SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
A Special Council Meeting was held on January 5, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mr. DePrima, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Slavin 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”
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of The Dover Plan: 2008 Comprehensive Plan “From The People - For the People 2008-2013”. Council President Hogan reviewed the public hearing guidelines. He stated that the public hearing will be in regards to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan only and that there will be no consideration of rezonings. He explained that any rezoning amendments resulting from the Comprehensive Plan would still require the normal process such as rezoning public hearings, notifications, etc. Council President Hogan noted that there are 19 items presented as amendments to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, of which some were and others were not included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. These 19 items were presented to the Planning Commission which has forwarded recommendations for Council’s consideration. He stated that there would be separate public hearings held for each of the 19 items and then a final public hearing on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
In response to concerns relayed by Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, stated that the map provided identifies areas where the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan does not match the current zoning. She explained that, following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, staff will need to initiate a comprehensive rezoning to proactively rezone land to support implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. This is a detailed and lengthy process that will have much staff scrutiny and input from affected property owners, followed by public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mrs. Townshend noted that the map identifies areas where the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan does not match the current zoning and that these areas would be reviewed by staff and brought forward with zoning recommendations during the comprehensive rezoning process, which is expected to take place over the course of 18 months following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, she advised members that simply because a property depicts a change in zoning, it does not necessarily mean that it will be presented for a rezoning and that a property that is not listed does not necessarily mean that it would not be presented for a rezoning.
Mr. Ruane explained his understanding that the 19 items were map changes that were requested and that those who had requested the changes would be given the opportunity to address members. In addition, there were other map changes reflected on the list. He felt that the only distinction between the lists was that one list was of requests by individuals for land use changes and the other represented a land use change proposed by the City. He also noted that the land use (map) change is the first step in the rezoning process.
Mrs. Townshend reviewed a presentation of the review process that the draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan has undergone to arrive at this stage (Exhibit #1). She noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing during a Special Meeting on December 2, 2008 and recommended adoption of the 2008 Dover Comprehensive Plan Final Draft dated October 31, 2008, with revisions (see 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Matrix).
Mrs. Townshend noted that the matrix provided consists of 19 requests from the public regarding the treatment of specific properties in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, which generally relate to either requests for inclusion in annexation areas or requests for classification within the Land Development Plan. For each of these requests, she stated staff’s recommendation (i.e., how the request was or was not reflected in the final draft) has been provided, as well as the Planning Commission’s recommendation on each of the requests. This matrix also notes editorial changes made to the final draft. She advised members that for each of the requests, there is a corresponding packet of information, including a locator map and correspondence between the property owner and City staff.
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the proposed amendments and reminded members that the Final Reading and adoption of The Dover Plan: 2008 Comprehensive Plan “From the People - For the People 2008-2013” is scheduled to take place during the Regular Council Meeting of January 12, 2009. She also reminded members of correspondence received from the State Planner, Mrs. Constance Holland, requesting that adoption of the Plan be tabled until the annexation issue involving lands located east of State Route 1 is resolved. Following adoption of the Plan by City Council, staff will submit the adopted Plan to the State for Certification. Mrs. Townshend relayed appreciation to the Planning Staff for their time and effort on this project, recognizing the following: Mrs. Melson-Williams, Principal Planner; Ms. Manejwala, Intern; Ms. Cornwell, Planner II; and Mr. Albert, Planner.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Neaton, Economic Development Director, indicated that the goal is to complete the economic development plan for the Garrison Tract by May 2009 and that the 2030 Energy Committee recommendations will be made a part of the plan.
Item #1A & #1B - Land Development Plan Change - 514 and 516 E. Loockerman Street, Owned by HUB Associates, LLC
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of HUB Associates, LLC, to change the land development plan for 514 and 516 E. Loockerman Street (ED05-077.06-01-64.00 and ED05-077.06-01-63.00) from residential to commercial. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for both properties to be reflected as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ruane noted that the properties across the street from 514 and 516 E. Loockerman Street are zoned residential. At his request, Mrs. Townshend explained that the purpose of the CPO zone is to provide a transition from the office and lower intensity commercial uses to the residential zones. Mr. Ruane added that the CPO zone is “to prevent the development of professional offices in healthy, mature residential neighborhoods”.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mrs. Townshend advised members that correspondence was received from William and Patricia Coughlin (529 East Loockerman Street) in opposition to any plans for the properties to expand into a larger commercial complex and requested that the request be denied to change the land use classification from residential medium density to commercial. At the request of Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Townshend read the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Coughlin into the record (Exhibit #2).
Mr. Ruane indicated that it is the City’s policy to avoid incompatibilities of commercial properties being developed near residential properties. As indicated on page 149 of the Land Development Chapter, he noted that the policy is to encourage separation of residential areas from non-compatible uses, which is what a prior Council accomplished by providing a CPO zoning classification.
Mr. Ruane moved to retain the current designation on the land map for 514 and 516 E. Loockerman Street properties, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. Ruane reiterated his concern that a change to the land map is the first step to a rezoning and requested clarification in this regard.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that the land use for these properties in the final draft of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan is commercial and suggested that, for clarification, the motion should be specific by indicating that the properties remain residential medium density. She advised members that due to their current zoning classification, a rezoning would be required. She reminded members that when there are areas where current zonings do not match land designation, a comprehensive rezoning of such properties will be initiated to proactively rezone land to support implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
On a call for the question by Mrs. Williams, the motion to retain the current designation on the land map for 514 and 516 E. Loockerman Street properties failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no, and three (3) yes (Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, and Mr. Ruane).
Mr. Slavin moved 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 E. Loockerman Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes and three (3) no (Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, and Mr. Ruane).
Item #2 - Land Development Plan Change - 200 Saulsbury Road, Owned by Elks Lodge BPOE
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of the Elks Lodge BPOE to change the land use designation for the Elks Lodge located at 200 Saulsbury Road (ED05-076.07-01-82.00) from residential to commercial. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the property to be reflected as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the property is currently being utilized as institutional and concurred that it may be a more appropriate designation.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Slavin moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation to change the land use designation from residential to commercial for property located at 200 Saulsbury Road, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mr. Ruane encouraged members to consider not only the current user of the property and how it is used, but also how it could be used under the land designation and its subsequent zoning. He suggested that a more appropriate land use designation would be institutional.
At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that, depending on the commercial zoning classification, convenience stores, restaurants, etc., could be permitted.
The motion to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #2 to change the land use designation from residential to commercial for property located at 200 Saulsbury Road was carried by a role call vote of five (5) yes, two (2) no (Mrs. Russell and Mr. Ruane), and two (2) abstentions (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams abstained due to their current and previous affiliation with the Elks Lodge.
Items #3, #4, and #7 - Land Development Plan Change - #3: 4 Mifflin Road, Owned by Peter and Bonny Reidy; #4: 24 Mifflin Road, Owned by Robert Klewans and Carol Candor; and #7: 1510 Forrest Avenue, Owned by Doreen Lucas
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the requests of Peter and Bonny Reidy - 4 Mifflin Road (ED05-076.09-01-11.00) ; Robert Klewans and Carol Candor - 24 Mifflin Road (ED05-076.09-01-12.00); and Doreen Lucas - 1510 Forrest Avenue (ED05-076.09-01-08.00) to change the land use designation for the properties located at 4 Mifflin Road, 24 Mifflin Road, and 1510 Forrest Avenue from residential to commercial. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the properties to be reflected as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Richard L. Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, stated that items #3 and #4 are properties located within the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association and since item #7 is not (1510 Forrest Avenue), he requested that the items be separated. Responding, Council President Hogan indicated that during the voting, item #7 will be considered separately.
Mr. Ornauer thanked the Planning Staff for the multiple hours of work and public workshops held in the development of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. He relayed opposition to the request for the properties on Mifflin Road being designated as commercial. With reference to the close proximity to the proposed new Dover High School, Mr. Ornauer assured members that there is no relationship between Mifflin Road and the proposed high school. He advised members that on October 18, 1985, an application was made for changing the properties at Route 8 and Mifflin Road to commercial, which was denied by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1985 by a vote of six (6) to two (2). He also advised members that a petition was submitted by the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association in opposition to the commercialization of the properties. He noted that two (2) of the signers of the petition are the applicants to items #3 and #4. In addition, he stated that they are signatories to a petition opposed to the establishment of the original Wawa.
Since City Council overruled the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the application for changing the properties to commercial, Mr. Ornauer advised members that the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association filed a law suit against the City of Dover. He stated that the court case ultimately went to Chancery Court and, in a decision issued on November 28, 1985, Vice Chancellor Jacobson supported the Association, indicating that there was nothing to support the requested change in zoning.
Mr. Ornauer indicated that Mifflin Road has been designated as a residential roadway by the State Department of Transportation. He also advised members that, in accordance with the Delaware Route 8 Study, there will be revisions to the Route 8/Mifflin Road Intersection, including access to the Country Club Apartments. He requested, on behalf of the Mifflin Road Neighborhood Association, that the proposed changes to items #3 and #4 be denied and that the R-8 zoning classification be retained, which, he noted, is the zoning classification of all properties located on the west side of Mifflin Road, as well as those located on the east side with the exception of the bank (intersection of Route 8 and Mifflin Road).
Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, advised members that, due to the amount of traffic on Mifflin Road, residents have difficulty exiting their drive-ways safely. She noted safety issues involving the intersection at Route 8 and Mifflin Road, as well as the entranceway to the bank due to its close proximity to the intersection. She stated that of those proposed commercial properties, it would not be possible to install a safe entrance/exit on Mifflin Road. She urged members not to take any further action that would make Mifflin Road any more unsafe.
Ms. Jennifer Holden, 15 Mifflin Road, concurred with the traffic concerns on Mifflin Road and requested that the roadway remain residential. Although action cannot be taken to reverse the current commercial properties located at the end of Mifflin Road, she stated that action can be taken to preserve the remaining residential properties.
Mr. Carl Patterson, 19 Mifflin Road, reiterated that Mifflin Road consists of a beautiful residential area. He noted that the Wawa has encroached on the quality of life for the residents of Mifflin Road and he felt that approval of the request would be a disaster for these residents.
With no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Responding to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Townshend explained that the factors involving staff’s recommendation were due to the corner property across from the subject parcels being commercial and that the predominant use along the Route 8 corridor is becoming commercial. She also reminded members that staff’s recommendations were made prior to any public testimony.
Mr. Slavin moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for items #3 - 4 Mifflin Road and #4 - 24 Mifflin Road to change the land use designation for these properties from residential to commercial. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams and failed by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mrs. Williams moved to deny the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #3 - 4 Mifflin Road and Item #4 - 24 Mifflin Road and that these properties be designated as low density residential in the Land Development Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
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 reasons were due to the continuing acute nature of the traffic problems along Mifflin Road and his feeling that staff and the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to consider the changes coming forward from DelDOT.
Mrs. Russell stated her reason was due to the objections from the residents of Mifflin Road and indicated that they are homeowners and taxpayers whose opinions matter.
Mr. McGlumphy indicated his reason was due to the request being against the City’s principle to establish more residential properties. He also indicated his being cognizant of the neighbors and their opinions.
Mr. Slavin stated his concurrence with the reasons as stated by Mr. Leary.
Mr. McGiffin stated his reason was for the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Williams stated her reasons involved concerns of traffic safety and the well-being of the residents of Mifflin Road and also due to the expenditure of taxpayer’s money in addressing traffic issues on this roadway.
Mr. Salters stated his reason was due to the safety of the residents of Mifflin Road.
Mr. Ruane referred to page 149 of the draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan, which indicates the assumptions for residential land use and noted that proper separation of incompatible land uses is accomplished through physical distance and buffering, which creates stronger neighborhoods. He stated that Mifflin Road is a strong neighborhood which he wishes to maintain.
In addition to those reasons as stated by members, Council President Hogan indicated his reason was a desire to maintain residential properties along Route 8 towards the proposed high school and avoid commercialization of properties surrounding the proposed high school.
Mr. Slavin moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #7 - 1510 Forrest Avenue to change the land use designation for this property from residential to commercial, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mr. McGiffin noted that the property adjacent to 1510 Forrest Avenue, which is located in the County, is zoned residential. Considering the action Council took in regards to Items #3 and #4, involving 4 and 24 Mifflin Road, it was his opinion that the Planning Commission and staff’s recommendations are not as logical at this time.
The motion to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #7 failed by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mrs. Williams moved to deny the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #7 and that the property located at 1510 Forrest Avenue be designated as low density residential in the Land Development Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
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 reasons were due to the continuing traffic problems along Route 8 and that a change in the land use would break up a residential neighborhood area.
Mrs. Russell stated her concurrence with the reasons stated by Mr. Leary.
Mr. McGlumphy indicated his reason was due to safety issues and spot zoning.
Mr. Slavin stated his concurrence with the reasons stated by Mr. Leary.
Mr. McGiffin stated his reason was for the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Williams stated her reason was due to non-conforming issues.
Mr. Salters stated his reason was due to safety issues.
Mr. Ruane stated his reason was for a separation of residential areas from incompatible uses.
Council President Hogan indicated his reason was due to objections of a commercial zone between two (2) residential properties on a roadway towards the proposed high school.
Item #5 - Land Development Plan Change - 509 S. State Street, Owned by Bruce Ennis
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Mr. Bruce Ennis to change the land use designation for 509 S. State Street (ED05-077.09-05-45.00) from commercial to mixed use. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the property to be reflected as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that although the request involved the property located at 509 S. State Street, in reviewing the request, staff has included all properties on S. State Street zoned RG-O from Water Street to Elm Terrace in the mixed use classification.
Mr. Ruane suggested that until there are provisions that identify what the mixed use designation means, it should not be utilized.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #5 to change the land use classification to mixed use for property located at 509 S. State Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane).
Item #6 - Land Development Plan Change - Long Point Road, Owned by Bay Village of Dover, LLC
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Bay Village of Dover, LLC, to change the land development plan for property located on Long Point Road (76 acres), east of State Route 1 on White Oak Road - across from the Garrison Tract (LC05-068.00-01-06.00), from agricultural to medium density residential. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the property to be reflected as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
Referring to page 158 of the draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Ruane noted the statement involving the protection of existing industrial office park and manufacturing establishments from encroachment by incompatible land uses, which could result in nuisance complaints, hazardous situations, and human conflicts. He questioned if staff considered this statement in reviewing this request. Responding, Mrs. Townshend assured members that the statement was taken into consideration and that it was staff’s opinion that the proposed project for the property owned by Bay Village of Dover and the project for the Garrison Oak tract would compliment each other. She also stated that in the design of the residential development (Bay Village of Dover), there would be appropriate buffering. In terms of the development of the Garrison Oak tract, she stated that the construction would not extend to the roadway.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the housing proposed for the Long Point Road property is intended to provide workforce housing for the Garrison Oak tract.
In response to Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Townshend indicated that language is included in the draft Plan that would allow for staff to postpone or deny any rezoning application pending the development of the Garrison Oak tract. She suggested that members of Council may wish to include in their motion that the rezoning should not take place until the development of the Garrison Oak tract. She explained that if the residential properties are developed prior to the Garrison Oak tract, there could be complaints by the residents once the development of the Garrison Oak tract is underway.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Mr. James Galvin, 825 Westview Terrace, noted that the PND ordinance requires services to be included in any property so developed and zoned agricultural. It can only be developed for senior housing and requires services for the seniors in the development. If it is zoned medium density residential, there are various residential uses. He personally felt that having services available for the residents makes sense and recommended that Council not move forward with the proposal.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Ruane noted that discussion of the project is outlined on pages 150 and 151 of the draft Plan. He felt that Council should be aware that in consideration of land development, the map and the text of the draft Plan should be considered when making a decision. The text language indicates that the development of the area should coincide with the development of a master plan, as well as other suggestions. He felt that any motion to approve the request should include a condition by referencing the text of the Plan, explaining that there are already concerns of existing residents in the area of the Garrison Oak tract. Mr. Ruane noted that the State has made significant investments in agricultural preservation around the property; therefore, he relayed reluctance in approving the request particularly without the conditions as outlined in the text of the draft Plan.
Mr. McGiffin questioned if the draft Plan text language requires that this property be developed in a coordinated fashion with Garrison Oak, and if so, would it be necessary for Council to include such language in a motion to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Responding, DeputyCity Solicitor Pepper indicated that the inclusion of such language would not be necessary.
Mr. McGiffin moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #6 to change the land development plan for property located on Long Point Road (76 acres), east of State Route 1 on White Oak Road - across from the Garrison Tract, to medium density residential. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane).
There being no objections, Council President Hogan declared a 10-minute recess.
Meeting recessed at 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21 p.m.
Item #17 - Land Development Plan Change - Corner of East Loockerman Street and South Edgehill Avenue, Owned by Richter Associates, LP
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Richter Associates, LP, to change the land development plan for the property located on the corner of East Loockerman Street and South Edgehill Avenue from a zoning classification of Residential (R-8) to Limited Commercial (C-1A). She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the property to be reflected as Limited Commercial (C-1A) in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Townshend noted that a petition, as well as information including an additional petition provided by Mr. Ruane (Exhibit #3), has been provided to members. The additional information includes the same map provided for the property but is noted with the surrounding properties zoning classifications.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Ms. Nina Balderson, 49 S. Edgehill Avenue, expressed her opposition to the request, explaining that her understanding is that there is a desire to either provide a parking lot for “Where Pigs Fly” restaurant or expand the restaurant. She advised members that although the street is one-way, there are many vehicles that travel the wrong way. She also indicated that there is always excessive traffic and that there are problems with excessive speeding vehicles in the residential neighborhood. Ms. Balderson advised members that there are many children in the neighborhood and relayed concern regarding safety issues. She felt that if the property were to be designated commercial, there could be the possibility of expanding commercial properties further in the neighborhood.
Mr. William Murray, 745 East Loockerman Street, stated that his biggest concern is in regards to the entrance/exit for the property, noting that Edgehill Avenue is strictly a residential street. By making East Loockerman Street one-way in this area, he stated that traffic has been reduced from approximately 8,000 vehicles to 3,000 vehicles per day. He advised members that the residents were not aware of the request until recently and requested that members deny the request.
Mr. Roland Everett, East Loockerman Street, stated that the neighborhood is currently a nice, quiet place to live and would like for the area to remain as such.
Ms. Gail Coker, 41 S. Edgehill Avenue, stated that as a resident of the neighborhood all her life, she would like for the area to remain as it is. She relayed concern with the request creating additional traffic and felt it would be detrimental for the property to be designated as commercial.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to deny the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #17 and that the property located on the corner of East Loockerman Street and South Edgehill Avenue be designated as residential medium density in the Land Development Plan. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
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 that changing the property to commercial would be a clear violation of the character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Russell stated her desire to maintain the area as residential to provide safety for the residents.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his reason is to maintain integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Slavin stated that the request is completely incongruous with what the neighborhood is.
Mr. McGiffin stated his reason is to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Williams concurred with Mr. McGiffin and relayed concern with the traffic issues that would be created. She also felt that there is currently ample parking for restaurant patrons.
Mr. Salters stated that, in addition to safety concerns, his reason is to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ruane stated his reason is for proper separation of residential areas from incompatible uses.
Council President Hogan agreed with the reasons provided by other members and noted that making a change to property that is adjacent to the roadway that was purposely made one-way for traffic problems would totally defeat its purpose.
Item #8A-#8F - Land Development Plan Change - Forrest Avenue, Owned by Ennis Business Associates, LLC
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Ennis Business Associates, LLC, to change the land development plan for several properties on Forrest Avenue (ED05-076.11-02-20.00, ED05-076.11-02-20.01, ED05-076.11-02-21.00, ED05-076.11-02-22.00, ED05-076.11-02-23.00, and ED05-076.11-02-59.00), which are located directly across from the Modern Maturity Center, from residential to commercial. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the properties to be reflected as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Tom Burns of Burns and Ellis Realtors, representing Mr. Ennis and his family, stated that the proposed classification is consistent with the other properties along Route 8. It would also make a 4-way intersection at the existing traffic signal; therefore, any type of future configuration for the proposed Comprehensive Plan change would be consistent with traffic control devices in this area.
Ms. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, questioned if one of the proposed properties being considered would provide for an additional North/South route between Hazlettville Road and Route 8. If not, she indicated her opposition to the request.
Responding, Mrs. Townshend indicated that regardless of the zoning and land use designation, when the property is brought forward, she anticipates a comment from DelDOT requiring a right-of-way dedication for providing an additional North/South route.
With no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Items #8A-#8F to change the land use classification from residential to commercial for properties located on Forrest Avenue. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #9 - Land Development Plan Change - Southwest Corner of Walker Road and Saulsbury Road, Owned by Cahne Pavilion Dover, LLC
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Becker Morgan Group on behalf of Todd Bariglio to change the land development plan for property located on the southwest corner of Walker Road and Saulsbury Road (ED05-067.19-04-52.00) from office to commercial. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the property to be reflected as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
In response to questions of Mr. Salters, Mr. Greg Moore from Becker Morgan Group, representing Mr. Bariglio, advised members that there would not be entrance on Walker Road or Saulsbury Road. He noted that the access road in the rear of the property was designed and built to serve all of the front commercial properties.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #9 to change the land use designation from office to commercial for property located on the southwest corner of Walker Road and Saulsbury Road, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #10 - Annexation Category Change - 924 Artis Drive, Owned by Richard Jones
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Mr. Richard Jones to change the annexation category for property located at 924 Artis Drive (ED00-075.00-02-56.05) from Category 3 to Category 2. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the property to be reflected as Annexation Category 2 in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Townshend advised members that in an attempt to address concerns of residents along Artis Drive, the property was designated as low density and the annexation was not extended to the west side of Artis Drive. From a utilities and land standpoint, she explained that this area is a logical extension for annexation, noting that the City’s utility services are extended to this area.
Referring to page 173 of the draft Plan, Mr. Ruane requested clarification regarding the inconsistency with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that in Kent County, the current City boundary no longer stays within the growth zone. She stated that the growth zone goes inside Artis Drive and cuts the Carey farm; therefore, the properties annexed by the City to date, and those in the last annexation plan, were not in the Kent County Comprehensive Plan. When the City worked on the annexation area, staff met with Kent County officials and the previous version of the Plan did reflect this area around Dover; however, during the Kent County Comprehensive Plan process, they reverted back to the previous growth zone. Mrs. Townshend stated that she has not heard any objections from Kent County regarding the City’s annexation plan and assured members that she has been in contact with Kent County staff in preparing the City’s draft Plan.
Responding to Mr. Ruane regarding an inter-governmental agreement, Mrs. Townshend stated that according to the Planning Director for Kent County, they support the growth at the municipal level and do not object to the inclusion of the area in the City’s plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Paul Jones, representing the owner of the property, stated that during a previous request for annexation of the property, the PLUS comments suggested that such a decision be deferred until this time. The comments had also suggested a comprehensive evaluation of how this area would be built. He indicated no objections to the Par 3 inclusion and, under the assumption that there may be objections, he recommended that the larger parcel be segregated and included in Category 2 and that the other parcel be included in Category 3.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. McGiffin moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #10 to change the property located at 924 Artis Drive from Category 3 to Category 2, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #11A - #11F - Annexation Category Change - Lands Located East of Route 1, Owned by Dover International Speedway
Mrs. Townshend 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 (two (2) parcels), 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.
Mrs. Townshend 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. Referring to a letter dated December 30, 2008 from Mrs. Holland, State Planner, (Exhibit #4) 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 and Administration in hopes of resolving the issue prior to Council’s final consideration of the matter.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that the State law allows for a 45-day negotiation period. She explained that once the City is notified by the State that the Plan is not certifiable, there is a 45-day negotiation period between the municipality and the State. She stated that if an amiable solution is not reached, then the Plan would be presented to the Livable Delaware Advisory Council (Advisory Council of Planning Coordination). After speaking with Deputy City Solicitor Pepper, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the 45-days period begins upon receipt of the letter from the State Planning Office.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Greg Moore of Becker Morgan Group addressed members on behalf of Dover International Speedway. Referring to the map provided, he noted that the outlined property is lands owned by Dover International Speedway, which is located within the City of Dover limits and is a significant parcel used for race day operations and parking and is not agricultural lands. There are other lands owned by Dover International Speedway that are not in the City of Dover limits, noted by yellow, that are also used for race day operations and parking. He advised members that these parcels are not discreet agriculture properties and are all actively utilized by Dover Downs in support of race day functions. In fact, most parcels have roadways and for two (2) periods of the year, they are utilized for race day parking. Mr. Moore indicated that it is the opinion of Dover International Speedway that it would be beneficial for all properties to be under one jurisdiction, the City of Dover, and that they be annexed. This would allow for Dover Downs to deal with only one jurisdiction when they begin development plans.
Mr. Moore noted that the 2003 Comprehensive Plan depicts these areas as “areas of concern for annexation” which he felt indicated that in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan, they would be areas designated for annexation. Since the 2003 Plan, Dover Downs underwent a $15M expansion on the east side of the track. As NASCAR expands, he stated that there will be additional expansions necessary and that the only availability for expansion is towards the east of the current facility. In addition, it was felt that by having the areas within the City of Dover limits, it would provide a significant safety improvement.
Mr. Moore advised members that Dover Downs has no current plans for development of the parcels, they only wish to continue to utilize these parcels for race day functions as they are currently utilized. However, noting that the Comprehensive Plan is a five (5) year plan, he stated that there may be a need to take some of these parcels into new development, consistent with what has already been done on the east side of the track, in order to sustain the NASCAR events. Considering the current market conditions, Dover Downs wishes to be in a position to develop the parcels if necessary.
Mr. Moore questioned why the parcel owned by Dover Downs, which is located on the other side of Route 1, known as the Jefferic parcel, is not listed as a Land Development Plan amendment based on the testimony made during the Planning Commission. He stated that the property is shown on the current maps as Open Space and requested that it be changed to a Mixed Use. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that the change is actually a map correction and assured members that it is a minor map correction, which will be accomplished.
Mrs. Constance Holland, Director of Planning for the State of Delaware (122 William Penn Street), commended City staff, Council, and the Planning Commission for their work on the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the State Department of Agriculture is aware of the funds the State of Delaware has expended for agricultural preservation. Having an understanding of the issues regarding jurisdictions that involve emergency services, and based on the testimony given at the public hearing of the Planning Commission as well as this evening, she requested that members allow for the 45-day negotiation period in order to resolve this matter.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Holland indicated that the main issue is in regards to the amount of funds that the State has expended in the area for agricultural preservation and the fact that other agriculture land owners in the area may have issues with Dover Downs.
Mr. Ruane questioned what the difference is with these parcels and that of the Garrison Oak property, since the State had significant agricultural investment around the Garrison Oak property. Responding, Mrs. Holland stated that it is the State’s desire for the Garrison Oak tract to become very prosperous - with walk-ability, workforce housing, etc. to develop a positive master plan; therefore, the State had no objections.
Council President Hogan stated that since Council will consider deferring the matter, rather than
closing the public hearing, the public hearing for this issue will be recessed.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing recessed.
Mr. Slavin moved to table Item #11 regarding the request of Dover International Speedway to change the annexation category for lands located east of Route 1 to Category 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #12A & #12B - Annexation Category Change - Artis Drive, Owned by John Mancusco
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Mr. John Mancusco to change the annexation category for properties located on Artis Drive (ED00-075.00-02-18.01 and ED00-075.00-02-18.02) from Category 3 to Category 2. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and that the property to be reflected as Annexation Category 3 in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. McGiffin moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #12A and #12B to deny the request to change the annexation category for properties located on Artis Drive, owned by Mr. John Mancusco, and that the property be reflected as Annexation Category 3 in the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #13 - Annexation Category Change - 1961 Central Church Road, Owned by Frank C. Pennell
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Mr. Jordan Ashburn, Vice President of Ashburn Homes Incorporated, to change the annexation category for property located at 1961 Central Church Road (ED00-056.00-01-09.04), owned by Frank C. Pennell, from Category 3 to Category 2. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and that the property be reflected as Annexation Category 3 in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mrs. Williams moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #13 to deny the request to change the annexation category for property located at 1961 Central Church Road, owned by Mr. Frank C. Pennell, and that the property be reflected as Annexation Category 3 in the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #14 - Annexation Category Change - Northwest Corner of Kenton Road and West Denneys Road, Owned by Antoine Ashburn
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Mr. Antoine Ashburn, President of Ashburn Homes Incorporated, to change the annexation category for property located on the northwest corner of Kenton Road and West Denneys Road (ED00-066.02-01-06.00) from Category 3 to Category 2. She noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and that the property be reflected as Annexation Category 3 in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Item #14 to deny the request to change the annexation category for property located on the northwest corner of Kenton Road and West Denneys Road, owned by Mr. Antoine Ashburn, and that the property be reflected as Annexation Category 3 in the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Item #15A and #15B - Annexation Category Change and Rezoning - White Oak Road, Owned by Harmon Brothers, LLC
Mrs. Townshend reviewed the request of Mr. John Paradee, on behalf of Harmon Brothers, LLC, to include property located on White Oak Road (LC00-058.00-02-48.00 and LC00-058.00-02-49.00) in the Growth and Annexation Plan and rezoned to Industrial Park Manufacturing - Technology Center (IPM-2) in the Land Development Plan. She noted that a revised map (Exhibit #5) was provided to members depicting the properties for which the request had been rescinded by the applicant, Item #15A (LC00-058.00-02-48.00), and those properties that remain in the request, Item #15B (LC00-058.00-02-49.00). She advised members that staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for annexation and rezoning of the property at this time and that the Planning Commission recommended that the parcel be reflected as an Area of Concern in the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that there was no commentary received from the State regarding the request; however, representatives of the State Planning Office were present during the Planning Commission’s public hearing, at which time it was made clear that including parcels to the Area of Concern does not equate to a “foot in the door” in terms of annexation for the next Comprehensive Plan. She further explained that staff utilizes those Areas of Concern to depict areas where, if developed in another jurisdiction, the City of Dover would want the opportunity to comment. Based on the correspondence received from the State Planning Office after the Planning Commission’s public hearing, Mrs. Townshend stated that she does not anticipate this recommendation being an issue for the State of Delaware.
At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Holland, Director of Planning for the State of Delaware, clarified that the State has not reviewed the recommendation; therefore, would consider it as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would require it to go through the process again.
Mrs. Townshend advised members that during the Planning Commission’s public hearing, the applicant had requested that if members would not approve the request for inclusion in the Growth and Annexation Plan that they approve changing the parcels as an Area of Concern in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the inclusion of parcels to the Area of Concern does not give any weight with regards to properties considered for annexation, it was her feeling that the Planning Commission approved the alternative in order to please the applicant.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.
Mr. John Paradee with Prickett, Jones, and Elliott - 11 North State Street, also commended City staff for their work on the Plan, including their cooperation with applicants. Mr. Paradee stated that he represents Harmon Brothers, LLC, and requested that, in their consideration of the planning for the future of the City of Dover, members maintain flexibility. He advised members that the owners of the property have been looking to develop the property for several years, as it is not prime farmland. Initially, it was thought that residential development would be the most appropriate use of the property; however, after discussions with the County, State, and City, there was much resistence. In September 2007, he, along with his client, met with the City Manager and discussed the possibility of the property complimenting the Garrison Oak tract. It was felt that additional acreage next to the Garrison Oak tract could provide for flexibility for items such as warehousing, storage, parking, or other complimentary uses. In November 2007, he met with Mrs. Townshend to discuss this suggestion. An annexation application was filed in March of 2008 and ultimately received a response indicating that City staff did not support annexation of the property since the property would extend beyond the City’s adjacent boundaries. In reviewing the map, Mr. Paradee noted that more than half of the property would not extend beyond the adjacent boundaries.
Mr. Paradee urged members to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation, indicating that it would allow the City to maintain flexibility for the future. If not, the City would be prohibited from considering annexation of the property without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He reminded members that the only decision being requested at this time is to afford the City flexibility for the future, should additional property be needed in the development of the Garrison Oak tract.
Mr. Allen Angel, Levy Court 3rd District Commissioner, stated that there is a main ditch that runs behind the Whiteoak Salvage which causes flooding. He has been working on cleaning the ditch to resolve the flooding problem and was advised that there are contaminants that would prohibit any work to be performed on the ditch. He advised members that according to the Kent Conservation District, this is a major issue and relayed concern with the location of the property in relationship to the ditch.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the p