SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
A Special Council Meeting was held on May 6, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. with Council President Christiansen presiding. The Special Council Meeting was called for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinances and Map, and Zoning Text Amendments. Council members present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Tudor, Mr. Leary, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Fenimore, Mr. Salters and Mr. Hare.
Staff members present were Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, Mr. Rodriguez and Mrs. Boaman.
Prior to opening the meeting, Council President Christiansen announced that some parcels mentioned within the new plan are issues that City Council may currently be involved with in litigation. Should issues arise during the course of the meeting that members of Council feel require advice from the City Solicitor, a recess into executive session to seek legal advice would occur. This announcement is to make it clear to everyone at the beginning of the meeting that although the agenda does not specifically list an executive session, as provided by law and as stated on the agenda, the possibility exists that such an executive session may be necessary.
PRESENTATION BY CITY PLANNER
City Planner, Mr. Anthony DePrima, offered some brief historical information on the City by William Penn in 1683 (which can be found in the City Code). This information shows that the City started with a plan nearly 313 years ago. Before beginning the presentation, Mr. DePrima expressed appreciation to his staff, Mike Petit deMange, David Edgell and Linda Gomes and to Randy Speicher from the Public Works Department, for their technical and clerical assistance during the year long process of this review, members of the City Planning Commission who put long hours into reviewing the plan and to hear public comments, and to the Mayor and Council for the support shown to the Planning Department during the past year which allowed them the time they needed to complete this task. He also thanked all of the citizens who participated in the community planning workshops.
Mr. DePrima stated that the presentation contains three parts: (1) Comprehensive Plan, (2) Zoning Changes to bring zoning maps into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and (3) Planned Neighborhood Design Ordinance. For the record, Mr. DePrima announced that the necessary public notices for the public hearing were accomplished and were published 15 days prior to the meeting in two newspapers of general circulation in the City. The maps and plans have been on public display at the City Library and at the City Planner's Office.
Beginning his presentation, Mr. DePrima stated that all plans stand on four legs. The first is looking at population growth for the City of Dover and population projections. It was estimated that during the next 20 years the City will grow similarly as it has in the past 20 years. An increase of 9,000 in population is anticipated, which is actually less than the population growth of the past 20 years. Mr. DePrima stated that it is anticipated that the percentage of senior citizen population will increase while the other age groups will remain steady or drop slightly. Young working adults remains one of the larger sectors of our population. The second issue is development trends over the past 10 years. They found that both development uses and locations are spread throughout the City in terms of subdivisions and site plan review. Most of the commercial activity was along Route #8 and Route #13, with most of the residential activity surrounding the City's fringes. Development suitability, the third issue, was considered. This involved looking at the natural environment such as woodlands, wetlands, flood plains, etc. They found that most are associated with the waterways of the Dover area. During public hearings, it was found that all of these issues are important for preservation to the people of Dover. They also looked at some of the manmade factors such as sewer and water and found that within the system now, there is sufficient capacity for the anticipated growth. The fourth leg was their citizen participation effort. They held eight public workshops in the fall with over 300 participants and 300 surveys were filled out which helped to gauge what the people of Dover want and expect for the future.
There were nine issues they felt the Plan should address, and are as follows:
1. There were concerns by the people of Dover that there has been overdevelopment in the past few years -- that Dover is losing its small town feel. This was expressed through concerns over traffic, density, land uses, general construction, etc.
2. Concern was expressed about haphazard planning -- development is not happening in an organized way so that insufficient public services could force increases in property taxes.
3. The natural environment was a concern, in that what natural environment remains in Dover is threatened and that there is not enough open space to satisfy the needs of the growing population.
4. A general feeling that we have not adequately planned for bicyclists and pedestrians.
5. That our commercial areas are not portraying the quality of environment that we would like and should demand in Dover.
6. In light of the fact that our senior citizen population is increasing, there was concern that we are not properly planning for the required housing, transportation, and recreation needs for the elderly.
7. Concern for older buildings that are being abandoned, particularly along Route #13. We must give some consideration of how to get them reused and readapted.
8. Also of concern was preservation of our historic buildings and of structures in general. It was found that in 1990 there were 1,000 homes that were older than 50 years. By the year 2020, there will be nearly 6,000 homes that are older than 50 years. This age is when we will need to be concerned with property maintenance.
9. Lastly, a continuing need for a variety of housing choices for a variety of income levels and family housing needs.
In explaining some of the general philosophy outlined in the plan, Mr. DePrima stated that for the low density zones, they have selected parcels in the outer areas of the City where there is a high amount of natural resources and where the road systems tend to be poor. The medium density residential zones are found closer to the center of the City, along our better roads and those that are more free flowing, and near existing neighborhoods that are also medium density. The higher density zones generally tend to be near public areas, public facilities and community services. For commercial zones we continue to see Route #13 as serving the whole region of the Delmarva Peninsula and are encouraging that area for that type of growth. However, we do recognize the Route #8 area as a growing commercial area serving the growing west side of Dover. Also, they have strategically placed around the City areas they feel are appropriate for neighborhood commercial to serve the immediate and local needs of the residents. They have attempted to place office zones where they serve as transition areas between residential neighborhoods and harder commercial areas. In downtown, they hope to continue to see it be the cultural and spiritual center of the City as well as office and employment centers, and a housing area for the City. For industrial areas, they have generally located them along Saulsbury Road, the Hazletteville Road corridor and around Dover Air Force Base. Mr. DePrima pointed out that although they designated Dover Air Force Base on the plan with no actual growth for the Base itself they have attempted to protect the Base's mission by not including any new residential areas in and around the Base area. Lastly, they have taken most of the major waterways, where they found high concentrations of environmentally sensitive areas, and placed that into proposed green areas. They have also tried, whenever possible, to link the various parks through greenways.
Since the Zoning Maps have been on display for some time, Mr. DePrima highlighted only those areas where changes were made as a result of the last Planning Commission meeting, as follows:
Route #8 and SE corner of Mifflin Road - C & F Enterprises, Inc. and Robert Carroll - The Planning Commission altered staff's recommendation from Office to Commercial, and subsequently altered the zoning recommendation from CP0 (Commercial/Professional Offices) to C-1A (Limited Commercial).
Route #8 - Known as Draper Farm Property - The original recommendation was for R-20 zoning for the remaining tract. The Planning Commission has recommended that the northeasterly portion of the tract, 30 +/- acres east of the power lines, be zoned as R-10 rather than the recommended zone of R-20. This is only a zoning change and does not require a change in the Plan.
Denneys Road - Northgate and Maple Glen Subdivisions
Staff originally proposed to change these properties from medium density zones to low density zones. After discussions with the owners, staff changed its recommendation to leave them in their existing zones with the condition that a Deed Restriction be placed on the property restricting them to low density development. Mr. DePrima explained that although he does not usually support the use of deed restrictions to handle zoning issues, he felt that this case was somewhat unusual and required special attention. Since the City has not yet provided the subdivisions with sewer availability, the sunset provision on zoning has been eliminated until such time as sewer is available. With that in mind, staff recommended that the Northgate Subdivision remain RM-1 and the Maple Glen Subdivision remain as R-8, stipulating that they would be restricted by covenants placed on the properties that would limit the density on the Northgate project to two dwelling units per acre and on the Maple Glen project to 2.5 dwelling units per acre and that a note on the zoning map reflect these conditions.
There was discussion by the Planning Commission on specific parcels, but no changes were made from the City Planner's recommendations. Mr. DePrima highlighted these parcels for informational purposes, as follows:
Route #13 Corridor - Commonly Known as the John Hunn Brown Tract - This parcel is recommended for a combination of low, medium and high density zoning. It is currently zoned in the medium density zone of R-8. Mr. DePrima explained that the developers informed the Planning Commission that they agreed with the Comprehensive Plan but would like the opportunity to present some adjustments and changes in the zoning proposal. He has met with them and they will present some proposals during the public hearing. Since the staff recommendation was made and submitted to the Planning Commission and the developer had not yet submitted a revised plan, the Planning Commission recommended that R-10 be assigned to the north end of the tract, part of the southern end of the tract as RM-2, and the bulk of the tract remaining R-8.
Acorn Lane - Acorn Lane Apartments, Inc. - Staff recommended R-8 for the parcel which is the medium density single family zone. At the public hearing there was discussion of changing the zone to RM-1 at the request of the property owners, but the Planning Commission took no action to make the change.
South Governors Avenue at the Corner of Lynnhaven Drive - Pippen/Dickson - Staff recommended that the northwest corner of S. Governors Avenue and Lynnhaven Drive be given a combination of zones. They recommended that the first 200' of frontage on S. Governors Avenue (400' long) be zoned for offices (CPO); this portion is currently zoned residential (R-10). Neighboring property owners have requested that it remain as residential. The owners representative asked that it all be zoned CPO. The Planning Commission endorsed staff's recommendation for the frontage along S. Governors Avenue as CPO and the rest of the property to remain R-10.
Discussions with the representatives of the Keith Apartment project, along State Street, resulted in a proposed change by the City Planner. Mr. DePrima explained that approximately one year ago, the Planning Commission approved an apartment complex on North State Street on property located just north of Hiawatha Lane. This complex was actually in a commercial zone (C-2A) and staff had selected the RM-2 zone, feeling that it would best meet the plan for apartments. However, after discussions with the property representatives it was determined that there were certain limitations within the RM-2 zone that could negatively effect the proposed project. It is now the Planner's recommendation that this parcel be placed in the RG-1 zone.
Mr. DePrima also pointed out that a letter from Dover Air Force Base points out the two residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Base (Dover Brook Gardens and a mobile home park) and recommended that these parcels be reflected on the Plan to someday be zoned as industrial due to their close proximity to the Base. Mr. DePrima stated that throughout the planning process, it was their general policy not to place residential properties in zones that would make them non-conforming, which is why they left the zones on these two parcels as they currently exist.
The Planned Neighborhood Design Option Ordinance would provide more flexibility within the larger parcels that exist in Dover to allow developers more freedom to be creative in offering different types of housing options. In exchange for allowing this flexibility, we are requiring a 25% set aside of open space, extra environmental protection and extra requirements for privacy and buffering, all of which result in a superior design. This ordinance would also require conditional use approval before the Planning Commission, which gives the Planning Commission wider discretion to work on the overall design of the project.
The presentation by the City Planner was then concluded and Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing open.
John Hunn Brown Property - Route #13 & S. Little Creek Road
Mr. Phil McGinnis of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate addressed members of Council relative to the John Hunn Brown property. Mr. McGinnis stated that they agreed with the basic concept of the Comprehensive Plan for this property which, on the average, calls for medium density residential. The recommended zoning district boundary lines permit an overall average density of 3.56 units per acre. By definition, the medium density residential section of the Plan would be a minimum of four units per acre and a maximum of eight units per acre. This shows that the recommended zoning would be less than called for in the Comprehensive Plan. After meeting with Mr. DePrima, they submitted a new proposal and the overall average density for the residential portion of the tract would now be approximately 4.8 units per acre which fits with the number of units called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. DePrima depicted their proposal on the Comprehensive Plan, stating that they are proposing the same R-10 area as staff had proposed. On the RM-2 zone, which allows apartments, they are proposing that it be placed on the southeast corner of the lot, which borders an existing apartment complex and is considered more appropriate for this higher density zone. They have placed a portion of RM-1 around the front portion of the parcel which permits higher density uses such as townhouses. This would be appropriate since it is adjacent to highway commercial and could buffer the commercial from the single family zone. The bulk of the property remains R-8 which should be more conducive to other existing single family homes that front on East Loockerman Street.
Asked by Mr. Fenimore if the Planning Staff recommends acceptance of Mr. McGinnis' proposal, Mr. DePrima stated that staff feels it makes good planning sense and although it calculates to approximately one unit per acre more than what was proposed, he has no objections to the proposal.
Pippen/Dickson Property - S. Governors Avenue
Mr. Paul Lakeman of 1033 Westview Terrace expressed his opposition to a change of zone for a portion of the Pippen/Dickson property from a residential zone to the CP0 zone. He and his neighbors are opposed to the proposed change as they fear that commercialization of a portion of the property will lead to further commercialization. Mr. Lakeman stated that the traffic in this area is already heavy and commercial properties will enhance this problem. He reminded Council that to the rear of the property is a pond and natural greenway. He was told that the area around the pond was offered to the City for parkland but the City rejected the offer. This is an ideal area for preservation and the residents would very much like to see it preserved. Mr. Lakeman submitted a petition in opposition to the proposed rezoning which contained the names of approximately 30 residents.
Mr. DePrima pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan shows the pond area and stream area across Lynnhaven Drive as potential greenway preservation.
Route #8/Mifflin Road Property - C & F Enterprises, Inc. and Roberta Carroll (Wawa)
Mr. Joe Petrosky, representing the owners of the Mifflin Road/Route #8 property, stated his support for the Planning Commissions recommendation that the property remain as C-1A. They feel it is an appropriate zone for the area. Mr. Petrosky stated that the property was at one time zoned as C-4, but is now zoned as C-1A. The property is currently under contract for a Wawa convenience store and there has been on-going negotiations with the planning staff on design factors for the site. Application for Site Plan review was submitted to the Planning Office this afternoon. Asked by Mrs. Malone if the contract was secured within the last year, Mr. Petrosky stated that it was.
Mr. Larry Josefkowski, President of the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association, requested that City Council not accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, but that they accept the recommendation of the Planning staff which was for rezoning to CP0. Mr. Josefkowski stated that the entire site is surrounded by residential uses on all sides. He reminded Council that the City has been using the CP0 designation as a buffer between residential and commercial and this particular site is a perfect example of where this would work. Mr. Josefkowski stated that a business with normal business hours would be much more suitable than a 24 hour business. He reminded members of Council of a constant source of complaints to the City Police Department by Deerfield residents that live adjacent to a restaurant/bar that is open until 2:00 a.m. A 24 hour convenience store that is to be located in an area completely surrounded by residential properties is bound to cause problems for everyone. Mr. Josefkowski stated that they anticipate an enormous increase in traffic, since most patrons will be 10 - 15 minute customers, in an area that is already experiencing extreme traffic problems. It will generate additional litter and noise, and since it would be located in the heart of a residential area, it is bound to attract loitering. Having grown up in New Castle County, Mr. Josefkowski stated that every convenience store in New Castle County that is located in very close proximity to residential communities has become a hangout and source of problems for the police.
Mr. Josefkowski stated that within a short distance there is already a commercial area which offers grocery stores, gas stations, fast food restaurants, banks, etc. He also alluded to the problem of there being very little sidewalk in this area. This is a major concern, especially when coupled with the fact that many people will walk to the convenience store in an area that is already experiencing severe traffic problems. This intersection failed in an afternoon rush-hour study performed in 1992 and this problem has certainly increased over the last four years. Due to the heavy commercial activity at the next intersection of Route #8 and Kenton Road, the Route #8/Kenton Road intersection has become a nightmare. Adding significant traffic to the Route #8/Mifflin Road intersection is simply asking for major traffic hazards.
Noting that this parcel has been zoned C-1A for several years, Mr. Tudor asked why the residents waited until now to complain. Mr. Josefkowski explained that it was when the City rezoned this parcel to C-4 that the residents challenged the rezoning in court. The Chancery Court ruled in their favor and zoned the property to C-1A. At that time, C-1A was the lowest commercial zoning designation contained in the City's zoning classifications. Mr. Josefkowski agreed with Mr. Tudor that this property would never be used for residential purposes. He stated that the residents have no objections to commercial uses as outlined in the CP0 (Commercial Professional Office) zone. They strongly object to a heavy commercial use, especially one that would disrupt a residential neighborhood by bringing in heavy traffic and maintaining hours that extend beyond normal working hours.
Mr. Lambert conceded that there are severe traffic problems in the area, but had concerns with the residents waiting until sale activity was taking place on the property before expressing their objections. The owners of the property have been attempting to sell it for several years under the C-1A zoning classification and the residents were aware of this. Mr. Josefkowski stated that the residents followed the guidelines set by Council by participating in the Comprehensive Plan meetings when scheduled for their quadrant of the City and expressing their concerns about this parcel. They followed the next step of submitting a written proposal for the CP0 zone to the Planning staff and voicing their objections to the C-1A zoning classification during the public hearing.
Responding to questions by Mr. Hare, Mr. DePrima stated that he had mild discussions with Wawa representatives approximately six months ago. Just recently, they began exploring development of this site more vigorously. Mr. DePrima stated that he has had mild discussions for several years with developers expressing interest in the site. When developing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning staff attempted to make their recommendations based solely on the best use of the land. They did not want to let their recommendations become biased by giving consideration to other extenuating factors.
Mr. Salters stated that it will be very difficult to please both the developers and the adjacent property owners in this instance. He felt it somewhat unfair to C & F Enterprises to pull the rug out from under them now that they have a contract on the property with the current C-1A zoning classification.
Mr. Richard Ornauer of 17 Mifflin Road, stated that he lives in very close proximity to the proposed Wawa site. Responding to previous questions as to why the residents did not come forward sooner, Mr. Ornauer stated that the residents cannot arbitrarily request a change of zoning for property they do not own. The residents have made their concerns clear for many years, beginning with the Chancery Court suit several years ago. As soon as the City opened up discussions by property owners for zoning classifications throughout the City, the Deerfield Association stepped forward and conveyed their objections to any heavy commercial use of this property. Mr. Ornauer stated that placement of the CP0 zone as a buffer between residential and commercial properties is being used throughout the City and the Deerfield residents are only asking for the same consideration. He noted that in the C-1A zone, one of the prohibitions is a use that would cause "excessive traffic". Previous applications for this site restricted left turning onto the thoroughfares. These restrictions were placed by DelDOT who also control both Route #8 and Mifflin Road. Reminding Council that this is already considered a "failed intersection", he stated that with the types of traffic associated with a 24 hour convenience store, this would certainly generate "excessive traffic". With that in mind, the developers have no assurances that the C-1A zone would guarantee approval for their request for a convenience store. He noted, however, that the requirement of a traffic study is strictly at the option of DelDOT.
Mr. Frank Furr, President of C & F Enterprises, addressed Council on the zoning classification of the property. Mr. Furr stated that when he bought the property, it was with the understanding that it was zoned as C-4. When the Mifflin Road residents voiced objections to the C-4 zoning, the owners attempted to work with them to resolve their concerns but the property owners insisted on a lower zone, which Chancery Court ultimately ruled on and designated the zoning classification of C-1A. They worked with the Mifflin Road residents while developing the proposed Deerfield subdivision to ensure that they supported the development. Now the residents of Deerfield are objecting to development of the corner property.
Mr. George Chabbott, of Chabbott & Petrosky Real Estate, stated that this property was placed under contract approximately six months ago. He stated that the City Planner's office was made aware of the contract and of the intended use of the property. It was not until the last presentation before the Planning Commission that any consideration was given to rezoning this parcel. From that time on, they moved as quickly as they could to finish the site plans and the site plan application was filed with the Planning Office today. He stated that the sales contract was based upon the C-1A zoning and they have expended a significant amount of money on preparation for the Site Plan application.
Asked by Mr. Lambert if they accelerated the site plan process in order to circumvent the possible rezoning, Mr. Chabbott stated that they did not accelerate the process. They had been working on it since the signing of the contract and were able to make site plan application today. Mrs. Malone asked if Chabbott & Petrosky Real Estate informed their client (Wawa) of the fact that the City was in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Mr. Chabbott stated that his clients were informed, but they did not consider it a problem up until three weeks ago, the City's recommendation was that the parcel maintain its C-1A zone.
Mr. DePrima explained that when the Planning Department prepared their initial recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan, they prepared a draft to put before the public for review. At that time, their recommendation was that the problem remain as C-1A. Prior to the public hearing, the Mifflin Road Association wrote a letter informing the City that they would attend the public hearing and that they were planning to recommend a zoning classification of CP0 for this parcel. After taking into consideration the comments made during the public hearing and evaluation by staff, the Planning staff amended its recommendation to the CP0 zone. A large part of this decision was based on the fact that while updating the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Staff attempted to utilize the CP0 zone, throughout the City, to serve as a transition between residential and commercial zones. He noted that this property is surrounded on all four sides by residential uses.
Mr. Chuck Lyon, an owner of C & F Enterprises, Inc., stated that although there are a few homes fronting on Route #8, the entire strip is designated for commercial use on the Comprehensive Plan. If and when these few homes are sold, they will more than likely be sold for commercial uses. Therefore, the corner property would not be adjacent to residential properties on that side.
A short recess was taken at 8:38 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Draper Farm - Route #8
Mr. George Chabbott of Chabbott & Petrosky Real Estate, addressed Council on the Draper Farm which is located on the north side of Route #8, and is the last property in the City limits on the north side. Mr. Chabbott stated that the Planning Commission has requested that the 30+/- acres located east of the power lines be zoned R-10 and the property to the west of the power line be zoned R-20. The property owners agree with this recommendation.
Acorn Lane Apartments Property
Mr. George Gardner, representing Acorn Lane Apartments., Inc., addressed members of Council relative to approximately 43 acres of land located on Acorn Lane. Mr. Gardner referred to a letter submitted May 3, 1996 which outlines the owner's recommendation that the property be zoned as RM-1. The property is currently zoned as RG-2 and the Planning staff recommended a zone of R-8. The owner of this property finds the proposed R-8 classification unacceptable but felt that the RM-1 zone would be a fair compromise. Should this property be designated with the RM-1 zone, the owner is willing to relinquish the idea of apartments for the parcel, and would have no objections to a deed restriction to that effect.
Mr. James Wright of Independence Village expressed appreciation for the Planning Commission's support of the proposed R-8 zoning classification of this property. He stated that the residents of Independence Village support single family homes for this parcel of land. He cited the concerns of property owners of traffic congestion, stating that everyone is well aware of the traffic problems in this area. Mr. Christiansen asked if the residents would be content with a zoning classification of RM-1 with the provision that apartments would not be permitted. Mr. Wright stated that although he cannot speak for all of the residents without discussing it with them, he feels that they would not object as long as apartments are not permitted.
Mr. Mark Schaeffer, real estate broker for the owner, reiterated that the owner of the property is willing to restrict his rights under the RM-1 zone in relation to the apartment issue. He reminded members of Council that there was a traffic impact study performed which shows Acorn Lane as suitable to accept the additional traffic.
Mr. DePrima stated that he does not ordinarily support restricted covenants. In the case of Northgate and Maple Glen, he supported it as there were very special circumstances that warranted it. He did not feel that such a restriction was necessary for the Acorn Lane project since City Council and the Planning Commission has the necessary to authority to control the issue.
Edgehill Avenue
Ms. Ruth Tee of 822 Whiteoak Road addressed a problem of the zoning of property located to the rear of Slaughter's Used Cars. There are several lots that face Edgehill Avenue that are deed restricted from commercial use. Ms. Tee stated that in 1974, the owner of the lots attempted to rezone the lots for commercial use. The residents of Edgehill filed a suit through Chancery Court for possible violation of the deed restrictions. She provided written documentation from Chancery Court where the courts upheld the deed restrictions and prohibited commercial use of these properties. She informed members of Council that Slaughter's Used Cars now owns some of the lots and they have expanded their commercial business, which faces U.S. Route #13, onto these residential lots. She explained that she has corresponded with the City Planner on this matter and was given assurances that commercial use would not be permitted. However, commercial uses are taking place on these parcels.
Council President Christiansen stated that he has just corresponded with Ms. Tee on this matter. Since it may be bordering on possible litigation, he requested that no action be taken by Council at this time. He assured Ms. Tee that he will review this matter and will contact her if needed.
Walker Road Area
Mr. Kevin Elsey of 1325 W. Walker Road stated his concern with the ongoing construction taking place in this area, such the new Fire Station, Walker Woods, and the Fox Hall West Addition. He stated that with such high density development taking place, the City should take action to mandate sidewalks on Walker Road. He felt a major hazard exists for pedestrians in this area. When a fireman is enroute to the Fire Station to respond to a fire alarm, they often travel on Walker Road. There is no shoulder of the road for other vehicles to pull onto to get out of their way and there is no safe place for a pedestrian to be in this instance.
Council President Christiansen stated that there are plans for this roadway and suggested that Mr. Elsey contact the City Manager after the meeting for the most up to date information on this matter.
Planned Neighborhood Design Option
Mr. Greg Moore of BM2OR offered comments on the Planned Neighborhood Design Option ordinance which is being proposed as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update package. He stated his support for the ordinance, feeling that it provides an opportunity for architectural engineering firms and developers to offer quality development for the City of Dover. The ordinance provides latitude for the use of open space, recreational areas and natural features of property to intermix with clustering of various types of housing units.
Mr. Moore stated his opposition, however, to the most recent addition to the ordinance (Section 2.42), which requires a developer to first meet with City Council to present a general sketch plan and authorizes City Council to determine whether the project warrants further review by the Planning Commission. He stated that such a requirement removes authority from the Planning Commission, will introduce more time delays for development and will increase cost to the user by increasing costs for developers. It was his feeling that the Planning Commission is a less political arena that provides a better opportunity for plan review. He requested that Council consider amending this proposal by bringing this matter back under the purview of the Planning Commission.
There being no one else wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Hare moved to recess into executive session to provide an opportunity for the City Solicitor to address legal issues that may pertain to action by Council on the issues relating to approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
The meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Council President Christiansen declared the meeting back into official session.
John Hunn Brown Property
Mr. Fenimore moved that the Comprehensive Plan be modified and that Council accept Exhibit #1, as submitted by Mr. Phil McGinnis to allow for the R-8, R-10, RM-1 and RM-2 zoning classifications for property known as the John Hunn Brown Property. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Pippin/Dickson Property - S. Governors Avenue and Lynnhaven Drive
Mr. Hare moved that the entire Pippen/Dickson parcel located on the northwest corner of S. Governors Avenue and Lynnhaven Drive remain R-10 and that the Comprehensive Plan be modified accordingly. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lambert and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
C & F Enterprises, Inc./Carroll - Route #8/Mifflin Road Property
Mr. Salters moved that the property located on the corner of Route #8 and Mifflin Road, owned by C & F Enterprises, Inc. and Roberta Carroll retain its current zoning classification of C-1A. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fenimore and defeated by a vote of four (4) yes (Mr. Tudor, Mr. Fenimore, Mr. Salters and Mr. Hare) and five (5) no (Mr. Lambert, Mr. Leary, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Malone and Mr. Christiansen).
Mr. Lambert moved that the property located on the corner of Route #8 and Mifflin Road, owned by C & F Enterprises, Inc. and Roberta Carroll be rezoned from C-1A to CP0 and the Comprehensive Plan be modified accordingly. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Mr. Lambert, Mr. Leary, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Malone and Mr. Christiansen) and four (4) no (Mr. Tudor, Mr. Fenimore, Mr. Salters and Mr. Hare).
Acorn Lane Apartments, Inc. - Acorn Lane
Prior to making a motion, Mr. Tudor explained to the residents living in the area of the property in question, that if the property is zoned RM-1 with apartments restricted by deed covenants, all of their concerns will be addressed and the issue will be completely settled. If the current zone of R-8 is maintained and the suit by the owners is pursued, there is the possibility that the rezoning could be overturned and the previous zoning classification re-instituted. He stated that he believes the RM-1 zone offers the most protection to the residents.
Mr. Tudor moved that the property be rezoned from R-8 to RM-1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Colonial Investment Property - Hiawatha Lane and N. State Street
Mr. Pitts moved that the lands of Colonial Investment, located on Hiawatha Lane and N. State Street, be rezoned from RM-2 to RG-1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Planned Neighborhood Design Option
Mr. Lambert moved that Council approve the Planned Neighborhood Design Option with an amendment to include City Council review of a general sketch plan as the first step in reviewing a Planned Neighborhood Design. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
1996 Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Fenimore moved for approval of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan as amended. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Zoning Map
Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Zoning Map as amended. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Christiansen stated that a first reading was accomplished on April 8, 1996 on the proposed zoning ordinances and map and zoning text amendments. However, since substantial changes have been made, it has been determined that a new first reading shall be accomplished which will incorporate all the changes made this evening.
FIRST READING - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
Mr. Salters moved to waive the reading of the proposed ordinances before Council, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Council President Christiansen reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinances will take place during the Council Meeting of May 13, 1996.
Mr. Salters moved for acknowledgement of the first reading of the following proposed ordinances, by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried:
A. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING ZONING DESIGNATIONS TO CONFORM WITH THE 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
B. ARTICLE 3, SECTION 24 - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
C. ARTICLE 3, SECTION 25 - RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
D. ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.9 - R-20, R-15 AND R-10 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
E. ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.10 - R-8, RM-1, RM-2 AND RG-1 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
F. ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.11 - R-8, RM-1, RM-2 AND RG-1 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
G. ARTICLE 5, SECTION 12 - DENSITY BONUS
Mr. Fenimore moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
DEBRAH J. BOAMAN
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances and resolutions adopted by City Council during their meeting of May 6, 1996, are hereby approved. (SEE ATTACHED OPINION OF CITY SOLICITOR).
JAMES L. HUTCHISON
MAYOR
/DJB