REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

The Regular Council Meeting was held on August 25, 2008 at 7:30 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 Police Chief Horvath, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey.

OPEN FORUM

The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hogan declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.

There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.

The invocation was given by Councilman Salters, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

Mrs. Russell moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 11, 2008

The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 11, 2008 were unanimously approved by motion of Mrs. Russell, seconded by Mrs. Williams and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.

PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT

A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of a proposed zoning text amendment that is intended to promote redevelopment of the downtown area.

Mr. Leary moved that the Final Reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of July 28, 2008).

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that the 2003 Comprehensive Plan calls for the implementation of a “downtown mixed use traditional development zone”; therefore, the proposed ordinance was developed by staff. She explained that the C-2 (Central Commercial) zone is the mixed use zone that occupies the core of the downtown. The C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) zone occupies some of the areas surrounding this downtown area, as well as other urbanized areas within the City. She reviewed a summary of the proposed amendments as provided in the Petition to Amend Zoning Ordinance Text (Exhibit #1), which was provided to members. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments. She reminded members that staff is working with the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee to develop a separate ordinance to address open space and active recreation requirements as they relate to the downtown area, which should be forthcoming.

Considering that the goal is for the development of the downtown area, Mrs. Russell stated concern that the City is instituting additional stipulations (regarding the personal service stores) and felt that as long as the businesses coming to the area are productive, why would the City care about their type of business. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that the objective is to bring a balance to the area by easing current restrictions. However, she stated that several of the downtown merchants, as well as members of the Main Street Board, relayed concerns regarding personal service stores, feeling that the removal of the restriction would harm the character of the downtown area. She explained that the amendment would not prohibit personal service stores from the area; however, they would be required to obtain a conditional use permit if located within 250 feet of another personal service store.

Mrs. Russell felt that the merchants should not be making decisions regarding businesses coming to the downtown. She suggested that any type of business be permitted to locate in the area as long as it is a decent business. She also felt that in order to develop the area, the City should remove some of the guidelines that have been established.

With regards to the personal service stores located on Loockerman Street, Mr. Salters questioned why the stipulation is specific to those located between State and New Streets, noting that there are several businesses that extend beyond New Street. Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that several years ago it was felt that the area between State and New Streets, on Loockerman Street, were more retail oriented and were not providing businesses that served the residential community. However, since it was felt that those businesses along Loockerman Street from New Street to the railroad tracks were community oriented businesses providing a service to the residential neighborhood, it was determined that the restrictions were not necessary.

Noting that the City’s target area includes Loockerman Street from State Street to the railroad tracks, Mr. Salters stated his opinion that the ordinance amendment should include the entire Loockerman Street corridor.

Responding to Council President Hogan, Mrs. Townshend clarified that amendments #1-#3 were not included in the final draft ordinance amendment provided to members. As a result, she suggested that members consider the amendments prior to consideration of the proposed ordinance.

Mrs. Williams moved to proceed with the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

Council President Hogan declared the hearing open.

Mr. Connie Malmberg, 3 The Green, advised members of his support for the proposed ordinance amendment, with the exception of concerns regarding the 25 foot setback requirement for buildings over three (3) stories (Staff Amendment #3), which was not recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. It was also his opinion that the proposal serves to undercut the authority of the Historic District Commission, which reviews projects on a case by case basis and has authority to impose setbacks. By mandating this requirement, the City would essentially be eliminating this authority. Mr. Malmberg advised members that Hue Architect, the architect for Franklin Hall, Jackson Hall, and the Collegian, had also relayed opposition to this requirement to the Planning Commission. Noting that the perceived ill that the proposed amendment would cure is concerns of a tunnel effect, he stated that this perception is not substantiated. He explained that if everyone in the downtown area built six (6) story buildings, there would not be a tunnel effect created due to the architecture of the buildings and the mature trees that are currently along the streets. Due to the hindrance to three (3) of the projects that he and Hue Architect have an interest in, he indicated support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to eliminate the amendment requiring the 25 foot setback.

Mr. Malmberg also relayed concern regarding the requirement that a ½ parking space be provided for every 300 square feet of new construction (non-residential). He stated that the ½ parking space would cost approximately $7 per square foot, which would equate to $21,000 for a 3,000 square foot building. He explained that if a contractor were to demolish an old dilapidated structure and replaced it with a new modern structure, which would enhance the downtown, they would be required to pay this additional fee. However, if a contractor were to make repairs to the old dilapidated structure, they could avoid the additional fee. Mr. Malmberg suggested that members consider eliminating the fee or lowering the fee to half the cost. It was his feeling that this requirement eliminates one of the incentives for new construction in the downtown.

Noting that the open space and active recreation requirements were geared towards typical neighborhoods, Mr. Malmberg expressed his opinion that the requirements are crippling to multi-story housing for the downtown.

There being no one else present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed.

Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of PR&CE Amendment #1 to Ordinance 2008-33, seconded by Mr. Slavin and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

That Ordinance 2008-33 be amended by striking lines 34 and 35 in their entirety.

ADOPTED:    AUGUST 25, 2008

In response to Mr. Ruane regarding an amendment that would extend the requirement to the railroad tracks, Mr. DePrima suggested that the property owners be notified prior to taking any action in this regard since they would be affected by such a change.

Mr. Slavin moved for adoption of Staff Amendment #2 to Ordinance 2008-33, seconded by Mr. Leary and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

That Ordinance 2008-33 be amended by striking lines 24 through 28 in their entirety and

replacing them with the following:

13.100 [13.20] Personal service stores, including, but not limited to, barbershops, beauty shops, tailors, day spas, and other establishments in which the primary business is the sale of a service, rather than a product, except that such stores located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street and located within 250 feet of another personal service store shall require a conditional use permit.

ADOPTED:    AUGUST 25, 2008

Mr. Slavin moved for adoption of PC Amendment #3 to Ordinance 2008-33, as recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Mrs. Williams and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

That Ordinance 2008-33 be amended by striking from the table inset at line 187, in the C-2

column, Front Yard (ft.) row the following:

; if building is over 3 stories, any story above the 3rd story shall have a 25-foot front yard setback.

ADOPTED:    AUGUST 25, 2008

Mr. Slavin moved for adoption of Ordinance 2008-33, as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

That Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 13- Central Commercial Zone (C-2) be amended to read as follows:

Section 13. Central commercial zone (C-2).

13.1     Uses permitted.  In a central commercial zone (C-2), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following uses and their accessory structures and uses normally accessory thereto: 

            13.11   Retail stores.

            13.12   Financial institutions.

            13.13   Theaters and restaurants.

            13.14   Hotels, including bed and breakfast inns.

13.15Art galleries and studios, including dance studios, photography studios and interior decorating studios.

            13.16   Photocopy and film processing shops.

            13.17   Formal wear rental.

            13.18   Travel agency.

            13.19   Optometrist.

13.100 [13.20] Personal service stores, including, but not limited to, barbershops, beauty shops, tailors, day spas, and other establishments in which the primary business is the sale of a service, rather than a product, except that such stores located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street and located within 250 feet of another personal service store shall require a conditional use permit.

13.101 [13.21] Business, professional, and government offices, except that such offices located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street shall require a conditional use permit.

13.102 [13.22] Apartments, provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted in the first floor and at least one off-street parking space shall be provided in the area for each apartment.

13.2     Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 10.1 [1] of this ordinance and to any specified requirements set forth below. Any of the following uses in existence at the time this ordinance [section] is adopted are considered permitted uses, and shall not lose their status as permitted uses in their existing locations unless the use is changed to one of the uses listed above in [sub]section 13.1 of this ordinance [section]. Changes from one conditional use to another will require conditional use approval.

13.21Personal service stores, including, but not limited to, barbershops, beauty shops, tailors, day spas, and other establishments in which the primary business is the sale of a service, rather than a product, located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street and located within 250 feet of another personal service store.

13.22Business, professional, or government offices located on the first floor on Loockerman Street between State Street and New Street.

13.23Outlets and pick-up stations for laundries and cleaning establishments.

13.24Laundromats, limited to not more than 30 washing machines per establishment.

13.25Newspaper printing, including incidental job printing.

13.26Parking lots and parking structures as a principal use.

            13.27   Places of worship.

13.28Youth clubs, fraternal clubs, charitable organizations, and similar institutions, regardless of whether the club or organization is for private membership or open to the general public.

            13.29   Social service agencies.

13.200 [13.30] Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, or any other processing of products where goods so produced or processed are to be sold at retail exclusively on the premises, provided that:

(a)An area fully concealed from any street and equal to not more than 20 percent of the area devoted to retail sales shall be so used;

(b)Electrical power not to exceed a total of five rated horsepower, and steam pressure not in excess of 60 pounds of pressure per square inch shall be used exclusively;

                        (c)       Not more than four employees are engaged in such production or processing.

13.3     Submission requirements for conditional uses in the C-2 zone. The following submission requirements shall be used in lieu of the requirements of article 10, section 1.6, in the event that the business, office, or establishment seeking conditional use approval will be occupying an existing structure:

            (a)       The applicant shall cause a site map to be prepared. The applicant shall submit 21 copies of the site map at the time of application. The site map shall conform to the following specifications and the following elements shall be included on the site map:

1.The map shall be at least 11 [inches] by 17 inches, but not more than 24 [inches] by 36 inches, and at a scale of ten, 20, 30 or 40 feet to the inch, except that, if the property has a maximum dimension over 900 feet, a scale of 50 feet to the inch may be used.

2.The existing building and conditions on the lot must be depicted. It is permissible to utilize the most recent mortgage survey of the property for this purpose. If conditions, such as landscaping and accessory structures, on the lot have changed since the survey was completed, the applicant shall depict these changes on the plan to the best of his/her ability. However, the nature and extent of such revisions must be approved by the city planner at the required preapplication meeting.

3.A conceptual floor plan of the building is required. This floor plan must depict the location and percent of total floor area devoted to the proposed uses. Any uses on separate floors which are not the subject of the application must be referenced by a note on the plan. The city planner may request more detailed information, including architectural floor plans, on a case-by-case basis at his/her discretion.

                        4.         Legal data:

                                    (a)       Lot, block, and section number.

                                    (b)       Name and address of the owner of record.

                                    (c)       Name and address of the equitable owner, if any.

                                    (d)       Name and address of the person, firm, or organization preparing the map.

                                    (e)       Date, north point, and written and graphical scale.

                                    (f)        The location and names of adjacent streets.

                                    (g)       The location, zoning, and owners of record of all adjacent properties.

13.4     [Enclosed buildings.]  All permitted and conditional uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than off-street parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides. 

13.5     Multiple establishments permitted. Due to the mixed use nature of the downtown area, multiple establishments are permitted in individual structures in the C-2 zone. All establishments must conform to the minimum bulk standards of the C-2 zone. This [sub]section does not relieve establishments from complying with any and all applicable building and fire codes. 

13.6     [Signs.]  Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 

13.7     Uses prohibited. Residences, other than living quarters, for not more than one family, incidental to each permitted building on each lot for the use of the owner or caretaker of such building or of the owner or caretaker of the permitted use or uses housed in such building, provided that apartments shall be permitted in accordance with [sub]section 13.102 [13.22 of this section]. 

13.8     Performance standards.  All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 

13.9     Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures.

13.10   Parking Location. Parking required within this zone shall not be subject to the requirements of Article 6, Section 3.3 Location and Ownership; however, must be deemed by the planning commission to be proximate to the proposed use.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT:

Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 14- Limited Central Commercial Zone (C-2A) be amended to read as follows:

Section 14. Limited central commercial zone (C-2A).

14.1     Uses permitted. In a limited central commercial zone (C-2A), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following:

            14.11   All uses permitted in the neighborhood commercial zone (C-1A).

            14.12   Business, professional or governmental offices.

            14.13   Banks, theaters and restaurants.

14.14Apartments, provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted in the first floor and at least one off-street parking space shall be provided in the area for each apartment.

            14.15   Hotels, clubs and places of worship.

14.16Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations.

14.17All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than off-street parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides.

            14.18   Civic Institutions.

14.2Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 

14.3Site development plan approval.  Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use.

14.4Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 10.1 [1] of this ordinance and to any specified requirements set forth below:

(a)Social service agencies.

14.5Multiple Establishments permitted. Due to the mixed use nature of the zoning district, multiple establishments are permitted in individual structures in the C-2A zone. All establishments must conform to the minimum bulk standards of the C-2A zone. This {sub} section does not relive establishments from complying with any and all applicable building and fire codes.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT:

Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.14- [C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A Zones] be amended to read as follows:

Section 4.14. [C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A zones.]

Bulk and parking regulations for neighborhood commercial (C-1), limited commercial (C-1A), central commercial (C-2), and limited commercial (C-2A) zones [are as follows]:

TABLE INSET:

ADOPTED:    AUGUST 25, 2008

UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - AUGUST 11, 2008

The Utility Committee met on August 11, 2008 with Chairman Ruane presiding.

Request for Alley Abandonment (paper) - 1124, 1128, and 1130 Forrest Avenue - Ennis Business Associates, L.L.C.

A request was received from Mr. Bruce C. Ennis, Managing Member of Ennis Business Associates, LLC., for the abandonment of an alley which runs southerly 215 feet from Forrest Avenue and then easterly 200 feet between 1124, 1128 and 1130 Forrest Avenue. The alley is unimproved and is considered to be a “paper” alley; therefore, it does not require review by the D.A.C. or Planning Commission. Members were provided a map of the area and a summary of comments submitted by City departments.

Staff provided members with a line drawing map of the area surrounding the requested alley abandonment. Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, advised members that he met with Mr. Ennis to review the alley abandonment and that it was Mr. Ennis’ opinion that the alley actually extends approximately 100’ east. He indicated that there seems to be a discrepancy in the tax parcel map with the deeds of the properties.

Staff recommended approval of the “paper” alley abandonment, to include the extended alley to the east property lines, should the deeds reflect the paper alley, and with a parcel consolidation plan as a condition of approval. In addition, all of the requested easements (utility and public access) should be granted without compensation if the abandonment is authorized by City Council.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig advised members that since all adjacent properties are owned by Ennis Business Associates, LLC., it is not necessary to have a public hearing on the abandonment.

At the request of Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Ennis explained that there are six (6) different parcels owned by Ennis Business Associates, LLC: four (4), 50’ lots, and two (2), 3 acre parcels, which are located in the rear.

In reviewing the comments submitted by City staff, Mr. Ennis requested assurance that the entire length and width of the alley is abandoned. With regards to there being a main electrical circuit/feeder running through the alley, although he is not aware of any, he assured members that there would be no issues involved with signing an easement as requested. Mr. Ennis referred to the concern relayed by the Public Services Department for providing the City the opportunity to extend a public access easement service for a service road scenario. He stated that there is extensive depth involved with the property and suggested that any request to provide for a service road should be considered by the City under a site development plan, which should be forthcoming upon sale of the property. It was his opinion that the request to set forth an area 1,000’ deep, 400’ across for a service road in order to be granted an alley abandonment is not appropriate. He suggested that the word “must” as indicated in the comments provided by the Public Services Department be replaced with the word “should”.

Mr. DePrima advised members that he met with the Public Services Director, Mr. Koenig, and that they concur with Mr. Ennis regarding the access easement for a service road. He explained that staff was not requesting such dedication of land to be considered as a part of the alley abandonment but rather to put the property owner on notice of plans for a future service road. Mr. DePrima stated that the appropriate time for such consideration would be during site plan review and reiterated that the purpose of the language was to put the owner and any future owners on notice.

Mr. Ruane suggested that members temporarily table this matter to allow staff the opportunity to provide a revised recommended motion that would address any concerns and contingencies prior to committee action.

Mr. Koenig provided members with a proposed motion for their consideration of the request for alley abandonment, as follows: Staff recommended favorable consideration of the paper alley abandonment to include the paper alley which runs 215 feet from Forrest Avenue in a southerly direction and 200 feet in an easterly direction to property now or formerly owned by Cardiology Consultants. In addition, staff recommended and is supportive of a future parcel consolidation plan, as well as a site development plan, for the parcels; both final utility easements and a public access easement will be requested by the City of Dover during the site development process.

Mr. Ennis indicated his concurrence with the recommendation provided by staff.

The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. (City Clerk’s Note: In accordance with the City’s Procedure for Alley Abandonments, a Resolution setting the Public Hearing will be presented to Council for consideration for adoption.)

Mr. Koenig also requested the continuation of any existing easements on the properties.

Mr. Ennis confirmed his support for the continuation of any existing easements on the properties.

After much discussion, Mr. DePrima assured members that staff can determine if there are any existing easements on the properties and submit a report when this matter is presented to Council. He stated that requests for alley abandonments typically include maintaining any easements.

Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Lunt indicated that although there may be a utility line within the alley, there is a possibility that there may not be a specific easement for the utility line since it would be located within the alley. Should staff determine that such a utility line exists, he stated that an easement should be granted to the City and considered with the alley abandonment.

By consent agenda, Mrs. Russell moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Williams and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council ad