SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
A Special Council Meeting was held on February 2, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary (departed at 6:00 p.m. and returned at 6:30 p.m.), Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams (arrived at 5:34 p.m.), and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Salters was absent.
Council staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:35 p.m.).
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - THE DOVER PLAN: 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN “FROM THE PEOPLE - FOR THE PEOPLE 2008-2013”
During a Special Council Meeting held on January 5, 2009, members held public hearings to consider approval of The Dover Plan: 2008 Comprehensive Plan “From The People - For the People 2008-2013”. Due to the late hour, the public hearing and meeting was recessed to reconvene at this time and place.
Mr. Ruane moved to reconvene the Special Council Meeting, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Council President Hogan noted that the public hearing for items #11A-#11F - Annexation Category - Lands Located East of Route 1, Owned by Dover International Speedway was recessed during the previous session, as well as the public hearing for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as Amended.
Mr. McGiffin moved to reopen the public hearing for the Dover International Speedway property, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Item #11A - #11F - Annexation Category Change - Lands Located East of Route 1, Owned by Dover International Speedway
During the previous session, Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reviewed the request of Dover International Speedway to change the annexation category for lands located east of Route 1 (LC00-058.00-01-02.08, LC00-058.00-01-29.00, LC00-058.00-01-29.00, LC00-058.00-01-02.00, LC00-058.00-01-02.08, and LC00-058.00-01-29.00) to Category 1. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the properties located east of Route 1 to be reflected as Category 1 in the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, Mrs. Townshend had advised members that in the previous draft of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, staff had included these lands in the Category 2 Annexation Area; however, upon receipt of the PLUS comments, particularly from the State Department of Agriculture that involved certification issues, staff removed the lands from the Annexation Area. After conducting a public hearing, she advised members that the Planning Commission recommended to re-include the lands in the annexation area. Upon receipt of a letter dated December 30, 2008 from Mrs. Constance Holland, Director of Planning for the State of Delaware, Mrs. Townshend requested that once the public hearing is held by Council, members defer action to provide staff the opportunity to work with the State Planning Office in hopes of resolving the issue prior to Council’s final consideration of the matter.
Mrs. Townshend stated that a meeting was held last week with Mrs. Constance Holland and Mr. David Edgell of the State Planning Office, and Secretary Key and Deputy Secretary Davis of the State Department of Agricultural. At this meeting, a compromise was reached to allow for the lands of the Dover International Speedway to be included in the City’s annexation area, with the lands being zoned agricultural upon annexation. Prior to its annexation, the City would amend its agricultural zone to include agricultural industry, etc. to improve the zone, which is already included as an implementation item in the Plan. When the Dover International Speedway is ready for development, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City would entertain a Comprehensive Plan amendment, working with the State to develop a master plan so that it would protect, through appropriate buffers, the agricultural lands surrounding the property. It was felt that this compromise would resolve all concerns; however, she advised members that after speaking with representatives of Dover International Speedway, there is a concern of actually zoning the lands agriculture. Noting that the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for adoption next week, she felt that this concern may be addressed by including language that would satisfy both the Dover International Speedway and the State and requested the opportunity to work on this matter during the next week.
Mrs. Holland assured members that the scenario of the meeting provided by Mrs. Townshend was accurate. She explained that State’s desire is to assure, through a master plan, that the farming community is appropriately buffered, any natural criteria or attributes of the property be saved, and that the agricultural community and Dover International Speedway can live in harmony. The State will develop a letter to include on the Plan that this area will be master planned and, therefore, will provide a very transparent process which will allow the City of Dover residents and Dover International Speedway knowledge of what is anticipated in the future. Mrs. Holland advised members that it is the State’s intention to keep the dialogue open and that the note be reviewed by the City of Dover and Dover International Speedway. She reminded members that the development of Eden Hill was accomplished through a master plan and commended the City for its success.
There was no one else wishing to speak during the public hearing. Responding to Council President Hogan, Mrs. Townshend suggested that the public hearing be recessed to allow staff to provide an update, stating her confidence that all concerns will be resolved by next week.
Mr. Leary moved to recess the public hearing for Item #11 regarding the request of Dover International Speedway until February 9, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried.
2008 Comprehensive Plan, as Amended
As initially stated, Council President Hogan reminded members that a final public hearing on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, would be held following the public hearings for item #11 - Dover International Speedway.
Members were provided additional materials which were reviewed by Mrs. Townshend, as follows:
1.A series of maps showing existing land use, proposed land use (land development plan), annexation areas by category, and annexation areas by proposed land use. These maps are broken up so that they each represent a smaller geographic area of the City, including place names and major street names.
2.A series of maps requested by Councilman Ruane showing existing land use, future land use (land development plan), and current zoning, of specific areas of the City. The areas included are areas that Councilman Ruane specifically requested.
3.Correspondence: E-mail from Mr. Chris Assay regarding the bicycle and pedestrian related portions of the Comprehensive Plan; Letter from Mr. Larry McAllister of Maple Dale Country Club requesting that a portion of the Country Club be amended to permit limited residential development.
Mrs. Townshend stated that after listening to concerns raised by the public and members of Council during the public hearing on January 5th, and after talking with Councilman Ruane at greater length regarding his concerns relating to the relationship between the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1) and zoning, staff has submitted additional proposed changes to the Final Draft for Council’s consideration (Exhibit #1).
Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the clarifying language to Chapter 12 - Land Development Plan (beginning with the last paragraph on page 1 through “as well as required bulk standards” on page 2 of the memorandum dated January 26, 2009 - See Exhibit #1), as recommended by staff, to be inserted into the Plan for final consideration by members during their meeting on February 9, 2009. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Due to anticipated public testimony regarding “Other Mixed Use Areas”, Mr. Ruane suggested that action regarding staff’s recommendation to amend the last paragraph on page 153 be delayed.
Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the added language to Map 12-1 - Land Development Plan (last paragraph on page 2 of the memorandum dated January 26, 2009 - See Exhibit #1), as recommended by staff, to be inserted to the disclaimer section of the map. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Townshend explained that there is more and more concern regarding climate change and what can be done at the local level. The idea of Mixed Use development is to provide integrated neighborhoods to allow for ambulatory use which will result in less vehicular traffic. She suggested that a list of zoning districts be included for Mixed Use development that would be appropriate to choose from and eliminate some zoning districts from consideration with such developments. She stated that staff is prepared to offer a list of zoning districts if it would add stricter parameters for Mixed Use.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Governor’s Avenue
Ms. Toni Gillis, 1086 S. Bradford Street, stated her concerns regarding the continued increase of commercial properties along Governors Avenue, particularly 975 South Governors Avenue. Referring to ambulatory abilities previously mentioned, she noted that the proposed use of the property on Governors Avenue is a parking lot. She advised members that her property backs up to the property along Governors Avenue. It was her feeling that including the Mixed Use as a part of the Plan would open the door to allow for all commercial development and no residential. She explained her concerns for the commercial properties and its affect on her property value and requested that members consider her concerns.
Dr. Joel Halpern, 885 South Governors Avenue, assured members that he understands the concerns of his neighbors; however, he explained the need for additional parking. The parking lot currently provided is located to the rear of the residential homes facing Governors Avenue and is not visible. He explained that the need for additional parking became necessary after the permit parking was established for Bradford Street. He indicated his intentions to maintain the residential homes along Governors Avenue and to maintain privacy fencing. His request for the properties to be classified as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan is due to the inability to create the parking lot. He stated his support in the City developing some type of Mixed Use classification for the properties that would allow for a parking lot.
Ms. Beatrice Kemp, 979 Governors Avenue, stated that she has been a resident since 1979 and opposes a parking lot next to her home. She advised members that there was constant noise during the evening hours coming from the parking lot, which prevented her from sleeping.
Mr. Ralph Milanessa, 968 S. Governors Avenue, relayed no opposition to the parking lot. He explained that the parking lot is located in the rear of the property directly across the street from his home and that he cannot see the parking lot. It was his feeling that the parking spaces provided does not impact the neighborhood whatsoever.
Mrs. Laurie Willet, 807 S. State Street, requested clarification regarding the City’s ability to control traffic flow along South Governors Avenue and South State Street. Responding, Mr. DePrima indicated that DelDOT (State of Delaware) is responsible for the traffic signals and signage for both roadways.
Responding to Mrs. Willet, Mrs. Townshend stated that City staff met with representatives of both DelDOT and the Dover/Kent MPO, as well as the State through the PLUS process, which reviews the Plan and provides comments; however, she stated that these areas were not specifically addressed. Considering the improvements being made on Governors Avenue, she felt confident that the State is prepared for the commercial traffic. She explained that DelDOT would provide comments on any plan that is presented for a change of use and, in some cases, may require right-of-way dedication and/or road improvements.
Mifflin Road
Mr. Pete Reidy, 4 Mifflin Road, stated that he was “caught off guard” when Council voted in opposition to the request to convert his property to commercial. He explained that much of the traffic along Mifflin Road is a result of housing developments that have occurred during the past five (5) to six (6) years. He advised members that the property is primarily a Route 8 item as opposed to a Mifflin Road item and that when the property was purchased, it had a Forrest Avenue address. Noting that commercial properties have continued to grow along Route 8, he relayed difficulty in understanding why it should end at his property. He requested Council’s reconsideration for approval of the long-term plan.
Mr. Bob Klewans, 24 Mifflin Road, stated his request to be included with the “Reidy” property was made with the understanding that the development of the property would allow ingress/egress from Route 8 and would not generate additional traffic along Mifflin Road. He explained that the traffic problem along Mifflin Road is not with the commercial properties but rather with there being no other north/south street connecting North Street with Route 8. It was his opinion that Mifflin Road has become a throughway due to the growth of the City and that the excessive traffic along Mifflin Road is not the result of the commercial properties at the intersection of Mifflin Road and Route 8. Mr. Klewans also noted that there has been additional traffic resulting from the addition of the Pitts Center and Schutte Park, located off of Electric Avenue, which is an extension of Mifflin Road that crosses North Street.
Mr. Richard Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, stated that in addition to his family, he was addressing members on behalf of the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association. He advised members that there is another north/south street connecting North Street with Route 8, which is Saulsbury Road. He noted that Mifflin Road has become a thoroughfare that connects the community of Wyoming and Dover. In addition to an email previously submitted to Council, he presented a petition signed by 48 residents of Mifflin Road in opposition to any change from residential to commercial for properties located at 4 and 24 Mifflin Road (Exhibit #2). As indicated in the email, he reiterated that the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association strongly opposes any change from the basic residential nature of Mifflin Road.
Mr. A.C. Lucas, 178 Humphreys Drive, Camden, stated that he owns 1521 Forrest Avenue, which is adjacent to Mr. Reidy’s property. He stated that these corner properties are located in a good location for commercial use, less than 150 yards from a large shopping center, the Wawa, and WSFS bank, and offers good exposure for any business, which typically results in good revenue. With regards to the traffic, he stated that any growth in the City will create an increase in traffic. He noted that although its completion will be 10+ years, the West Side Connector will provide traffic relief to the area. Mr. Lucas reminded members that, should the land use change for the properties, it does not necessarily equate to a rezoning. A rezoning application will require analysis by the City to assure it is beneficial; however, if the land use is not changed, a rezoning request would not be permitted.
Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, advised members that, while canvassing the neighborhood, she was apprised of many traffic safety concerns involving residents attempting to exit their driveways. She also indicated that there were many concerns relayed regarding the vehicular speeds along Mifflin Road, which had been designated as a residential street by DelDOT. She stated that although there has been building west and south of Dover, there is no need to make the traffic situation worse. She felt that the commercial area along Route 8 should stop at Mifflin Road and noted that all properties along Route 8 west of Mifflin Road are residential. She felt that this would particularly be important considering that a high school is planned for the area.
Mr. Larry Josefowski, 27 Mifflin Road, stated his concurrence with the statements of Mr. and Mrs. Ornauer. Although he felt that the corner properties would be a great location for a business, he did not feel it would be a good idea for the residents of the area. He reiterated the importance of considering the close proximity of the new high school. His biggest concern is with regards to the potential of expanding commercial properties along Mifflin Road beyond the corner properties.
Ms. Dawn Ford, 44 Mifflin Road, stated her belief that the properties would provide for a successful commercial business, which is a concern. As a result of its potential success, it would only cause additional safety issues and other problems that are being realized by the residents of the area. She questioned where the residents’ rights stop versus those who wish to develop commercial properties. On behalf of the mothers who reside along Mifflin Road, she requested that members consider their concerns when they hear their daughters pulling out of the driveway onto Mifflin Road and they hear horns honking. Ms. Ford advised members that she recently considered selling her home, but decided against it. Since she has been a resident for 17 years, she thought it would be best to have her voice heard by those responsible for making decisions for the betterment of the community.
East Loockerman Street
Mr. James Thistlewood, 455 East Loockerman (corner of Bayard Avenue and East Loockerman), noted that this section of East Loockerman Street serves as a gateway to the City and that the residents take pride in maintaining their property in representing the City. He felt that this area should be residential and minimally remain at its current zoning with no further commercialization. He stated that East Dover is one of the oldest communities in Dover and should be maintained as a residential area.
Dr. Joel Halpern advised members that he was raised at 445 East Loockerman Street and represents Ms. Florence Halpern. He, too, noted that this section of East Loockerman Street serves as a gateway to the City for those entering off of Route 13. He felt it was critical that the area remain residential.
Ms. Pat Heather, 432 East Loockerman Street, relayed concern with any change making commercial properties along this street. Being a resident since 1958, she stated that it is a wonderful neighborhood and requested that members keep it as such.
Mr. William Coughlin. 529 East Loockerman Street, referred to a letter dated December 20, 2007 from HUB Associates (Exhibit #3), which explains their intentions for the development of the southwest corner of East Loockerman Street and Route 13. He relayed concern that the changes proposed would have a negative impact on the residential community surrounding the properties. He noted that in 1997, a variance was provided to the HUB Associates and that the property with the house should have been provided an R-10 zoning classification; however, it was zoned as CPO. In order for them to rent the house, they requested a variance to a C-4 zoning classification. He suggested that the property be zoned R-10, rather than it being included in the project for development, which would provide them the opportunity to sell the property as residential.
Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that there are two (2) parcels that currently have commercial zoning: 516 East Loockerman Street (closest to the highway) is currently zoned C-4 and used as a parking lot as part of the TGI Fridays and Comfort Inn area; the other property has a house and, based on zoning research of the two (2) parcels, as far back as 1970 the parcels were zoned C-4. In 1996, as a part of the comprehensive rezoning for the Comprehensive Plan, the easterly parcel, 514 East Loockerman Street, was rezoned to CPO. She advised members that the minimum lot size for CPO is 10,000 sq. ft. and that the parcel does not meet this requirement. It was her opinion that it was zoned CPO since it was viewed as a transitional zoning classification. Mrs. Townshend clarified that the two (2) parcels being considered currently have some type of commercial zoning and that changing the designation in the Comprehensive Plan would require staff to present a zoning that would be significantly different from what the use of the property has been and what the zoning has been for at least 39 years.
Mr. William Coughlin submitted an e-mail dated February 2, 2009 regarding 514 and 516 East Loockerman Street (Exhibit #4).
Mr. Guy Veach, 30 Bayard Avenue, requested that the current or proposed zoning for these properties not cause a change to the character of this area. He urged members to maintain the properties as residential to the extent possible.
Mrs. Patricia Coughlin, 529 East Loockerman Street, advised members that she has seen the impact that these properties have had on the neighborhood. She stated that it is a residential neighborhood and making half of the 500 block of Loockerman Street commercial would destroy a beautiful, well established neighborhood. If the owners wish to expand their business, she suggested that they do so along Route 13, which is commercial, rather than East Loockerman Street.
Mr. Coughlin indicated that there were several residents present that are opposed to the request of HUB Associates; however, they do not wish to speak. He requested that they be permitted to stand to show members their position regarding this matter. City Clerk’s Office Note: There were 10 people who stood in opposition to the request of HUB Associates.
Ms. Sarah Howe, 535 East Loockerman Street, stated that the area is beautiful and should not be commercialized any further.
Ms. Coleen McCloskey, 229 Bayard Avenue, relayed her concern regarding storm waters and noted that the City is aware of this problem in the area. There are times when her backyard is a pond, which is damaging her property and home, and requested that the City make corrections to this problem.
Maple Dale Country Club
Mr. Ray Allen (34 Winged Foot Court), President of Maple Dale Country Club, advised members that the Club is in the process of entertaining a proposal from the owners of Wild Quail Country Club. He requested that Mr. Malmberg, one of the owners of Wild Quail Golf and Country Club, LLC, be permitted to present a proposal.
Mr. Connie Malmberg, 30 The Green, addressed members as an owner and manager of Wild Quail Golf and Country Club, and also as an authorized speaker on behalf of Maple Dale Country Club. He advised members that, during the past three (3) years, Maple Dale and Wild Quail have been discussing the possibility of combining efforts so that the membership would consist of both clubs. With the advent of Garrison’s Lake Country Club and the financial pressures of Maple Dale, these efforts have become more acute. He stated that the plan would be for Wild Quail to take over the operations and debts of Maple Dale. One of the needs of Maple Dale, because of its financial situation, is the need for some of the property to be used for development purposes. After speaking with Mrs. Townshend regarding this need, Mr. Malmberg stated that the planned neighborhood design - senior housing option, was determined to be an authorized use within the current zoning category; however, City staff suggested that since the Comprehensive Plan lists the properties as open space and zoned as recreational commercial, it would be prudent to have a portion of the Comprehensive Plan changed to residential.
Mrs. Townshend noted that a map has been provided to members depicting the area involving the properties at Maple Dale Country Club. Mr. Malmberg explained that the request is for a portion of the property to be classified in the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Larry McAllister, 561 Troon Road, stated that he is an adjacent property owner off of the 17th fairway of Maple Dale Country Club. He advised members that there are two (2) potential plans for development. Noting that Maple Dale is “asset rich”, he stated that the problem is that they are “cash flow poor” as it relates to those that wish to utilize their service. In today’s economy, there is a decline in memberships for these types of clubs. He relayed support in allowing for a medium density classification of approximately 30 acres.
South State Street
Mr. Tom Burns, Burns & Ellis Realtors - 490 N. DuPont Highway, stated he was requested by Dr. Bautista and Dr. Kidd to look at the concept of Mixed Use in the South State Street area. His most critical observation, as a real estate broker, is the need to allow currently zoned properties to remain in their current zone and be compatible with neighbors who may have a different zone. The current designation is medium density residential, which is completely inconsistent with the number of offices that currently exists. He stated that there is no intent in the request for there to be a change for the property or a suggestion for future changes, but rather to simply allow the existing properties to maintain their current use in the case of a catastrophe that would require reconstruction.
Mrs. Fran Hettinger, 63 Sackarackin Avenue, relayed concern regarding the Mixed Use zoning along the east side of State Street. She advised members that the only means to exit Sackarackin Avenue is onto State Street, which is nearly impossible between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. She stated concern with the manner in which the crossing guard at Holy Cross directs traffic and suggested that this matter be reviewed. Mrs. Hettinger stated that if more commercial properties are permitted, it will become like Governors Avenue. This area of State Street is a residential community and she requested that it remain as such. Although she is not a property owner on State Street, she advised members that what happens on State Street will directly affect the properties along Sackarackin Avenue.
Responding to Mrs. Hettinger, Mrs. Townshend state that the corner property on Sackarackin Avenue should not be reflected as “Mixed Use” property and should be residential (error in Plan). On the west side, she explained that there are a mix of uses and zoning classifications that currently exist. The draft Plan allows for the mix to continue on the west side of State Street.
Dr. Bautista, owner of several properties along State Street, advised members that he began his practice in the 1970’s/1980’s along State Street. He requested that the properties be classified as commercial and suggested an RG-O zoning classification.
Mrs. Kathy Kosior, 12 Elm Terrace, read a letter into the record on behalf of the residents of Elm Terrace, State Street, and Sackarackin Avenue and presented a petition (Exhibit #5) expressing concern with the remapping of properties along State Street between Elm Terrace and Water Street and extending beyond to Wyoming Avenue. Referring to staff’s recommendation for including specific zoning districts to be considered within a Mixed Use area, Ms. Kosior relayed her support for its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ed Heinz, 903 S. State Street, advised members that this section of State Street is a very busy area and changing the zoning to allow more commercial properties would only make it worse. He stated that this is a very nice neighborhood and he wishes it to remain as it currently exists.
Mrs. Laurie Willet, 807 S. State Street, stated her understanding that the definition of Mixed Use is to encourage ambulatory uses. Noting that this is not currently occurring, she explained that preferred method of transportation is cultural and cannot be changed by changing the uses in a Comprehensive Plan. She relayed her opposition of any Mixed Use zoning classification and felt that the area should remain residential.
Mrs. Willet questioned if the map previously mentioned by Mrs. Townshend in regards to State Street as having an error, consisted of one (1) or three (3) properties. Responding, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the error consists of three (3) properties that should be reflected as “yellow” (Residential) rather than “purple” (Mixed Use).
There being no objections, Council President Hogan declared a 15-minute recess.
Meeting recessed at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened at 7:16 p.m.
East Loockerman Street and South Edgehill Avenue
Mr. Bill Murray, 745 East Loockerman Street, noted that during the previous session, members voted to deny the request for the property located at East Loockerman Street and South Edgehill Avenue to be reflected as Limited Commercial and requested that members maintain their position regarding this matter. He stated that there are several residents in attendance that support this request and requested that they stand. City Clerk’s Office Note: There were seven (7) people who stood.
Mrs. Gail Coker, 41 S. Edgehill Avenue, relayed appreciation to members for their previous action taken in regards to the property located at East Loockerman Street and South Edgehill Avenue and hoped that members would not alter this decision.
210 Beiser Boulevard
Pastor Harry Harris, 428 Great Geneva Drive, addressed members regarding the rezoning of 210 Beiser Boulevard. He noted that the property is currently zoned industrial and he is attempting to get it rezoned for office use or church, which is hampering the purchase of the building. He read a letter from Mr. Ray Book (which is a neighbor) into the record (Exhibit #6) in support of the request.
In response to Council President Hogan, Mrs. Townshend stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan is currently consistent with the request of Pastor Harris.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Referring to the comments mentioned by Mrs. Kosior, Mrs. Townshend noted that every land use category listed on the table on pages 165-166, has a set of appropriate zoning classifications except Mixed Use, which indicates “zoning contingent on parcel/location”. Staff felt that it would be helpful to include a list of zoning classifications for the areas designated as Mixed Use. This would not necessarily mean that every zoning district would be appropriate in every Mixed Use area; however, it would at least pare it down providing residents some predictability. The zoning districts staff felt would be appropriate are as follows: C-2 (in the downtown area only); C-2A - Limited Central Commercial; C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial; C-1A - Limited Commercial; RG-O - General Residence and Office; R-8 - One Family Residence; and RG-1 - General Residence. Mrs. Townshend also advised members that the TND ordinance was developed specifically for a Mixed Use master plan zone. She also felt that the Mixed Use designation should be removed between Hope Street and Gooden Avenue to be reverted back to Medium Density Residential.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his feeling that the City should consider the residents prior to any commercialization. He stated that although commercial properties are important to the City, he felt that the citizens and their concerns should take priority and every effort should be made by the City to preserve residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Ruane relayed his concurrence with the concerns expressed by residents regarding the application of Mixed Use to the South State Street corridor, feeling that it is inappropriate. He noted that this is a predominately residential area and that a commercial zoning (C-2, C-2A, C-1, and C-1A) would allow for more commercial properties, which he felt would be detrimental.
Mr. Ruane moved to remove the Mixed Use designation on the South State Street corridor (from Hope Street to Wyoming Avenue, including the three (3) properties on the corner of Roosevelt Avenue and State Street), removal of the corresponding language on page 153, and that the properties be reverted back to their current designation. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, two (2) no (Mr. McGiffin and Council President Hogan), and one (1) absent (Mr. Salters).
Since the result of the motion was against the Planning Commission’s recommendation, Council President Hogan explained that each member must state the reason for their vote.
Mr. Leary stated his reason was to maintain the quality of the neighborhood and for the respect of the residents along Bradford Street that would back up to the properties.
Mrs. Russell stated her concurrence with the reasons provided by Mr. Leary.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his concurrence with the reasons provided by Mr. Leary.
Mr. Slavin stated his reason was to address the concerns of the neighbors.
Mrs. Williams stated her reason was to address the concerns of the neighbors and the implication that the area could become more commercially developed.
Mr. Ruane stated his reasons were due to the concerns expressed by the neighbors in their testimony and the maintenance of separation of uses from what could become incompatible uses.
Referring to a previous motion made by members during their meeting of January 5, 2009 regarding Item #5 - Land Development Plan Change for 509 South State Street, owned by Bruce Ennis, which approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation to change the land use classification to Mixed Use, Mr. Ruane requested that members reconsider this matter.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ruane stated that although the initial request was for the property located at 509 South State Street, the draft Plan included additional properties on South State Street, zoned RG-O, from Water Street to Elm Terrace in the Mixed Use classification. He reminded members that, based on a petition and testimony from the residents of Elm Terrace, there was a concern that a Mixed Use classification would allow commercialization of the properties in the future.
Mr. Ruane moved that the current land use map designation for those properties located on the corner of Water and State Street (east side) be continued and that the vacant land be designated as Medium Density Residential. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, and Council President Hogan), and one (1) absent (Mr. Salters).
Since the result of the motion was against the Planning Commission’s recommendation, Council President Hogan explained that each member must state their reasons.
Mr. Leary stated his reason was due to the Mixed Use, in this particular case, being inconsistent with the tone and tenor of the neighborhood and that the classifications should remain.
Mrs. Russell concurred with the reasons stated by Mr. Leary.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his reason was to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Williams stated her reason, in addition to maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood, was due to the fact that the residents and property owners were not notified of the change.
Mr. Ruane stated his reason was to encourage the separation of residential areas from incompatible uses.
Referring to South Governors Avenue, Mr. Ruane reminded members that there has been a history of disagreeable reactions in the neighborhood due to the parking lots and entrances being created illegally. He did not feel that Council should reward this behavior by extending another commercial use. He stated that the parking issue was thought to be resolved when the Grange offered its parking lot for use by the requestor and, for some reason, it was not felt agreeable.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that there are two (2) properties, until the corner, on South Governors Avenue that are not currently in a commercial zone. The one is located just south of the Halpern property, which is currently zoned C-PO, and the other is the Grange. The map, as presented, continues the commercial since the properties from the hospital south are all commercial with the exception of the two (2) properties. The map would make the commercial properties consistent.
Mr. Ruane moved to keep the property identified as 975 South Governors Avenue as Medium Density Residential, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Leary and Council President Hogan), and one (1) absent (Mr. Salters).
Since the result of the motion was against the Planning Commission’s recommendation, Council President Hogan explained that each member must state their reasons.
Mrs. Russell stated her reason was due to the residents concerns and because she felt that the area should not become commercial.
Mr. Slavin stated his reason was to maintain the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. McGlumphy concurred with the reason provided by Mr. Slavin.
Mrs. Williams also concurred with the reason provided by Mr. Slavin.
Mr. Ruane stated his reason was to maintain the separation of a residential home from an incompatible use.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his reason was to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ruane moved to reopen the decision to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Items #1A and #1B to change the land use classification from residential medium density to commercial for 514 and 516 East Loockerman Street and designate the properties as office, which would still allow its current use. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mrs. Townshend noted that one of the properties is currently a parking lot and questioned if the motion would be inclusive of both properties. Responding, Mr. Ruane indicated that his intention would be to include 514 East Loockerman Street only.
For clarification, Mrs. Townshend stated that the motion would essentially change the one parcel to office (an office designation in the Plan), which would have the zoning for both parcels to remain as they currently are zoned.
Mr. Ruane advised members that by designating the property office, the CPO use would be permitted to continue. He explained that the office designation allows CPO, as does the commercial designation; however, it would narrow the use and make it less likely for the restaurant to be expanded onto the property.
The motion to change the land use classification for property located at 514 East Loockerman Street to office was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, and Council President Hogan), and one (1) absent (Mr. Salters).
Mr. Leary stated his reason was to maintain the current character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Russell stated her reason was to prevent any further development of the property and its ability to jeopardize the neighborhood.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his reason was to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Williams concurred with the statement provided by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. Ruane stated his reason was due to it recognizing that the current CPO acts as a buffer between the commercial uses and the residential properties.
Mr. Ruane referred to the maps provided that reference the Capital Baptist Church on Kesselring Avenue and the Seventh Day Adventist Church at 647 Wyoming Avenue and suggested staff provide clarification of the paragraph on page 158 of the draft Plan that states: At the present time, virtually all public school buildings and numerous places of worship are situated within residential areas. These properties designated for institutional use should be zoned I-O (Institutional and Office).
Mr. Ruane moved to direct the City Planner to provide clarifying language to the paragraph on page 158 of the final draft Comprehensive Plan that would reaffirm that the intent would not be to change the underlying zoning from the residential zone, or whatever the current zone might be, for consideration by members during their Regular Meeting on February 9, 2009. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Responding, Mrs. Townshend suggested that the paragraph be stricken and replaced with a paragraph that indicates that the City would not propose to rezone any additional schools or churches located in residential communities to an institutional zone - they would maintain their residential zoning.
In response to concerns of Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Townshend explained that the idea is not to change the zoning of churches that are already zoned institutional but the idea would be that the City would not change the zoning of those that are located within residential zoning districts. She advised members that churches are a conditional use in many of the residential districts.
Mrs. Williams questioned what would be the use of a large building that would no longer be inhabited by the church. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the concern is if there is a church located in a neighborhood and the church sells the property, based on the zoning ordinance, within an institutional and office zone, a 10-story office building could be erected.
On a call for the question by Mr. Ruane, the motion directing the City Planner to provide clarifying language to the paragraph on page 158 in the final draft Comprehensive Plan that would reaffirm that the intent would not be to change the underlying zoning from the residential zone, or whatever the current zone it might be, for consideration by members during their Regular Meeting on February 9, 2009 was unanimously carried.
Mr. Ruane referred to the Public Utilities Chapter and moved that there be an additional recommendation that would identify and pursue options for long-term, reliable, cost competitive, and environmentally prudent electricity for the citizens of Dover (purpose of the 2030 Committee). The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Should there be any wordsmithing necessary to the Plan, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that Councilman Ruane meet with the City Planner to develop clarifying language to be presented to members for their consideration.
Mrs. Williams moved to request that all the wordsmithing necessary to make the Plan environmentally friendly, accurately correct, politically absorbed, etc. between members of Council and the City Planner be permitted, but that it not be done in open session this evening, and that they be presented to members for their consideration during their meeting of February 9, 2009. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried with Mr. Ruane voting no.
Responding to Mrs. Townshend, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that any changes that are substantive be clarified as such when presented to Council for their review and approval.
Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Final consideration of the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to be considered by members of Council during their Regular Meeting on February 9, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.).
Meeting Adjourned at 8:28 P.M.
TRACI A. McDOWELL
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of February 2, 2009, are hereby approved.
CARLETON E. CAREY, SR.
MAYOR
/TM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCouncil-Minutes20092-02-2009 Special.wpd
Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy
Exhibit #1 - Memorandum dated January 26, 2009 from Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections - 2008 Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit #2 - Petition - Residents of Mifflin Road Opposed to Change from Residential To Commercial for Properties Located at 4 and 24 Mifflin Road
Exhibit #3 - Correspondence Submitted by HUB Associates, dated December 20, 2007
Exhibit #4 - Correspondence Submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Coughlin, dated February 2, 2009
Exhibit #5 - Letter and Petition from Residents of Elm Terrace, State Street, and Sackarackin Avenue Opposed to Mixed Use Designation for Properties on South State Street
Exhibit #6 - Correspondence Submitted by Mr. Ray Book, dated January 30, 2009