Review of Standing Committees Ad-Hoc Committee August 9, 2017 Minutes

Transcription

1 Review of Standing Committees Ad-Hoc Committee August 9, 2017 Minutes The Review of Standing Committees Ad-Hoc Committee held a meeting on August 9, 2017 commencing at 2:00pm in the Council Chambers at Lewes City Hall, in accordance with proper notification, with the following members present: Chairperson Rob Morgan, Bonnie Osler, Kay Carnahan, Pres Lee and City Manager Ann Marie Townshend. Also present was Recording Secretary Alice Erickson. 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Morgan called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. 2. Presentation & approval of the minutes from the July 5, 2017 meeting. Mr. Morgan stated he has already given corrections to the minutes to the city secretary. ACTION: Ms. Osler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Lee, all voting in favor, motion carried. 3. Comments from the chairpersons and members of the Commercial Architectural Review Committee and the Greenways & Trails Committee GREENWAYS & TRAILS COMMITTEE (GWT) Mr. Morgan explained that the purpose of the committee is to review four standing committees to determine if they could be reorganized or re-examined. He has looked into the history of the Greenways & Trails Committee and questioned when the committee began. The first minutes were from 1995 and comprised of Ms. Cannata, Diane Wilson, Mary Vessels, Thom Nobile and Dennis Forney. At that time is was called the Greenways Committee. Mr. Morgan asked Ms. Cannata to give her thoughts on the committee and if it could be combined with another committee. What would be the best way to modify or continue the committee? Greenways & Trails Chairperson Nina Cannata stated the committee started before 1995, back to 1992/93. There was a gentleman names Jim Creggar who went before City Council saying he wanted to do something out at the Greenhill Light facility out at the end of Pilottown Road. Council, at the time, gave the committee a year to develop a plan. They in turn asked Council if they could look at the possibility of developing greenways and trails throughout the city. In 1999 they created a Greenway & Trail map for the city. At some point there was a grant from DelDOT to clean up the Greenhill Light site and hired Pennoni & Associates to do a Marsh Conservation Study of the area. In the meantime, they were working on trails with the installation of the trail behind Pilottown Village, behind the Reserves at Pilottown, ending at Cape Henlopen Park. Many of the trails that exist, they covered. They have been dormant for a couple years due to some health issues and they dropped the ball. Also, committee member Diane Wilson moved out of state. She has spoken to the other members on the committee and some just want to help with special projects. The current committee members are herself, Jim Stingel, and Doug Spellman. Don Long does not want to be on the committee anymore but is willing to help them with any issues related to DNREC. Thom Nobile is willing to help as well. Ms. Cannata stated the 2007 Master Plan has goals which have not changed that much. The trail system interconnects with so many other trails. They do the work that nobody else does and would like to continue that work. There are other projects they would like to do on the other side of the canal. Ms. Carnahan stated this committee is a lot like the Parks & Recreation Commission. There is a lot of physical labor in creating these trails, just as there is a lot of labor taking care of the city parks. Ms. Cannata stated they need new members on the committee. They want to do maintenance and build, but they also want to make sure everything is interconnected and protected as much as they can. She would like the Page 1 of 5

2 committee to be reinvigorated and would be glad to work with that group. She does not want to become an underling of any group. Ms. Osler asked how the Greenways & Trails relates to, if at all, the Byways. Ms. Cannata stated they are both about connections, the Byway is on the roads, and GWT is off the road. Both are about protection and conservation. Both are about maintaining vistas and historic properties. Ms. Osler asked why she feels this committee should be a stand-alone group as opposed to being rolled into Parks & Rec or some other approach. Ms. Cannata stated the Parks & Rec are a working group, they are in charge of the parks. They don t do trails. Ms. Osler stated recreation could include trails. Mr. Lee stated why couldn t there be a greenways person on Parks & Rec. It is a functioning committee, they would have input every month and would hopefully rejuvenate their goals. Ms. Osler stated that one of the efficiencies is if GWT was a part of the overall park & recreation effort, the trails would then get more attention, have access to contractors and to the city planner to help with grants. Having someone be a part of Parks & Rec representing Greenways & Trails might help the whole enterprise. Mr. Lee stated there is a lot of enthusiasm on the PRC and they could be enthusiastic about trails too. Mr. Morgan commended Ms. Cannata about her knowledge of the trail system in the Lewes area. Ms. Carnahan stated the Master Plan is ahead of its time. Ms. Cannata stated she feels the committee would do best as a stand-alone committee. While Council has given a definition of Open Space, they asked for the metes and bounds of the parks to be marked so it is clear for the future. That has not been done. They need to define permanent open space. They need to work on conservation easements. Ms. Carnahan felt this group could benefit from working with the Byway Committee, with Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission regarding zoning issues. Ms. Cannata stated they could help with communication between the groups. Ms. Townshend stated one of the things that has become clear to her as they have discussed the TAP project is that the planning the GWT has done regarding connections would be very helpful. She believes the role this committee served would be a benefit. Ms. Osler agreed that value and importance is clear, it is just the mechanical question of where is the best place to ensure the work gets done. COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (CARC) Mr. Morgan stated CARC is well embedded in the City Code. This committee s approach is one of efficiency and he has heard a number of times that CARC should be combined with either Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission. CARC doesn t meet very often and their mandate overlaps with that of other parts of the city as we now have a growing building office and a city planner and a city manager with a lot of strength in planning. They are trying to find out the best approach. Christine Chura, Chairperson of CARC, stated she has been on CARC for 23 years and is one of the original members along with John Lester and Bob Petterson. There were times when they were much busier than they are currently. CARC has been there in terms of a lot of different commercial issues in the city. It was formed for a reason and has lasted this long because it is necessary. Page 2 of 5

3 Ms. Osler stated there is a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan to fold CARC into the HPC. Ms. Carnahan has stated that suggestion goes back to the 2005 Comp Plan. There is always overlap between the two committee but the technical knowledge is very similar. Ms. Chura disagreed that CARC should fold into the HPC. Mr. Lee stated he has the least knowledge about the two commissions, and ask her to compare them. Ms. Chura stated she couldn t compare what HPC does, other than they are looking at residential in the Historic District. She was the State Representative for the National Trust but was never called upon by the HPC. She is commercial only. Mr. Morgan asked if there would be value in coordinating with HPC about commercial buildings in the historic district. Ms. Chura stated there are very few commercial buildings in the historic district that would come up for much of anything. There may be some renovations done. The Hotel Rodney, Schooner Inn, Bastian Building, Half Full, Gilligan s were done. Commercial buildings are of a totally different nature than residential. CARC is not here to make things difficult for businesses. They go back to Chapter 70 of the Code and reasons for denying an application must come from Chapter 70. It is not a personal decision. Mr. Morgan stated this is the same approach as HPC. Ms. Osler stated this is not about anyone else s turf, they are trying to figure out the best to be the most efficient approach. The city has a lot of committees and ad-hoc committees and there was discussion if there a way to make the system more efficient. Ms. Chura stated CARC serves at the pleasure of City Council and that is something they must decide. She will not debate the comparison between HPC and CARC. Ms. Osler questioned how often CARC meets? Ms. Chura explained they are scheduled to meet every month, but only meet when there is an application. Because the business district is mostly built out, very few applications come before them. Recently they have considered Heirloom and Gilligan s Restaurants. Mr. Lee requested clarification that both HPC and CARC look at the esthetics and how they fit into the city. They don t look at building codes. Ms. Chura explained they don t look at anything related to the interior of a building, just the exterior. There are different uses in commercial versus residential. Commercial has the public needs regarding access on a daily basis which residential does not; it is just one family. They look at the building code in terms of safety issues, regarding parking areas and trash. If it is in Chapter 70, then it falls under CARC. Ms. Carnahan stated the strength of CARC is the technical aspect. What makes it difficult is the Bylaws where the membership is enumerated. It can be difficult to find the necessary technical expertise in a town this small and that expertise is the real basis for CARC. Mr. Lee stated he still doesn t understand why there is so much difference between HPC and CARC. One is residential and the other is commercial and the uses are different but from looking at the esthetic component, what additional talent would be need from one versus the other. Ms. Chura didn t know how to answer that question. Residential is completely different from commercial whether looking at it from CARC or HPA or the Building Code or dealing with the Fire Marshal, any of those things. There are technical aspects of this that have to be taken into account and goes back to Chapter 70. There was discussion about the Sign Ordinance and the need for it to be revised. Mr. Morgan reviewed the members of CARC as related to their field of expertise, as follows: Architectural design- John Lester Building Construction- Christine Chura, Lewes Historical Society- Bill Landon Lewes Planning Commission- Joe Hoechner At Large- Laurance Vincent and James Edwards Lewes Chamber of Commerce- None The key talent on CARC is in building design. Are the other areas of expertise necessary and is the lack of a member from the Chamber of Commerce noticeable. Page 3 of 5

4 Ms. Chura stated she just took over the position of chairperson a short while ago. The have had a couple of members leave and have been working to fill all the spots. The Chamber is one of the last ones and she is waiting to hear back from the individual she has recommended. She doesn t feel it is lacking by not having the Chamber of Commerce represented. It may be worth looking at seeing if there is another group that needs to be represented, perhaps someone form HPC. There was discussion about why there is a requirement regarding having a member from the Lewes Chamber of Commerce on CARC. Ms. Chura stated she thought they are meant to represent the perspective of the business community. The member from the Chamber would not make or break CARC but it is in the ordinance. Mr. Morgan stated there have been members on CARC for 23 years and questioned if she feels there comes a time when a member has been on the commission long enough. Ms. Chura stated it is at the discretion of Council that they serve. If Council feels a change is needed, they don t have to reappoint a member. Council could impose time limits if they want to but she doesn t feel it is necessary. Ms. Carnahan questioned if the makeup of the commission is not only a strength but can be a conflict of interest at times. There is a limited number of people in the Lewes community with the necessary expertise to draw on, chances are you will know the applicants. Ms. Chura stated they have experienced this, specifically with the Schooner Inn. They spoke with the City Solicitor Glenn Mandalas about these kinds of conflicts. It goes back to your integrity and why you are on the commission in the first place. Atty. Mandalas explained conflict of interest comes back to financial gain and she doesn t believe any of the members would jeopardize their professional reputation do something that isn t ethical. Mr. Morgan questioned if she feels members have to be residents of the city of Lewes. HPC has allowed one member to be a nonresidents. Ms. Chura stated this has been discussed at CARC as well. She thinks it is important to keep the membership limited to city of Lewes residents. Someone from the outside would require certain criteria be met. There may be a time for it but we must exhaust what is available first. She doesn t want to see CARC folded into HPC, they are two totally different commissions. She would recommend that if necessary, instead of a member of the Chamber, there could be a member from the HPC on CARC. Ms. Carnahan suggested the combining of the two commissions so there is one group. There is a lot of knowledge that could be shared to the benefit of all. Ms. Chura felt that could be a possibility but does not want to see CARC folded into HPC. The expertise of CARC needs to be retained. Mr. Morgan stated he is having trouble understanding the difference between folding them together and combining. Ms. Cannata has suggested that there is a lot of overlapping expertise, there is a scarcity of it in the city, why not take advantage of it on one commission that handles both commercial and residential. He questioned Ms. Chura s position on this. Ms. Chura stated they could create a different combined commission that is not HPC and is not CARC but there is a difference in the approach of the two commissions. Perhaps CARC s requirements could be changed to require a member from HPC. Ms. Townshend clarified that Ms. Chura is uncomfortable with simply taking CARC and making it a responsibility of HPC, but evaluating both sections of the Code a developing something that can do both would be doable. Ms. Chura agreed. Sharing the collective knowledge in one commission could work. Ms. Townshend pointed out there is not a definition in the code for what is considered commercial. There is commercial and there is non-residential, which is everything except residential. Does CARC review institutional applications? Ms. Chura stated Beebe came before CARC for the School of Nursing facility and for their sign. She doesn t know if it was just a courtesy. This seems to be a gray area. Ms. Osler pointed out it falls into the same category as a residence that isn t in the historic district. It is handled by the Building Department. If it complies with the building code then it s OK. Page 4 of 5

5 4. Comments from the Public Philip Franz, HPC, Bookhammer Landing Road, Lewes. Mr. Franz is an architect and has a license in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Louisiana. He is also vice chair of the Lewes Historic Preservation Commission. He has been on the board of an architectural review committee for seven years. One of the things that came before them was a McDonalds on a street of Victorian architecture. They wanted to put up their arches and the review board denied it. He would feel very comfortable with the review of commercial applications as dealing with code is not a difficult thing to do. Most of the towns in New York have an architectural review board and call upon their local architects to serve and then those architects could not do business in that town. There was one town that could not get a local architect to sit on their board so they hired him to be a consultant. When requested, he would write reports on projects that came before them. He would sit on the committee to answer questions but did not vote. Mr. Morgan questioned if Mr. Franz has done architectural work in Lewes. Mr. Franz stated not with the city limits. Being on the HPC, he would not accept a project within the city limits. Barbara Warnell, HPC Chairperson. Ms. Warnell stated she worked on the original HPC to determine the HPC guidelines. From the very beginning there have been conversations that it is was a shame there are two commissions, HPC and CARC. They always hoped the two would be combined into one entity. The concept of historic preservation was so challenging for the public and the city that they wanted to keep it a separate commission. She is excited about the idea of having a more efficient commission, however it works out. Personally, her entire career has been commercial design. Code issues always have to be addressed, ADA review and state agency work. Her experience with residential is limited. She was very active with the design committee for the new library, and actually worked on the original old library. She sits on the Preservation Delaware Commission and on the Lewes Historical Society Board. She believes the biggest challenge is getting those with the expertise to volunteer on a commission. It is a lot of time and work and sometimes a lot of aggravation. She feels it would be a good thing to combine CARC and HPC is some fashion. It is up to council on how that might be done. Mr. Morgan thanked everyone for their input. 5. Discuss possible recommendations as to the disposition of the two standing committees 6. Schedule the next meeting: The next meeting was scheduled on August 24, 2017 at 6pm. 7. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 7:50pm. Minutes submitted by, Alice Erickson Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5