PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on August 12, 2008, at 12:00 noon with Chairwoman Russell presiding. Members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Horsey, and Mr. Lewis.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mrs. Horsey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment: Ordinance #2008-38 - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 1 - One Family Residence Zone
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that a petition was received from Scott and Rebecca Kidner to consider amending Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 1 - One Family Residence Zone, of the Zoning Code, that would create a conditional use within one-family residence zones that would allow for professional offices to be permitted as a conditional use if certain criteria are met. During their Regular Meeting of July 28, 2008, City Council accomplished the First Reading of the proposed zoning text amendment and referred it to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee on August 12, 2008; the Planning Commission on September 15, 2008; and set a public hearing to take place during the Regular Council Meeting of September 22, 2008, at 7:30 p.m., at which time, final action by Council will take place.
Mrs. Townshend stated that the proposed ordinance was submitted subsequent to the withdrawal of a petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map as they relate to property located at 412 E. Loockerman Street. Staff recommended against the rezoning application as it represented encroachment of office zoning into a residential neighborhood. With a change of zoning, there is no way to ensure that the residential character of the property be maintained or that the use be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In response to this concern, the applicants proposed a text amendment that would permit limited professional office uses as a conditional use and apply standards to protect the residential character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Townshend explained that the proposed ordinance would amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the One Family Residence Zones (R-7, R-8, R-10, R-15, R-20) by allowing professional offices as conditional uses within these zones, subject to specific parameters. She provided a map depicting those properties that would be affected by the proposed zoning ordinance (Attachment #1). She advised members that as a conditional use, the establishment of a professional office in the One Family Residence Zones would be subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. In considering a conditional use application, the Planning Commission has the ability to approve, deny, or approve with conditions, the requested use. Prior to review by the Planning Commission, Mrs. Townshend indicated that an applicant requesting conditional use approval must complete public notice, including a newspaper advertisement and certified-mailed notices to property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. This provides the public opportunities to express concerns that would be relevant to the application. She noted that conditional use applications do not receive review by City Council.
Mrs. Townshend advised members that the ordinance, as drafted, would require that the residential façade and character of the lot and structure be maintained, that adequate off-street parking be provided for all employees, and that the use not generate excessive traffic, noise, etc. Staff has reviewed the draft ordinance and believes that limited professional office uses can be compatible within residential neighborhoods with very clear and tight conditions. The Zoning Ordinance, as it currently stands, allows for “customary home-based occupations” and some limited professional offices and studios as accessory uses within the residential zones. As an accessory use, it must be accessory to the residential use. In addition, there are narrow parameters within which these uses may exist. Mrs. Townshend noted that the two (2) primary differences between the current provisions and the proposed ordinance are:
1.The accessory uses permitted do not require review by the Planning Commission; and
2.The accessory uses require that the proprietor live on the premises, devote no more than 30% of the first floor of the residence, and employ no outside employees.
Mrs. Townshend indicated that after hearing some of the concerns expressed regarding the proposed ordinance, staff recommended that additional safeguards be added to the ordinance to ensure that professional office uses do not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has identified issues and recommended that language be added to address the following issues:
1.Definitions or standards for “excessive traffic” should be developed to differentiate between “customary traffic” and “excessive traffic”.
2.“Professional Office” should be clearly defined, inclusive of the parameters as they relate to Conditional Uses.
3.Requirements for signage should be included in the ordinance.
4.The ordinance should clearly state that the residential bulk standards (including lot coverage and setbacks) must be met and that no legal non-conformities may be expanded. It is important that this be clarified to ensure that an office use would not be used as a justification to exceed lot coverage or other bulk standards.
Mrs. Russell questioned why Mrs. Townshend did not include the recommended language if she was not satisfied with the proposed ordinance amendment. Responding, Mrs. Townshend noted that since the Planning Commission would not consider the proposed amendment until their meeting of September 15th, if it is the committee’s desire, staff could draft an amendment for consideration prior to its review by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Russell relayed concern regarding the effect the proposed amendment would have on neighborhoods and her desire to hear from the residents regarding this issue.
Mrs. Russell suggested that as the City Planner, Mrs. Townshend would not have to justify denying a request and questioned why the amendment was forwarded for consideration since staff had reservations. Mrs. Townshend clarified that although she concurs with the concept for the proposed amendment, it was her professional opinion that there is a need to strengthen the conditions as proposed in the ordinance. However, she stated that it is the committee’s decision as to whether they agree (and have the proposed ordinance revised and brought back for consideration) or wish to recommend opposing the proposed amendment to City Council.
Mr. Lewis felt that the purpose of a residential neighborhood is to allow for individuals to leave a work environment for peace and quiet and that approval of the proposed amendment would be contradictory; therefore, he expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment.
Mr. McGlumphy relayed his concern with any individual having the ability to submit a request for consideration of a zoning text amendment. He also relayed concern that although the applicant is only interested in a particular area of the City, the proposed amendment affects the entire City. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that since Article 10, Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance clearly allows for consideration of amendments by petition and includes a fee, her concern is a due process issue. She advised members that she has requested the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion regarding this issue. City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to this meeting, staff provided a copy of the request for the legal opinion, as well as the response received from the City Solicitor regarding this issue (Attachment #2).
Mr. Ruane concurred with Mr. McGlumphy, that this section of the Zoning Code should be examined; however, he suggested that it be further considered by members as an agenda item in the near future. It was his feeling that the discussion should remain with the current issue before members for their consideration.
Mrs. Horsey expressed her concern with special interest groups submitting requests to the City, which takes an inordinate amount of time for their review and consideration. Should this particular request require the review of the Planning Commission, she felt that it is reflective of even more gross misuse of time. Questioning what the applicants’ interest is with the property, Mrs. Horsey indicated that to her knowledge, Mr. Kidner is a lobbyist and wishes to use the property for his business due to its close proximity to Legislative Hall. Should this be the case, she felt that such use would be a totally misappropriate use of the neighborhood. She questioned why the City would even be considering such a proposal.
Mr. Ruane suggested that there is an appropriate response for an applicant requesting such an amendment that would have prevented any further consideration by members. He provided members with a copy of Subsection 5.11 of Article 10, Section 5 of the Zoning Code (Attachment #3) and advised members that paragraphs “a-d” describe the criteria that should be used when a proposed amendment is submitted. He noted that paragraph “a” states: “Whether such change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the ordinance as to the particular zones concerned;”. It was his feeling that since the requested amendment is inconsistent with the aims and principles of the residential zoning classifications and is a protected zone, the proposed amendment should be denied.
Mr. Ruane referred to the map provided to members which indicates the areas that would be affected by the proposed ordinance and noted that the proposed amendment would have massive implications (city-wide). Paragraph “b” of Subsection 5.11 of Article 10, Section 5 of the Zoning Code, states: “Which areas and establishments will be directly affected by such change and in what way they will be affected;”.
Referring to paragraph “c” of Subsection 5.11 of Article 10, Section 5 of the Zoning Code, which reads: “The indirect implications of such change in its effect on other regulations; and”, Mr. Ruane stated that if the proposed amendment were to be approved, there would be no need for some of the other zoning classifications that were established specifically to allow for office space. He referred to Subsection 26.1 of Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 26 - Commercial/Professional Office Development District (C-PO) of the Zoning Code (Attachment #4) and explained that the purpose of the C-PO zoning classification was to prevent encroachment onto residential areas. If the proposed amendment is approved, Mr. Ruane stated that there would be no need for the C-PO zoning classification. He advised members that there are 32 zoning classifications and that there are only two (2) zoning classifications (Manufacturing and Mobile Home Parks) that do not allow a professional office building.
Lastly, Mr. Ruane noted that paragraph “d” of Subsection 5.11 of Article 10, Section 5 of the Zoning Code states: “Whether such proposed amendment is consistent with the aims of the comprehensive plan of the city” and stated that there are several sections of the existing comprehensive plan, as well as the proposed, indicating that its purpose is to preserve the existing housing stock, increase the livability in neighborhoods, provide decent and safe neighborhoods, etc. Mr. Ruane stated that the proposed amendment is contrary to these goals since it would withdrawal homes from residential use, diminish the availability of homes in the City, and due to increase traffic and introduction of strangers on a daily basis, reduce safety. City Clerk’s Office Note: For reference purposes, Mr. Ruane requested that the goals for housing and residential land uses as depicted in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan (pages 130, 135, and 136) be provided as an attachment (Attachment #5).
Mr. Ruane referred to the Housing Goals Section listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 11, Land Development Plan - Residential Land Uses, where the goal is to provide proper separation of incompatible land uses through physical distance and buffering (assumptions on page 136). He stated that the policies encourage the separation of residential areas from incompatible uses. It was his opinion that the proposed amendment would eliminate the protection. Mr. Ruane also referred to Article 1, Section 2 - Intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment #6) which indicates that its purpose is to provide for the most appropriate use of land, to enhance general appearance, provide for privacy of family residences, etc. He noted that the proposed amendment contradicts the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Ruane advised members that there is an excess of office space available in the City, such as: 14,000 SF - new building on the lake (Zimmerman property - Compass Pointe); 30,000 SF - Zimmerman Property on State Street; 30,000 SF - Ashburn Buildings on College and McKee Roads; and others such as Blue Hen Corporate Center; Enterprise Park, State Farm Building (9,700 SF), Eden Hill (8,600 SF), and Burns and Ellis (878, 800, and 888, South State Street). He explained that all these properties are available for renting office space and some are within walking distance of the property for which the proposed amendment would address, which proves that the need does not exist.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend that the Planning Commission reject the proposed amendment for the reasons stated by the members, as well as himself, seconded by Mrs. Horsey.
Responding to the suggestion that Subsection 5.11 of Article 10, Section 5 of the Zoning Code provides for an appropriate response for an applicant requesting such an amendment that would have prevented any further consideration by members, Mrs. Townshend clarified that this subsection is relative to Section 5.1 - Report of the Planning Commission. She explained that paragraphs “a-d” refer to the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in developing a recommendation to City Council. She explained that it is not staff’s role to reject an application before it is presented to the Planning Commission, nor does staff have the legal authority not to put a matter forward when the Code provides for a process.
Mr. Ruane explained his feeling that there is criteria provided that he felt the City’s Planning Office should use since it is the very criteria that the Planning Commission and City Council must use to accept or reject an amendment.
Mr. Guy Veach, 30 Bayard Avenue, stated that he has lived in the Dover area since 1972. He relayed his concurrence with the statements made by Mrs. Horsey and felt that residents need a place to retire in the evening without the presence of a business and all its associations. He urged the committee to reject the proposed amendment.
Mr. Frank Tenusak, 880 Schoolhouse Lane, concurred with Mr. McGlumphy regarding the ability of an individual to petition, who has the opportunity to request a variance for one individual, needs clarification. He suggested the review of the Delaware Code and/or other legal documents that define petition, for the purpose such as zoning, where there is a clear distinction between a variance for one individual and a petition to change the ordinance. He felt that the definition of petition should be clarified, noting that it currently is vague since it does not indicate “by whom”, “to whom”, “when”, “how”, or the number of signatures required to submit the petition. Mr. Tenusak suggested that the law, as it exists, would provide a basis for clarifying that the people do have a right to petition in accordance with procedures. He suggested that members determine the legal definition of “petition” and how that may be amended for clarification.
Mr. (and Mrs.) William Witham stated that they reside in the neighborhood in which the applicant is requesting an amendment. Having concerns regarding the impact the proposed amendment would have on the neighborhood, they relayed their opposition.
Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, stated that the proposed amendment would affect every residential street in the City of Dover, which makes this a monstrous change and should not be permitted.
Mr. Richard Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, stated his concurrence with all opposing statements made to date, explaining his desire to avoid being repetitious, and that he is bitterly opposed to the proposal.
On a call for the question by Mr. McGlumphy, the motion to recommend that City Council and the Planning Commission deny and reject the petition to amend Subsection 1.14(d) of Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 1 - One Family Residence Zone, of the Dover Code, for the reasons as stated and made a part of the record, was unanimously carried by a show of hands.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment: Ordinance #2008-39 - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities
During the committee meeting of July 15, 2008, members recommended City Council adopt the proposed zoning text amendments to Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 14 - Limited Central Commercial Zone (C-2A); Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.14 - [C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A Zones]; and Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation, and Other Public Facilities and directed that staff develop an ordinance that would allow contributions from residential properties in the downtown redevelopment area for improvements to downtown development.
As directed, staff developed an amendment to Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities, Subsection 10.5 - Exemption. Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reminded members that the proposed ordinance would exempt residential development within the Downtown Redevelopment Target area from open space and active recreation requirements in exchange for aesthetic improvements such as public art and streetscape. She also reminded members that the proposed ordinance amendments are intended to promote redevelopment of the downtown area.
As an alternative to requiring aesthetic improvements, Mrs. Townshend suggested the possibility of requiring a per unit cost. Should members prefer the concept of requiring a flat rate, she stated that the ordinance could be amended accordingly.
Mr. Ruane suggested the need for a correlation between the expectations of downtown property owners to those in other areas of the City, explaining his concern that the City could be challenged for treating property owners differently. He noted that other subsections of Section 10, where open space is required, the amount of open space required is based upon the number of units being built and that if there is a donation in-lieu-of, it also is based on the number of units being built; therefore, he felt that there is a need to maintain this principle. Mr. Ruane suggested that this matter be tabled to allow for staff the opportunity to address the variables of determining what level of streetscape improvements would be required, what degree of art, in terms of value, would be put in place, etc.
Although she concurred with the proposed amendment, Mrs. Horsey felt that the City should be prepared to have resources available to provide examples from other main street programs or cities similar to Dover. She explained that the proposed amendment does not include specifics, as alluded to by Mr. Ruane.
Mr. DePrima indicated his opinion that there would be no issue to have a different standard for the downtown area, reminding members that there are already differences provided for the downtown area such as incentives. He also felt that it is necessary to create the exemption part of the ordinance if there is a desire to create this incentive for the downtown area. He suggested that, at this time, members could recommend the adoption of the proposed ordinance with the deletion of “but shall be required to include public art, streetscape improvements, or other measures to improve the downtown area as a part of the development plan” as stated in lines 17-19. This would allow for exempting the downtown projects from the “suburban” standard. Mr. DePrima concurred that the additional requirements as stated in lines 17-19 should be further reviewed to provide specificity. It was his opinion that members have acknowledged that the amount of money required of developers provides a disincentive for downtown redevelopment. He felt that it may take some time to develop specifics for developers and, therefore, urged members to move forward with the proposed ordinance with the amendment suggested.
Mr. DePrima referred to the downtown area of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and advised members that the area is filled with public art and first floor plazas. The reason is due to a requirement that a percentage of the gross building value must be developed as a public plaza or art in a public plaza or dedication. He stated that this requirement has proven to provide value and quality to their downtown.
Mr. Ruane relayed his opposition to moving forward with a total exemption. Rather than eliminating the requirements as stated in lines 17-19, he suggested that when the ordinance is presented to Council for adoption, these requirements should remain. He explained that although they may not include specifics, the proposed amendment, as submitted, provides for some type of expectation of a developer to make improvements to the downtown, in addition to their building. He suggested that staff include the requirements of Charlotte within the City’s Code.
Concurring with Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima felt that staff would need at least 30 days to develop appropriate wording to include in the proposed amendment.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to table consideration of the proposed ordinance amending Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities, Subsection 10.5 - Exemption. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried.
Updates
Members were provided the following updates:
Puncheon Run Watershed Action Team Update
Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, indicated that additional feedback has been received as a result of informational meetings held with the residents near the Puncheon Run Watershed. He stated that there are questions that need to be corrected in the final report that URS issued. URS has provided a draft proposal to do some of the preliminary work for the letter of map revision (LOMR); however, one of the critical components of completing this document is the as-built condition of the Puncheon Run bridge which is currently under construction. Mr. Koenig stated that the City will apply to the Clean Water Advisory Council for funding so that it is not an out-of-pocket expense to the City.
Mr. Koenig anticipates another meeting of the Action Team within the next 30-60 days to try to correct information and then determine whether there is funding available for the State to provide the funding for the letter of map amendment (LOMR) for the Puncheon Run.
Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Koenig stated that it is estimated that construction of the bridge will continue for an additional 10 months.
Planning and Funding for New Library
Mr. Carter, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that staff continues to work on the new contract with the architect selected for the New Library and that it is anticipated that it should be finalized and signed and a first meeting held within the next 10 days.
Mr. Tenusak, 880 Schoolhouse Lane, advised members of his involvement with the fund raising efforts for the New Library. He stated that planning for the fund raising efforts has been delayed until the consultants schedule meetings and the arrival of the new Library Director, which is to occur September 16th. He reminded members of the Open House scheduled for September 17th. Should anyone have knowledge of a large donor that may be interested in supporting the library, he requested that he be contacted by email at Tenusak@opera.com.
Mr. Tenusak stated that Ms. Elliot is reviewing organizations in the Kent County area in an attempt to identify prospects of the New Library. He stated that after meeting with the Kent County Library Advisory Committee, he discovered that there are no plans to seek additional services for the City.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that the Kent County Levy Court has authorized the County Administrator, Mr. Petit de Mange, to work with him in an effort to determine if they will be participating in the funding and operation of the New Library. Once a determination has been made, he indicated that he, along with Mr. Petit de Mange, would report back to their respective governing bodies.
CDBG Program
Members were provided the status report on the FY 2007 Program Funds Spent for the CDBG Program, as of June 2008.
Mr. Ruane requested that members be provided detailed information regarding the current year’s program such as the status of contracts.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, indicated that the draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to the State for Plus Review, which has been scheduled for September 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. It is anticipated that the comments from the Plus Review should be received within a month. In the meantime, she stated that staff continues to make improvements to the draft Plan.
Schutte Park Space - Boys and Girls Club/CDSA
There was no updated provided on the Schutte Park Space for the Boys and Girls Club/CDSA.
Skate Park Committee
Members were advised that there is no new information from the Skate Park Committee.
Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 1:09 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sophia R. Russell
Chairwoman
SRR/ac/tm/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20088-12-2008 PR&CE.wpd
Attachment
Attachment #1 - Map Depicting One Family Residence Zones
Attachment #2 - Legal Opinion dated August 14, 2008 Regarding Petitions Submitted for Zoning Text Amendment
Attachment #3 - Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 - Planning Commission, Section 5 - Amendments
Attachment #4 - Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 26 - Commercial/Professional Office Development District (C-PO)
Attachment #5 - Goals for Housing and Residential Land Uses (Pages 130, 135, & 136) of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan
Attachment #6 - Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 1 - Enactment and Intent