larger properties being major subdivisions; how to apply to individual lots in the City; how to apply to minor subdivisions. Ms. Cannata stated she agrees with Mr. Panetta. Ms. Carnahan stated she agrees with averaging; the fee in lieu process may be a solution. Mr. McKay stated he would agree with the 50-foot buffer to start; averaging to apply to major subdivisions. Ms. Osler questioned how the buffers apply to existing lots that are near wetlands or does this only apply to new minor and major subdivisions. If a single lot becomes unbuildable with a 50-foot buffer requirement, liability for taking claims becomes an issue. Mr. McKay stated the wetland buffer draft is written, as proposed by staff, as all lots to apply to all districts in the City. Mr. McKay stated: Two issues include 1) Standard buffer area across all districts; 2) Averaging would not apply to a single lot; Escape clause and averaging may apply to buffer size determined by the Commission unless it would deny reasonable use of the property; There may be room for flexibility based on administrative determinations within the buffer that is established regarding the taking issue; the buffer could be reduced by 50% if applied to the general standard; Averaging is a major subdivision issue. Ms. Carnahan made a motion to recommend to Mayor and City Council approval of the following: 1) 50-foot buffers in all zones; 2) reasonable use clause stated for all zones; 3) buffer with averaging for major subdivisions; Mr. Panetta seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Chairman McKay stated the discussion would now move to Agenda Item #5. 4. Report from Mapping Working Group a. Complete work on R-3, R-3(H), R-4, R-4(H), R-5: Ms. Edwards reviewed R-4 Residential Medium Density Zone: Purpose Statement Provide residential development adjacent to the City s Town Center; Preserve face-to-face intimacy in an urban setting; Preserve architecturally diverse but harmonious streetscapes; Encourage a residential development pattern to provide light, air, open space, walking, bicycling in older denselysettled sections of the City. Ms. Edwards stated Town Center would be capitalized because it is now a zoning district. There had been previous discussion regarding removal of adjacent ; decision was to leave it in; R-4 is considered the transition zone from zoning district Town Center (TC) to residential; no expansion of R-4 because it rings the TC. Purpose statement accepted by the Commission including capitalizing Town Center because it is now a zoning district. Page 2 of 6

3 Location and Mapping of Town Center Identified R-4 lots greater than 10,000 square feet located on periphery; These lots could eventually be subdivided to half the size. Ms. Edwards stated there were no recommendations for the permitted-use table for R-4 and R-4(H). Permitted-use table accepted by the Commission. Ms. Edwards reviewed the discussions regarding duplexes: Currently R-4 requires a 2.5-acre tract; does it prevent duplex from blending with the neighborhood and community; Possibly eliminating the tract-size requirement and allow duplexes as conditional use; there are duplexes in the City that were allowed on less than the 2.5 acres; the question is if these are working well should the requirement be changed; Off-street parking in the Historic District is an issue to be considered; There are nonconforming lots with 8-foot side-yard setbacks which were grandfathered-in. The Commission accepted the recommendation to eliminate the tract-size requirement for duplexes and allow as conditional use in R-4 District. Mr. West discussed the Burton Subdivision as it is stated in the R-4 dimensional table to be designated on the map as a subset of R-4. Ms. Edwards began discussion of R-5 stating it is a mixed residential zone. Purpose Statement Provide for a mix of housing types to include multi-family and affordable housing alternatives. The Commission accepted the recommendation to remove affordable and add variety and workforce housing. Location: Review Lewes Zoning Maps R-5 District. Permitted Uses: Ms. Edwards stated there were no recommendations for changes in the permitted-uses table for R-5. Bed and Breakfast not permitted in R-5 but are allowed in all other districts; Allows for multi-family, townhouses, two-family, attached dwelling with separate requirements for each; no issues for setbacks; Height restrictions include 30.5 and 34 in flood zone; height measured from center line of street can be a limiting factor for designs; established building height works when used for established neighborhoods; use of geometric-based options; New developments to be encouraged to have different rooflines, pitches, shapes, siding; Height concerns regarding view areas of the canal may be addressed in ordinance. Mr. McKay stated approval of R-5 will be discussed at the September meeting. b. DEFERRED: Begin work on LC, LC-H, C/H, CF, CF(E), CF(HC), TC, TC(H), MC, CG, I. Ms. Edwards stated discussion at the August 15 th meeting included the requirements for accessory structure sizes on lots 5,000 and 20,00 square feet. Review and discussion tonight include the following: Rehoboth Beach uses a 10% maximum-area cap for accessory structures; Maximum to be set with a cap of 1,400 square feet to include all accessory structures; stepping percentages for each district; Rehoboth and Fenwick consider pools accessory structures, all others list pools as impervious surface. Everyone agreed with Mr. West s suggestion to speak to Mr. Baynum about pool regulations and defer further accessory structure discussion until September. Page 3 of 6

4 Discussion moved to Agenda Item #6 5. Referral from Mayor and City Council s August 13 th meeting regarding an amendment to the Zoning Code to the provisions (definitions, use tables, dimension tables, and off-street parking regulations) for residential dwelling types (attached dwelling, townhouse dwelling, and multiple-family dwelling). Mr. West stated discussion at the meeting on August 15, 2018 included impervious lot coverage in subdivisions for the R-3 and R-3(H) districts; what is appropriate lot coverage; definition of lot coverage; define impervious coverage; changes to lot and building coverage. Ms. Edwards reviewed the following: Coastal Resiliency Project developing a method to measure pre-and-post-construction runoff on sites; Lot coverage may not be the best method to address the issue; capping lot coverage does not have an impact on runoff; other options include gardens on rooftops and impervious surfaces built for drainage located underneath houses; Recommendation is LPC research to identify best strategies; draft a letter from LPC stating concerns to the committee working on the project through DNREC; the committee is aware impervious coverage is an issue in the beach-front area. Mr. West discussed the following: Concerns about changing the percentages for lot coverage; more information is needed on current lot and building coverage in the beach area; number of nonconforming structures; Will changes in R-3 impact overall stormwater concerns in the City; New Road flooding issues and concerns new developments with impervious surface will flood the properties all around; Other areas of concern in the City need to be addressed simultaneously. Mr. Panetta stated other states he researched are having the same problem redefining the lot-coverage issue; there is no common definition for impervious/pervious; reducing the lot coverage is not the answer; other cities are considering a no-net-change ordinance allowing credit for rooftop gardens, rain gardens, gutters for drainage; public education is needed; problem needs to be addressed before the expected timeline for completion of the study by the Coastal Resiliency Project. Mr. McKay stated Councilman Reardon advised LPC that this issue is very complicated, and caution is needed in discussion and in any steps to be taken. Mr. Reardon would agree with the recommendation from Mr. West that more information is needed. On the comment by Mr. Panetta, information to include community outreach and a conclusion are needed soon. Mr. Hoechner questioned Page 5 (D) where a Stormwater Design Manual is mentioned, and if it exists, would it be under BPW. Mr. Panetta stated MS-14 is a stormwater management design and covers the current outfalls. Mr. McKay recommended asking MCC for more information from Ms. Townshend and Staff on what is currently applicable in the beach area and other resources outside Lewes on how to address this issue. Ms. Carnahan made a motion to recommend the following to Mayor and City Council: 1. Encourage participation with City Manager and Staff in working with the Coastal Resiliency Project on what is applicable to Lewes. 2. Develop best management practice while simultaneously investigating conforming and nonconforming lot coverage at Lewes Beach. 3. Create an education component for residents. 4. Request a status report in early Mr. Harris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Discussion moved to Agenda Item #4 Page 4 of 6

5 6. Reports and updates from City Planner. Mr. West stated MCC requested review by LPC regarding an applicant who requested workforce housing and the recommendations from Staff for revisions to the R-5 District to accommodate the workforce housing. Review included: Permitted units stated in City s ordinance is for seven townhouses and eight multi-family; Types of development designs and changes from eight to 10 units per structure in R-5 District; Criteria for a project that would meet minimum threshold for workforce housing because the current ordinance is too low; changes apply to all R-5 and not to a particular project; Rental properties and owner properties were reviewed; NCALL has stated funding may be available for financing; price points are stated in the Comp Plan; State guidelines for the definition of affordable housing based on AMI. Mr. Panetta made a motion to recommend to Mayor and City Council approval to amend the Code to allow the maximum permitted dwelling units in R-5 District to ten; Mr. Kirschner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. West stated review of parking is needed because it creates a cap for development in the City. Off-street parking is a requirement for all development depending on the size of and use for the property. The zoning ordinance is different for single-family detached and townhouses than other multi-family dwellings regarding parking. Mr. West continued stating single-family duplex and townhouses require 9 x 18 and others require 10 x 20. The recommendation from Staff is for all residential off-street parking to be 9 x 18 (162 square feet) minimum size. Mr. Panetta made a motion to recommend to Mayor and City Council approval of the recommendation of Staff as proposed that all residential off-street parking spaces in the R-5 District be 9 x 18 (162 square feet) minimum size; Mr. Hoechner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. West stated the recommendation from Staff is to use the definition for attached dwelling with the removal of vertical wall because walls shared could also be horizontal or a floor instead of a wall. The lot area and setback requirements will be placed in the table for R-5 District and be removed from R-4 District. Definition to state common wall, ceiling or floor; definition in the IRC; remove permitted use of attached dwelling from the R-4 use table; new definition of attached; Dwelling attached two-family is allowed in R-4, R-5, LC, TC and dwelling two-family is not allowed in LC, TC; Column will be added to the dimension table for attached housing; Dwelling multi-family has a tract requirement of 2.5 acres with the same for multi-family townhouses and twofamily dwellings; street frontage of 100 to 150 applies to most large developments; Lot area same as multi-family, regulate tract size based on number of units; setbacks for attached are front yard 30, side yard 20, rear yard 30 ; Height 34 if in the FEMA flood zone, 30.5 if not; 60% lot coverage; 50% main structure; Dimension table allows in R-4, R-5, R-6. Mr. Hoechner made a motion to recommend to Mayor and City Council approval of the following: 1) Definition of dwelling attached would state a single-family dwelling that is attached to or shares a common wall, ceiling or floor with one or more single-family dwellings ; 2) Attached dwelling is permitted use in R-5 and no longer in R-4. The dimension table will be discussed at the September meeting. Mr. Harris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Discussion moved to Agenda item #4 Mr. Kirschner requested the discussion of dredging with Association of Coastal Towns (ACT) consultant Tony Pratt be a future agenda item. Mr. McKay stated the next regular meeting will be September 19 th at 6:00 P.M. Mr. Harris stated he would be absent for the September meeting. Page 5 of 6

6 Ms. Carnahan made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Kirschner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Doherty, Recording Secretary Lewes Planning Commission Page 6 of 6