|
The law
that amended the Unified Development Code to allow replacing
older structures which do not comply with the present code
without having to meet all the standards now mandated has been
used in only six instances since it was enacted in April, 2002.
All of those projects are relatively small, were already in the
works to some extent and probably could have been handled by
seeking variances from code requirements from the Board of
Adjustment, Baker said.
"We were
looking for wholesale and, so far, all we've gotten is retail.
... We didn't get any shopping centers or industrial parks," he
told representatives of engineering firms involved in
development work and civic groups. "We're headed down the right
path, but the department feels we should do more to encourage 'brownfields'
development."
A 'brownfield'
is defined as an abandoned, idle or underused property certified
by the state Department of Natural Resources & Environmental
Control as having actual or perceived environmental
contamination. Examples range from former gasoline service
stations to obsolete factories. Redevelopment of the Christina
Riverfront in Wilmington on the site of a shipyard and other
industrial facilities is one of the most prominent. In practice,
certification is easy to obtain for most sites that are likely
candidates for redevelopment and, in most cases, environmental
hazards are minimal and easy to correct.
The state
had adopted a policy of encouraging reclamation of such
properties as an alternative to so-called 'greenfields'
development -- using previously undeveloped land and thereby
contributing to so-called 'sprawl'. It is generally agreed that
redevelopment is more costly and therefore requires economic and
other incentives to make it attractive to profit-making
entities.
What the
proposed new ordinance -- which was introduced by Councilwoman
Karen Venezky at County Council's last pre-vacation session in
July and is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning
Board in September -- would primarily do in that regard is
eliminate the necessity for prospective redevelopers to go
through a process with extensive community involvement.
Referring
to efforts by the department's professional staff to determine
why the existing ordinance has not worked as well as was
intended, Baker said, "The major thing we're hearing from the
development community is that they don't want to run that
gauntlet."
The
proposed ordinance also contains provisions liberalizing zoning
requirements in event redevelopment is for commercial uses,
waiving impact fees, requiring traffic mitigation only if the
Delaware Department of Transportation demands and dealing with
floodplain requirements.
A
presentation on the ordinance, as would be expected, drew mixed
response at the open meeting on Aug. 12. Baker said the session
was intended to be "a prelude to the public hearing." While it
is not unusual for proposed ordinances to be revised as the
result of Planning Board hearings and consideration, recent
practice has been to hold advisory meetings before settling on a
draft to be introduced.
Council
president Christopher Coons indicated at the land use meeting
that the presently proposed ordinance has gone through previous
drafts. He said, for instance, that earlier versions had
included such things as tax incentives to encourage 'brownfields'
redevelopment.
While he
maintained that he is not backing off a policy of strongly
favoring community participation in the land-use decision-making
process, Baker said there is a need to keep it in perspective.
"Very often, they look at one point and lose sight of the big
picture. ... We want to gather useful public comment without
having it turn ugly," he said.
To
illustrate the point, Baker cited the proposal by McDonald's
Corp. to redevelop its Claymont store, which has been withdrawn
as the result of vocal community opposition to the company's
plans to rebuild using a 1950s-style motif, which the objectors
deemed undesirable. "In that case, it (the proposal) failed
because of architecture when the applicant didn't claim [to
improve the site] on the basis of architecture. There was
nothing valuable about that [community involvement]," he said.
The
present redevelopment ordinance requires that applicants agree
to make general improvement to the project site in various
categories. The percentages by which improvements in such
aspects as landscaping, setback, parking spaces and the like
bring the site up to compliance with the code are totaled and
the sum is considered to be the percentage improvement to the
site. The law requires that it be at least 400%. According to an
April report by the land use department, McDonald's plan
measured by that arithmetic would have improved the site along
Philadelphia Pike by 1,487%.
When the
present redevelopment ordinance was being considered for
passage, a major point was that it would impel applicants to
work with community leaders in advance of submitting their
proposal for county approval to determine which of several
possible site improvements held priority with neighbors. The
applications, in theory at least, were to have been a
collaborative effort.
The
proposed new ordinance takes a different tack. It would require
developers to use the percentage formula but to do so in
collaboration with the land use department's professional staff.
It does
that by amending the section of the code which now deals with
redevelopment by inserting one word -- 'major'.
Doing
that would remove any plan classified as a 'minor subdivision'
from the public hearing process. That classification would apply
to replacing more than half an existing structure, up to an
including the entire thing, with something that is less than
20,000 square feet larger than the existing structure.
While
that is relatively minor as far as industrial and commercial
buildings go, the impact would vary with the size of the
existing building. A typical small one could only be replaced by
another small one. However, it would be possible to totally
replace a structure with 100,000 or 500,000 square feet of gross
floor area with one that was just as large and still have the
project treated as 'minor'. At the other end of the scale, a
very small one, of 10,000 square feet, for instance, could be
replaced by one virtually twice its size.
Baker
pointed out that the Unified Development Code now defines any
project involving a building or building addition of fewer than
20,000 square feet as minor and therefore subject to
administrative and technical review without a public hearing or
final review by County Council. "We're not changing the
definition of 'major' and 'minor'," he said.
The
intended effect of the proposed ordinance, he added, is not to
soften the Unified Development Code with respect to its
requirements for new development but the provide a mechanism for
improving existing developed sites in various states of disuse.
"We can get more productive site improvement by reviewing
[plans] at the department level," he said.
The
public will not be shut out from the process, he said, because
the filing of plans will be announced, they will still be open
to public review at the department and the department will
accept and consider comments form members of the public. "We
will end up with something that is more productive for the
community," he said.
A key
safeguard, he said, is the fact the proposed ordinance "deals
with non-conforming situations [and] does nothing to legalize a
non-conforming use" nor does it subvert the underlying zoning
classification of sites to be redeveloped.
Of the
six applications under the redevelopment ordinance as it now
stands, three are approved and being built, including a
medical imaging facility on Concord Pike at Talleyville. One
other in addition to McDonald's has been withdrawn. The sixth
one was recently introduced and is before the Planning Board for
a recommendation.
|
