CITY OF
The Regular Meeting of the City of
Staff members present were Mr. Petit de Mange, Ms. Melson, Mr. Lee and Mr. Koenig.? Also present were Mr. Duncan, Mr. Braun, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Liberman, Mr. Vinokur, Mr. Sonecha, Mr. Sitaram, Bob Rosenberg , Mr. Moore, Mr. Petrosky, Mr. Bardell and Mr. McLeod.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Mr. Petit de Mange proposed an addition to the agenda as a second item under Old Business: S-02-08, Z-Hall, Wesley College Privatized Apartment Building that is currently under construction at the Wesley College Campus.? The item is added for informational purposes.
Mrs. Horsey moved approval of the agenda, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion unanimously carried.
Mr. von Reider moved to adopt the minutes of the regular meeting of July 15, 2002, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion unanimously carried.
Mr. Winsley moved to adopt the minutes of the quarterly workshop of July 16, 2002, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and the motion unanimously carried.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that on July 22, 2002 City Council approved the annexation regarding Cardiology Consultants that was received and reviewed in June by the Planning Commission.
???????????????
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that there were no reports to discuss.
Mr. Petit de Mange advised the audience of policies and procedures for the meeting.
S-02-11 (Revised) Office Building on Lands of Robert M. Duncan.? Public Hearing and Action on a Revised Site Plan and Architectural Review Certification to permit the construction of a five-story office building with a seven-story central tower section and consisting of 83,000 S.F. +/- of building floor area.? The subject property consists of 2.2112 acres +/- of land zoned I-O (Institutional & Office) and C-3 (Service Commercial) located at the southwesterly corner of the intersection of West Loockerman and Slaughter Street, east of and adjoining the railroad corridor.? The owner of record is Robert M. Duncan.
Representatives:? Mr. Bob Duncan, Property Owner, Mr. David Braun, Donovan & Associates and Mr. Terry Jackson, Project Architect.
Ms. Melson provided the Commission with the following overview of the plan.
Ms. Melson stated that this proposed plan is brought before the commission because the architecture of the building has changed as well as the overall site.? The revised architectural plan is for a five-story section with a tower of seven stories.? The application was heard before the Historic District Commission and a recommendation was given to approve an Architectural Review Certificate.? With the additional floor area space, there are changes to the parking requirement.? Based on the building square footage of this property, 273 spaces would be required.? The plan, as shown, presents 150 parking spaces including three (3) vanpool spaces and four (4) car pool spaces to provide an equivalent of 177 spaces.?
Ms. Melson stated that the applicant has made a request for a waiver of a parking reduction to a proposed 149 spaces to be constructed with the equivalency rate totaling 169 spaces.? The applicant has also asked for a waiver on reducing the number of loading spaces.? One loading space is shown on the plan west of the main office building.? For the initial application, the Planning Commission approved a waiver of the requirement of three (3)-loading spaces.?
Ms. Melson further stated that the Fire Marshal has noted that due to the height of the building, there are additional fire code requirements that will have to be addressed since the building is over 50 feet in height.? They will be addressed during construction plan submittal.? The site will also require a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan that has been approved by the Kent Conservation District prior to land disturbing activities for the site.
Mr. Nichols commented in regards to both trees that they are not to be disturbed during construction.? They look to be about four feet below existing grade.? Will there be retaining walls around these trees?
Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Braun stated that there will be no retaining walls; however, the landscaping architect is working with the developer to make sure that the filling of the site does not get too close to damage the trees.?
Mr. Nichols also questioned whether the lot on the corner of Slaughter and North Street would have some type of retainage at that site?
Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Braun stated that if the property can be purchased they would have retainage.? At this point, it is not part of the proposal and they will deal with stormwater on their site only.
Mrs. Horsey questioned whether the building going up five stories instead of four would hit the canopy of the tree that is to remain?
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Jackson stated that the building is on the north side of the tree so the building will not put the tree in shade.
Mrs. Horsey also questioned if the landscaping on the Slaughter Street side has been improved since the last plan approval?
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Braun stated that he was unsure; however, his impression was that the landscaping to be improved was in front of the building.?? Parking was proposed to come very close to the street so in this plan, they have left some green space in this area to try and soften it.
Mrs. Horsey further questioned whether the driveway had improved in that it looked a little straighter than the last plan submittal?
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Braun stated that it becomes straighter because they have widened the section at Slaughter Street to provide a right and left turn lane exiting the site since there is not an exist on North Street now.?
Colonel Welsh questioned what the reason was for the closing of the entrance on North Street?
Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Duncan stated that before you would have to drive up (to get out of site) because the grade was so low.? Mumford and Miller placed fill on the site and now you would have to drive down.? They closed the North Street entrance off because of safety reasons and that they would not have used it anyway.? By closing the entrance, it has made the property more useable.
Mr. von Reider stated that the code requests 273 parking spaces; however, the applicant is requesting a reduction of 100 spaces.? How many employees will the building hold?
Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mr. Braun stated that the initial design was for170 required parking spaces.?? They would have only need 85 spaces for the tenant that would be leasing the building.? The applicant has added, as much parking space as they can at surface level and the tenants that will be leasing will be able to work with the number of parking spaces that would be existing.
Mr. von Reider further stated that the plans show future building potential, do you anticipate a parking garage on vacant land?
Responding to Mr. von Reider Mr. Braun stated that they would build over the existing lot to accommodate the parking for both buildings.
Mr. Friedman opened the floor for a public hearing and hearing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Mr. DiMondi moved approval of S-02-11 revised Office Building on Lands of Robert M. Duncan for a building consisting of 83,000 square feet, five-stories plus the seven-story central tower, subject to all D.A.C. comments and to include the approval of the waiver for off-street parking from the required 273 spaces to 170 spaces taking into account the van and car pooling spaces and also taking into account that all of the requirements have been met.? In addition, to approve the loading space waiver to allow for the reduction from three loading spaces down to one loading space, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion unanimously carried.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that this is the building that has recently begun construction at Wesley College on North Bradford Street just immediately north of Division Street.? This plan was approved by the Planning Commission a couple of months ago.
Mr. Lee stated that the architecture and the footprint of the building have not changed.? The only building footprint change on the site plan check print is to show the existing house remaining.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that the reason that the plan was brought back to the Planning Commission for information purposes is because it was brought to the attention of Planning Staff as the applicant was preparing to submit plans for a building permit, that there was an error on the original plan.? The error had to do with the square footage total listed on the plan.?? The square footage of the original plan indicated that there was a total square footage of 35,000 square feet; however, when the architectural plans were developed and submitted, the actual square footage of the building is 56,613 square feet.? The entire building that was approved in plan is the same building being built.
Mr. Liberman stated that parking for the dormitory is based on the number of rooms, which they have ample parking for.?? They do not know where the ?35,000 square foot? number came from.?? They believe there was a mix up when they first started with the application.? There were separate plan submissions for the parking lot and one for the dormitory.? As the applicant went forward with the project, they decided to submit it as one package; they believe that this is where the error occurred.
Mr. Nichols questioned whether the alley behind C&W Auto Parts building has been abandoned?
Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Petit de Mange stated that it has not because there are a system of alleys in this area.? In the future, if and when Wesley College acquires all of the properties within this area; it may become abandoned.?? There are still a few properties not owned by Wesley College that uses the alley for trash collection and parking at this time.??
Colonel Welsh moved to approve the current information, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion unanimously carried.
AX-02-02 Wilmington College. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a proposed annexation of a 19.328 Acre +/- tract of land situated at the southeasterly corner of the intersection of US Route 13 and Scarborough Road Interchange of State Route 1.? The property is currently zoned RMH (Residential Mobile Home) under the jurisdiction of Kent County Levy Court.? The applicants request I-O (Institutional & Office) zoning upon annexation.? The owner of record is Wilmington College.
Representatives:? Mr. Jack Vinokur, Director, Administrative Services, Wilmington College.
Mr. Lee presented the Commission with the following overview of the plan.
Mr. Lee stated this is a residual piece of land left over from the acquisition of the right-of-way for SR-1.?
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that the area is 19.328 acres of land currently in Kent County jurisdiction and zoned RMH (Residential Mobile Home).? The State of Delaware originally acquired the property as a right-of-way associated with the State Route 1 Interchange.? Wilmington College recently acquired this property as an addition to its emerging Dover campus at the former Kent Christian Academy site immediately south and adjoining the subject property.
Mr. Petit de Mange further stated that immediately south and adjoining the subject property is the Wilmington College (formerly Kent Christian Academy) which consists of 19.45 Acres +/- Acres of land zoned I-O (Institutional & Office).? This property was annexed into the City of Dover on February 14, 2000.? Wilmington College is in the process of transforming this property from the former church and school complex to a campus higher education.? Further south are a variety of commercial and residential land uses outside the City limits, which include a variety of retail and service commercial uses, a mobile home park, and some single family developments.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated to the west across US Route 13 are lands zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) that are occupied by a variety of commercial uses including fast food restaurants, convenience retail, and hospitality uses and to the northwest is vast land owned by Delaware Technical & Community College, Terry Campus, which is zoned IO (Institutional & Office).? To the east, the landscape is predominated by the SR-1 corridor, the major north-south highway.? Further east, the landscape begins to take on a more rural character, which is zoned under Kent County jurisdiction for low-density residential development and agricultural purposes.?
Mr. Petit de Mange further stated that the City of Dover Comprehensive Plan does not reflect an anticipated land use for the subject property on the land use plan map.? With respect to institutional land uses, the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 7) asserts that Dover will continue to be home to major institutions including places of higher learning that are readily accessible to an urban population and that employment in the education sector will continue to play an important role in Dover?s economic vitality.
Mr. Petit de Mange further commented that a stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan is ?to maintain and improve the City?s position as a center of government, higher education, and medicine through support of existing institutions and encouraging well designed campuses that are integrated into the community and that have room to expand.?? The Comprehensive Plan urges policies and practices that ?preserve and promote the long term vitality of our major institutions and governmental agencies through appropriate zoning, providing protection from incompatible uses, and by providing ample land for future expansion.? ?To that end, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that all such properties be zoned I-O (Institutional & Office)
Mr. Petit de Mange further stated that the current Kent County 2002 Comprehensive Plan recommends that this property be utilized for low-density residential development.? The City of Dover has an interim Annexation Policy, which identifies the subject property as a Category 2 property, which indicates that this property would be potentially desirable for annexation into the City of Dover.? Category 2 properties are those areas that generally border the City in close proximity to existing City development that are on the urban/suburban fringe.
Category 2 properties should be considered in light of their impact on existing municipal services, facilities, and fiscal vitality.? Proposed land uses should be evaluated in terms of degree to which they would support and achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Equally important should be consideration of the development potential under the current Kent County zoning and its impact on the development and image of the City.
The over-arching purpose of the Annexation Policy is the achievement of sound and consistent decisions regarding the growth of the City in locations that afford efficient and effective provisions of municipal services for urban land uses.? The Annexation Policy also endeavors to restrict urban encroachment into significant agricultural lands, environmentally sensitive areas, and natural open spaces that exist on the fringe of the Greater Dover Area.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that Staff recommends the property be zoned as I-O (Institutional & Office) upon annexation.
In reviewing the applicable sections of the City of Dover Comprehensive Plan as described above, it is abundantly clear that the City of Dover intends to foster, promote and support its institutions of higher learning through appropriate zoning, protection from incompatible land uses, and provisions for ample land to enable future expansion.??? The subject property is a remnant right-of-way parcel originally purchased to enable the construction of the Scarborough Road/Route 1 interchange roadway.? This relatively narrow residual parcel is situated between Wilmington College and Scarborough Road, and as such would be largely undevelopable as a stand-alone property.
The subject property is situated with an abundance of road frontage and visibility along a major gateway into Dover.? As such, this property will have a tremendous impact on the future image of Central Delaware and the Capital City.? In reviewing this proposal, it is important to consider the appropriateness of the current development potential under RMH (Residential Mobile Home).
Mr. Petit de Mange stated for all of the reasons stated above, Staff concludes that the annexation should occur and the property should be located within the City and should be zoned I-O (Institutional & Office) upon annexation.? There is a question whether the City can proceed with this annexation due to some legislation passed last year that requires municipalities to update their Annexation Plans.? Staff has not yet done this; however, is in the process of doing so.? A letter has been received from the State Planning Office indicating that this annexation may be a problem; however, Staff is trying to work out these difficulties with the State.
Mr. Vinokur stated that Mr. Petit de Mange did a very good job of explaining what their problem was in proceeding with the project under House Bill 255.? They are appreciative of the City?s support to move forward with this project so that it may proceed sooner as they would like to continue to be a part of Dover.?
Mr. Holt questioned whether this was the furthest property north of the City?
Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Petit de Mange stated on the east side of Route 13 the current Wilmington College is the furthest north that the City extends.? On the west side of the road, Delaware Technical & Community College is the last property in City limits.
Mrs. Horsey questioned whether the berm would be removed?
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Vinokur stated that removing the berm would be the first thing they would do to the property.
Mr. Friedman opened the public hearing and hearing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Mr. von Reider moved to recommend AX-02-02 Wilmington College be forwarded to City Council for approval, seconded by Mrs. Horsey and the motion unanimously carried.
MI-02-07 Proposed Amendments to the RG-1 Zoning District Regulations.? Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a package of amendments to the RG-1 (General Residence) Zoning District Text that would establish a Conditional Use Approval requirement and specific regulations governing Student Home Occupancies and Conversion of Single Family Dwellings to Apartment Houses in the RG-1 Zoning District.? The applicant is the City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections.
Mr. Petit de Mange presented the Commission with the following overview of the proposed amendments.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at the Quarterly Workshop of July 16, 2002.? This matter stems from a moratorium that was enacted by City Council on May 28, 2002 that would put a stop to current practices or permission to convert single family homes in the RG-1 district to either apartment houses or rooming houses.? This enactment prompted Staff to draft an ordinance amendment that would further regulate the conversion of single family homes to apartments.?
Mr. Petit de Mange gave a brief overview of the amendment package.? Amendment #1 would delete the existing language in the RG-1 district regulations, which states under permitted uses that multiple dwellings are permitted.?? It would also delete provisions in the RG-1 district for garden apartments as defined in Article 12 and multiple dwellings created by the conversion of dwellings constructed prior to the enactment of this ordinance, to more intensive residential uses and complying with requirements set forth in Article 4 of this ordinance:? Amendment #2, would in lieu of the language in the ordinance continue to allow garden apartment development as a matter of right in the RG-2 district.? The garden style apartments are those such as Silver Mill Apartments, Woodmill apartments, and these types of developments:? Amendment #3 would eliminate the rooming house provision, which is currently a matter of right in the zoning ordinance. Amendment #4 would set forth a new provision in Article 3, Section 2.4 to establish student homes.? This is a conditional use provision of this ordinance requiring a public hearing before the Planning Commission.? This amendment would establish criteria for ?Student Homes? which is new to the ordinance and would be subject to the Conditional Use review process and the siting criteria of the ordinance.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that siting criteria for the ?Student Home? ordinance would be that no ?Student Home? should be located closer than 500 feet to any other ?Student Home.?? A suggestion was made regarding the establishment of 500 feet separation distance with possibly replacing the wording of the ordinance to state the number of properties such as every 6th home could become a ?Student Home.?? Staff feels that a problem would exist in that many of the properties are of varying widths with some being narrow, therefore making it unfair to cram several into certain blocks where lots are small and restrict them on other blocks where lots are large.? Staff felt they needed to establish a set dimension and 500 feet, although it may not be the set footage, tends to be the average block length in this district.? In doing so, it would allow ?Student Homes? to approximately to one per block.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated other criteria would be to have no more than five (5) students residing or taking domicile in a ?Student Home.?? Provision for off-street parking would be provided at a rate of one space per resident; the current apartment provision requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit.? This creates a parking strain on curbside parking in this district.? A lot of the homes in the older section of town do not have driveways.? In some cases there are alleyways, but high demand for curbside parking exists.? This ordinance would be restricted to detached dwellings and ?Student Homes? would not be able to be established in a duplex or a townhouse.? There would also be a licensing requirement that would require annual renewal.? If Conditional Use is approved and there is a violation of the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance of more than three within any six month period, there could be an eviction of the occupant and termination of the Conditional Use approval.? If there is any home that was previously approved and ceases to exist as a ?Student Home? beyond 120 days, the approval lapses.? If the applicant wants to re-establish the license, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission for Conditional Use approval.?
Mr. Petit de Mange further stated that 2.4(c) would allow multiple dwelling conversions other than ?Student Homes.??? These regular standard market apartments are also considered as a Conditional Use rather than a permitted use.? Amendment #5 would establish the definition for what a ?Student Home? but would not include dormitories, and fraternity and sorority houses.? This amendment is specifically for student, privatized apartments off campus by definition.? Amendment #6 would address the non-conforming issue.? It has an allowance for properties that are existing to become licensed if they comply with the definition of all the other criteria.?? If there is a lapse in time beyond six-months, the property would have to come back before the Planning Commission for approval to re-establish its type of use.? Staff has looked at what other towns are doing to address this type of situation and have come to the conclusion that this is the best approach that they could establish to begin addressing it from a zoning stand point.
Mr. Friedman stated that he would start with a public hearing so that the Planning Commission members would have public input for their information. At this point, a public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Anderson, 217 Cecil Street stated that he lives right across from one of the college campuses and feels that this is a smart start and congratulated Staff on developing an amendment that he feels is going in the right direction.?? This ordinance does not put much of a burden on property owners, yet keeps the quality of life in the area of the college.? Mr. Anderson stated that an area that he had a concern with was section 2-4(b) Amendment #6 regarding noise violations.? The landlord is not allowed to evict until they have been notified with two separate violations.? The way it is established now, when those two violations occur, the ?Student Home? license is not permitted to be renewed.? The landlord has not had a chance to take appropriate action before this occurs.? Mr. Anderson stated that he would hope that Staff puts in an amendment which allow the start of eviction procedures against the tenant that has created the violation.? This amendment would protect the landlord from revocation of his ?Student Home? license if appropriate action were being taken to correct the noise violation.