CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION
April 18, 2005
The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 18, 2005 at 7:00 PM with Chairman Mr. Friedman presiding.?? Members present were Mr. Friedman, Mr. DiMondi, Ms. Young, Mr. Holt, Mr. Winsley, Mr. Tolbert, Colonel Welsh, and Mr. von Reider.? Mr. Nichols was absent.
Staff members present were Mr. Galvin, Ms. Melson, Mr. Bruce Sherman and Mr. Koenig.? Also present were Mr. Paul Law, Ms. Laurie Braunstein, Mr. Troy Adams, Mr. Gregg Moore, Mr. K.C. Sheth, Mr. Gary Stover, Mr. Tony Ashburn, Mr. Doug Barry, Mr. Kevin Wilson, Mr. Edwin Tennefoss, Mr. John Martinez, Mr. Doug Lockwood, Mr. Ed Ide, Mr. Ashwin Patel, Mr. Bob Brown, Mrs. Carolyn Fredericks, Mr. Joe Skinner, Mr. Phil Sanders, Mr. Doug Liberman, and Mr. Fernando Ventura.? Those speaking from the public include Mr. Bruce Shamyer, Mr. Scott Parsons, Mr. Dan Cotterty, and Mr. L.D.? Shank.
?
Mr. Winsley moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2005
Mr. von Reider moved to approve the minutes from the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 2005, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried.
COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS
Mr. Friedman stated that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, May 2, 2005 at 7:00 PM regarding the Comprehensive Rezoning Project and the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003 Plan Amendment.
Mr. Galvin stated that the special meeting being held on May 2, 2005 is to handle the issues of Comprehensive Rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.? At the City Council meeting of March 28, 2005, the rezoning application of Lands of the Delaware Industrial Enterprises was referred to the Planning Commission for this evening?s meeting.? The first reading was established for the Comprehensive Rezoning Project. The Planning Commission will hear it on May 2, 2005 and a special meeting will be held for City Council on May 17, 2005.? They also established public hearings for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Land Development Plan revisions, Annexation Plan revisions, and Implementation Plan revisions to be held by the Planning Commission on May 2, 2005 and by City Council on May 17, 2005.?
Mr. Galvin further stated that at the City Council meeting of April 11, 2005 the rezoning application of Mr. Robert Duncan at 585 Forest Street, 111 S. West Street, and 122 S. Kirkwood Street was denied rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission.? City Council approved the adoption of the 2003 International Building Code, Residential Code, National Electric Code, International Mechanical/Plumbing Code, International Fire Code, and the Property Maintenance Code better known as the ICC.? These codes have been converted from 1999 editions to 2003 at the City Council meeting of April 11, 2005.?
OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Mr. Galvin presented to the audience the policies and procedures that would be followed during these hearings.
OLD BUSINESS
SB-05-02P Lands of Bellmeyer-Carr, Inc. at 44 Washington Street:? Revised Minor Subdivision ? Consideration of a Revised Minor Subdivision Plan to permit the subdivision of 0.932 acres +/- of land into four parcels.? The property address is 44 Washington Street and is zoned R-8 (Single Family Residential).? The property is located on the south side of Washington Street, between North State Street and Silver Lake Park.? The owner of record is Bellmeyer-Carr, Inc.? The equitable owner is Paul Law.? Additional information on the properties requires consideration of a Subdivision Waiver to allow one proposed lot to have a reduced lot width.
Representatives: Mrs. Laurie Braunstein and Paul Law, Equitable Owners of the development; and Mr. Troy Adams, surveyor of the property.
Mr. Galvin stated that this application came before this body in February and included two lots with minor revisions and another plan proposing four lots which entailed a Minor Subdivision Plan to subdivide them.? At that time, there was presentation by a property owner who has a property down the street.? He had questions regarding this subdivision with regards to a property line in question regarding ten feet.? After the meeting, the applicants took a look at the deeds and at the site again and feel that there is still a question.
?
Ms. Melson stated that this application focuses on the minor subdivision where two existing lots where proposed to be re-subdivided for a total of four lots.?? The easternmost area of this site is what is in question regarding ten feet.? In going back and identifying the deeds and with additional research at the site, they identified where the issue was.? They have ten feet less frontage than what they originally thought and as a result, the fourth lot that is proposed, the easternmost lot, result in a frontage of sixty (60) feet.? The Code requires a frontage of seventy (70) feet for a new lot in the R-8 zoning district.? Staff had originally recommended that the applicant seek a subdivision waiver which is why it is brought back to you this evening.? The applicant was required to re-notify the adjacent property owners involved in the project because of this new information.?
Mr. Galvin further stated that Staff had originally advised that this would be a waiver request before the City Council as something that was contrary to the Subdivision Ordinance.? In this case, it would seem that it could go either way as either a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance or a variance from the Zoning Ordinance that would go before the Board of Adjustment.? Because it is a variance to the actual number, which is referred to in the Zoning Ordinance, it would make sense to take it before the Board of Adjustment.? He would recommend that you accept all public comment and receive testimony from the applicant on what is going on with the application.? The choice would seem to be that we entertain this application and although it is probably poor policy, make a determination this evening subject to conditional approval of the Board of Adjustment.? The alternative would be to stay this application until the Board of Adjustment acts upon it and then to bring it back to the Planning Commission at the next available meeting for final determination of the Commission at that meeting.
?
Mrs. Braunstein stated that Mr. Adams could best explain what the discrepancy was which was pointed out by a neighbor who noticed a survey stake when the survey was conducted somewhere in his yard. ?This is when the discrepancy was first noticed.
Mr. Friedman stated that due to an extended long agenda this evening, the Commissioner?s already know the history of this case and therefore Mrs. Braunstein did not have to go into details as to why it was before this board tonight.
?
Mr. Friedman further stated that they (the applicant) have opted to give up and sacrifice the ten feet on their property.? Our charge is very simple, do we allow them an advance before the Board of Adjustment, were we to hear this case, allow the sixty (60) foot lot to be sufficient?
Mr. von Reider questioned since they did the public notice could we hear it and can the public hearing be left open until after the Board of Adjustment hearing. ?Then bring it back here and make a final decision rather then making it contingent upon the Board of Adjustment.? Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mr. Galvin stated that this would be an option; however, it would not return to the Planning Commission until the June meeting.
Mr. DiMondi stated that he felt that Mr. von Reider?s suggestion is the most appropriate way to go and to not consider making a decision this evening.? This application should be continued upon Board of Adjustment approval only because the worse case scenario from the applicant?s perspective is that the Board of Adjustment rejects their application.? ?Are they then left with pursuing and going forward with a three lot subdivision versus a four lot and where would we stand with a tentative conditional approval?? This would not make sense under the circumstances.?
Mr. Holt stated that he would suggest rather than have the applicant wait two months to go ahead then and approve it tonight unless there is some serious opposition to it.
Mr. Tolbert stated that he was inclined to concur with Mr. von Reider as it is the most logical and more reasonable approach in the matter.
Ms. Young questioned, should the Board of Adjustment reject this, what would be entailed in changing the lots so that there would be enough to have seventy (70) feet if the other lots were adjusted? ?Is this an option that is available should they decline this?? Responding to Ms. Young, Mr. Law stated that the problem lies with the fact that due to an easement that they are allowing it would make it impossible to do so.? The lot previous to this one has an easement running through it that cannot be adjusted; therefore, they could not adjust the lots.
Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Colonel Welsh stated that in consideration of what Mr. Holt stated, it would seem logical if we could do so. ?Perhaps, we should recommend approval so that we impact the applicant as minimally as possible with delays on their project.? Is there anything legally why we could not do that?? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Galvin stated that it would certainly be an extraordinary move; however, he is not aware of any legal limitations that we could put on the Commission to do so.
Colonel Welsh further stated that they would make it contingent upon approval by the Board of Adjustment.? Basically what we would be doing is setting aside our approval until the Board of Adjustment acts.?
Mr. von Reider questioned what the applicant?s wishes were. ?Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mrs. Braunstein stated that if they could obtain conditional board approval with the hope that there would not be a problem with applying before the Board of Adjustment, they could then proceed at that point.? They would be freed up to move along in one month rather than in June.?
Colonel Welsh moved to approve SB-05-02P Lands of Bellmeyer-Carr, Inc. at 44 Washington Street: Revised Minor Subdivision to permit the one property to be less than seventy (70) feet and contingent upon approval of the Board of Adjustment for a sixty (60) foot lot, seconded by Ms. Young.? All were in favor except for Mr. DiMondi who opposed the application not on merit; however, on procedural issues upon being mindful and respectful of the Board of Adjustment who has jurisdiction over this matter.
S-04-13 Marriott Courtyard Hotel at 600 Jefferic Boulevard ? Request for a one year extension of the Planning Commission approval granted April 19, 2004 for the Site Plan to permit the construction of a hotel building on a parcel of land consisting of 3.17 acres.? The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone).? The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Jefferic Boulevard and Buckson Drive.? The owner of record is Dover Bowl, LLC.? The equitable owner is N.D.H., LLC. ?Property address:? 600 Jefferic Boulevard.
Representatives: ??Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group; and Mr. K.C. Sheth, Equitable Owner.
?
Mr. Galvin stated that this application was entertained last year in April in anticipation of having a new Marriott Courtyard constructed.? We have received plans on a new type of Marriott product and have sent them back to the applicant to dress them up appropriately.? In the interest of having those new plans come in, Staff is suggesting that the Commission provide a one year extension for the original approval.
Mr. Friedman questioned whether there have been any zoning changes that may affect what was approved last April?? Responding to Mr. Friedman, Mr. Galvin stated that there are no changes to zoning that would affect this application.?
Mr. Winsley moved to approve the one year extension for S-04-13 Marriott Courtyard Hotel at 600 Jefferic Boulevard, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried.
Z-05-02 Lands of Delaware Industrial Enterprises ? Rezoning from IPM to C-4 - Public Hearing and Recommendation regarding a rezoning application for a 1.5022 acre portion of an existing 38.12 acre parcel of land.? The property is currently zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial zone) and IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing zone). ?The zoning classification of C-4 (Highway Commercial zone) is proposed for an additional 1.5022 acre portion bringing the totals to 5.30 acres zoned C-4 and 32.82 acres zoned IPM. The property is also subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone).? The subject area is located on the east side of Bay Road east of the southern intersection with Transportation Circle.? The owner of record is Delaware Industrial Enterprises.? The equitable owner is Stover Homes, Inc.
?
Representatives: Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group; and Mr. Gary Stover, Stover Homes.
Mr. Galvin stated that they are proposing the rezoning on this property to be able to provide room for a hotel/restaurant on this site. ?Staff recommends that the rezoning be forwarded to City Council.
Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Mr. von Reider moved to recommend approval to City Council of application Z-05-02 Lands of Delaware Industrial Enterprises ? Rezoning from IPM to C-4, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried.
C-05-01 College Road Garden Apartments:? Planned Neighborhood Design ? Senior Housing Option ? Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Conceptual Plan to establish a Planned Neighborhood Design ? Senior Housing Option development on 4.51 acres +/- of land to be known as College Road Garden Apartments.? The property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone).? The property is located on the north side of College Road west of the intersection with McKee Road.? The applicant proposes the construction of two 3-story buildings each with 26 garden apartment units and 14 garages for a total of 52 dwelling units.? The owner of record/equitable owner is JNK, LLC c/o Tony Ashburn & Son, Inc.
Representatives:? Mr. Tony Ashburn & Mr. Jordan Ashburn, Ashburn & Son, Inc.; Mr. Doug Barry; Pennoni Associates and Mr. Kevin Wilson, Architectural Alliance.
Ms. Melson stated that City Council looked at this application back in November/December of last year and in the mean time the design professionals have been working to finalize the Plan that is before us this evening.?
Ms. Melson further stated that this parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Hidden Oaks subdivision and to the north a subdivision of single family residences known as Emerald Point, which are just beginning construction.? A dedication of land will be provided along College Road for necessary road improvements.?
Ms. Melson further stated that the applicant will be providing two off-street parking spaces on the site to satisfy the 52 dwelling units for a total of 104 parking spaces.? These spaces are provided for in either the form of garages within the buildings themselves or as surface parking around the edge of the project.?
Ms. Melson further stated that with the Planned Neighborhood Design, specifically for the Senior Housing Option, the Planning Commission is charged with looking at the density of the project and its appropriateness for this general location.? With this project, there is a density of just over twelve (12) dwelling units per acre.?
Ms. Melson further stated that included in the packets this evening was a letter from November 2004 which highlights a number of the nearby subdivisions and apartment type complexes as comparables related to density.? The single family residential subdivisions that are more immediate to the project have densities more along the range of just under three dwelling units per acre.? The comparables are found further along College Road to the east in the University Courtyard Apartment settings which is 5.29 dwelling units per acre.? For the Westminster Village complex, which has a variety of different types of dwelling units on it, has a project density of almost 9 dwelling units per acre at 8.85.?
Ms. Melson further stated that related to this project the building architecture should be looked at very closely.? The Planning Commission was provided with an elevation of the building which consists of a variety of materials on the exterior involving a stone veneer on the first floor with upper floors having horizontal siding with a larger pitched roof. The construction of the building itself should also be considered carefully because as presented, it appears that the building will require waivers from the established bulk standards regarding apartments in the PND.?
Ms. Melson further stated that the applicant would be seeking the request of approval on three waivers this evening.? The first would be related to building height.? For garden apartments the maximum height is thirty-five (35) feet; however, if the Planning Commission sees fit, they can allow for a greater height. Staff could not firmly decide what the height of the building was from the information that was provided to us.? The second waiver is with regards to garden apartments which are limited to the amount of stories of two, the applicant is proposing three.? Staff would note that a large portion of the first floor in these buildings is devoted to garage space as part of its design.? The third waiver is related to bulk standards and the average number of units per building.? For garden apartments the Code establishes it at 24 units per building and this project has an average of 26 units per building.?
Ms. Melson further stated that the plan includes a dumpster location as required and also provides active recreation for the project.? The Active Recreation Plan was reviewed last week by the Parks, Recreation and Enhancement Committee of City Council and focused on two distinct components for active recreation.? One is the center in the area between the two buildings which provide some walking path areas, a gazebo, and a fountain area.? Also, around the site itself, is a walking path that links into the proposed sidewalk along College Road.?
Ms. Melson further stated that there are sidewalks proposed along the frontage of the property and as part of Staff?s report, we noted some other areas where the implementation of sidewalk would make for a better project and allow for some connectivity across drive aisles within the site.? There is significant landscaping that will be part of the project both along the property lines, along the frontage, and then within the vicinity of the buildings themselves.?
Ms. Melson further stated that Staff made a series of recommendations and if you so choose, may be included as conditions of Plan approval.? One included is the careful location of the HVAC equipment.? Staff has also noted a concern with the availability for on-site parking for visitors to the site as it just meets the requirement for two spaces per unit. ?If all units have two cars, parking for visitors may be limited.? Improvements to cross walk and sidewalk network on the site are noted.? Also, a change to the landscaping on the western property line where it is currently proposed as shrub plantings is recommended. ?Because of the adjacent existing residential component, we are suggesting the planting of evergreen trees in this area because of their increased potential for screening.?
Ms. Melson further stated that other agencies commenting include the Public Works Department that has provided a series of notes related to the infrastructure of sewer, water, and stormwater management as well as some comments regarding sidewalk construction practices.? The Fire Marshal?s Office has highlighted the fire protection needs for the site related to the building such as sprinklers and fire alarms.? DelDOT notes that there is some additional information regarding the College Road dedication area for public use and provided some suggestions on how to better design what is a round-about traffic circle feature at the entrance for appropriate dimensions and ease of where traffic should be so that people do not go the wrong way around the circle upon entrance.?
Mr. Galvin stated that the Parks, Recreation and Enhancement Committee actually considered this application last week.? Their concern was mainly with the sequencing of the development and the Recreation Plan.? It has become apparent that in some cases, the Recreation Plans have not been built until a significant portion of a development especially that of an apartment type development, has been built.? The committee was concerned with having one building built with no recreation provided and not having the second building built; however, unusual that might be. Under the circumstances, without having the second building built possibly for some time, they were interested in having some assurance and in fact a requirement on the applicant to have a substantial portion of the Recreation Plan completed in ratio to the building that is developed as units and as they become occupied.?
Mr. von Reider stated that he noted that the sidewalk along the Hidden Oaks property does not appear to go quite to the end of their property.? There is a utility pole and utility box that are located in this pathway.? Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mr. Ashburn stated that he has observed along Schutte Park where the sidewalks would come up to a pole and about five or six feet away they would go around it and continue on.? He has seen this in Dover in a couple of places in just the last week and it did not seem to be a pertinent issue to the design.?
Also responding to Mr. von Reider, Mr. Barry stated that the sidewalk does go all the way to the end as it connects to a sidewalk that is adjacent to College Road that stops at the Property line.? If there is a utility pole in the way, they would be glad to move the sidewalk.?
Mr. von Reider further stated that parking is not a real problem as he has seen a lot of senior communities where they only have one car.? Even if only 30% of the people occupying here have one car you would still be talking about freeing up fifteen (15) parking spaces, which he feels would help alleviate any concern that we might have regarding visitor parking.? His largest concern regarding this project is the connection to Emerald Point.? If you take a look at Emerald Point development they have one entrance out onto McKee Road for the north end of their development.? It would appear that a lot of people are going to want to come south through this development to get out to College Road because it is going to be the shortest exit.? The majority of people living in Emerald Point would be coming towards Dover.? Regardless of how many people come through he is very concerned about the fact that we have a street feeding into a parking lot which is literally what has to happen.? People coming out of Emerald Point are going to come out into this development and either go right or left through the parking lot area of this development and then back out to College Road.? This is a very poor idea, an unsafe idea, and is something he is having a lot of trouble getting past.? In his opinion, it is due partly to the fact that we are trying to put too much building on too little land and do not have space to actually have a road go through there to carry this project.?
Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mr. Ashburn stated that the cross easement is only for emergency vehicles.? Mr. von Reider stated that it would be open and available for traffic.? Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mr. Ashburn stated that you have alleys behind houses and there are a lot of vehicles that can use alleys; however, it is not meant for highway traffic.? A fire engine, police or ambulance vehicle can go through and is why they proceeded with this design.? If you go to Village of Westover which is an extremely large development, they only have one entrance in.? They did have an easement that comes out onto Mifflin Road and if you take a look at it there is a sidewalk there that denotes that this is an emergency entrance; however, everyone else uses the main entrance.? At Woodmill Apartments there is basically the same thing and they have grass grown over stone that has some evergreens on either side that denotes that this is an emergency access route.? Our plan is even better as we are giving them an impervious surface for them to gain access further into this other development.?
Mr. Friedman questioned whether he thought they would put signage up that would state ?emergency vehicles only??? Responding to Mr. Friedman, Mr. Ashburn stated that yes, they would.
Mr. Koenig stated that the sidewalk that connected onto Mifflin Road is a sub-grade fire lane that has a sidewalk in the middle of it; however, the Fire Department will not drive down it.?
Mr. DiMondi stated that he would like to hear from the Pennoni representative and have him walk us through a comparison of the density proposed at 12.04 units per acre versus all of the adjacent properties such as Emerald Point, Hidden Oaks, University Courtyard, and Westminster Village.? Also, recognize the Comprehensive Plan and what it recommends for this particular area as well.
Mr. Barry stated that the initial plan was for a density of 16 units per acre; however, after it went to City Council it was recommended to advance the application at a lower density.? They met with the Planning Department and it was Staff?s suggestion to go with the 12.04 density.? The Tall Pines subdivision was recently approved at 12.04 units per acre. ?Westminster Village is at 9.0 units per acre. ?We are aware that the Emerald Point and Hidden Oaks subdivisions are at 2.5 acre per unit; however, they are single family homes.? This is a multi-level senior housing facility.?
Mr. DiMondi stated that they are charged to compare adjacent properties not those that are in another sector or part of the City.?
Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Barry stated that Emerald Point is 2.6 units per acre, Hidden Oaks is 2.9 units per acre, University Courtyard is 5.5 units per acre, and Westminster Village is approximately 9.0 units per acre.? We knew that we were high in the beginning and we were advised to reduce it to 12.04 units per acre because of the recently approved Tall Pines subdivision.?
Mr. Ashburn stated that the Tall Pines piece of property is much more suburbia than this piece of property.? You have Doctor Kaye?s property, there is a bank, a strip shopping center, and across the street Westminster Village owns a large piece of property.? Westminster Village has some buildings that have a large density, just the fact that they have some single family homes mixed in that development actually decreases their density.?
Mr. DiMondi further stated in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses how do you begin to test compatibility and offer that as evidence in passing your application this evening?? How would the engineer even suggest that we could meet the definition of being compatible with that wide of a variance between? 2.5 and 12.04 units per acre?? Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Barry stated that it is a different type of land use.? We are talking about a multi-tenant condominium adjacent to single family homes. ?Under the PND option we are permitted to develop at higher densities than what is normally permitted in the zoning district.? By comparing other things in addition to Hidden Oaks, Emerald Point, and Tall Pines is how we come to the 12.04 units per acre.? If they can do it, why can?t we?
Mr. Ashburn stated that because they were going into Senior Housing we were led to believe that there were certain benefits that would go along with housing for age qualified residents.? Did this come from the Federal government or the State government without having variances as you would not even be looking at this plan??
Responding to Mr. Ashburn, Mr. Galvin stated that there is no Federal or State legislation that actually talks about specifically increasing density for Senior Housing.? There are other Federal guidelines on age and other items but not specifically for greater density.? The PND ordinance allows for the ability to have greater density if the Commission feels that it is compatible with the neighborhood.? It allows the Commission to not abide by the stricter density requirements that are part of the code.
Mr. DiMondi stated with regards to the height issue, what is the height of the building?? Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Barry stated that they are asking for 49 feet versus the 35 feet requirement by code.? This is largely due to some of the architectural elements on the top of the building.?
Mr. DiMondi further questioned Staff if they were aware of that fact that the building would be 49 feet and does it change the recommendation on the bulk waivers at all?? Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Galvin stated that originally they had heard that it would only be a foot above the 35 feet and 49 feet is not what we anticipated.??
Ms. Melson questioned whether the 49 feet measurement was to the top of the balustrade on top of the roof?? We would actually measure height as the average between the ridge and the eave point.?
Responding to Ms. Melson, Mr. Wilson stated that average height between the ridge and the eave point it would probably be about one foot over.? This is a preliminary plan and they have not designed the structure between the floors.? They do not know whether a twelve inch or two foot floor joist will be designed for this building so this is why they cannot give a specific answer.
Mr. DiMondi further stated based on the recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Enhancement Committee are you all in a position to committing to fully implementing that plan prior to the occupancy of the first of the two buildings for which you are seeking approval??
Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Ashburn stated that there is a sidewalk as a part of that Recreation Plan which is within a couple feet of the second building.? He thinks that it would be pretty tough to construct the second building with the entire Recreation Plan being built.? We are not talking about a huge development here where there are over 200 or 300 houses with facilities such as a club house.?
Also responding Mr. Jordan Ashburn stated that what the Parks, Recreation and Enhancement Committee recommended is that at the end of construction of the first building that 50% of the recreation plan needed to be completed and then by completion of the second building 100% of the Recreation Plan is to be completed.?
Mr. Ashburn stated that they would be proceeding with the second building before the first building is fully occupied.?
Mr. DiMondi asked if this would include a decent offering of the gazebo area, the benches, and the walking path.? 50% would include 50% across the board of all of those features for the most part with the exception of the gazebo, which could be engineered in such a way that it could be shared.
Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Barry stated that this could be done as along as the main walking paths are completed.? This would allow them to start building on the gazebo and the fountain.? Once the exterior of the building has been completed, due to the possibility of damage factors and once it starts to move interior for finish work of the building, they would complete the gazebo and remaining park plan.
Mr. Ashburn stated that if it would make City Council feel better they could put up a bond, a letter of credit, or even cash to cover that.?
Mr. Holt questioned what the age limitations would be for the development?? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Ashburn stated that for age qualifications you would have to be over the age of 55.? They have not written any by-laws; however, they are basing what other age qualified communities have done, which is primarily people over the age of 55 with no children, or where the children are near 18 or 19 years of age and ready to move out.? It does not permit children in these age restricted communities.?
Mr. Holt further stated that his concern with this plan is more with the automobile traffic.? With teenagers today they all have to have a car.? A lot of times the older adult is able to get by with only one car.? It would make a big difference with traffic and the parking.?
Ms. Melson stated that Staff would note that the only requirement in the City?s ordinance is related to the head of household. ?For a Planned Neighborhood Design, Senior Housing Option the head of household must be of the age of 55 or over.? We do not get into the other issues of who may also be part of that household.?
Mr. Tolbert asked if the seniors will have access to the roof for some activities, is this true?? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Barry stated that there are no roof decks as part of the design.? All of the recreation activities are at the surface.
Ms. Young questioned if there would be apartments located above the floor?? Responding to Ms. Young, Mr. Barry stated that no, it would only be for aesthetics.?
Ms. Young further stated that you mention some of the other tall buildings in your letter.? ?So that I can get a visual of how tall this building is compared to others, do you know how tall Dr. Kayes buildings are or the Westminster Village Apartments and Assisted Living?? Responding to Ms. Young, Mr. Ashburn stated that Dr. Kayes building has a flat roof.? Our roof is for aesthetic reasons.? One of the things about this building is they are trying to be a little more contemporary and upscale by giving the apartments nine (9) foot ceilings, which adds three (3) feet.? If you look at Woodmill Apartments those apartments exceed thirty-five (35) feet and the same with Baytree Apartments.?
Also responding to Ms. Young, Mr. Jordan Ashburn stated that their buildings are similar in size with the Westminster Village Apartments and the office building across the street which is probably about ten (10) feet more than Dr. Kayes building.?
Mr. Tolbert stated that according to the advisory comments that read, ?The accessibility of the widow?s walk area on the roof will be subject to review under the Building Code and Fire Code regulations,?? will you have a widow?s walk on that roof?? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Wilson stated that no, they would not as it will only hold the HVAC equipment.?
Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Shamyer ? 23 Pin Oak Drive ? Stated that he is trying to figure out why we want to ugly up our neighborhoods in single family dwelling development area with apartment buildings.? Not only will this destroy his view of the power plant by making it taller than buildings across the street, this whole corner has been nothing but single family housing. ?With Emerald Point coming in with single family housing and from the samples that they are building, these are good looking homes.? He is afraid of apartment buildings destroying his property value.?
Mr. Scott Parsons ? 121 Red Oak Drive, Hidden Oakes ? Stated that he has seen the plans for this building and feels that it looks fine. ?He has seen other Ashburn developments and they are beautiful.? He does not see what the problem would be.?
Mr. Friedman closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak.
Mr. DiMondi questioned the engineer that if they had two stories instead of three, what would the density be for that site?? Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Berry stated that they have six (6) on the first floor and ten (10) units on the second and third floors.?
Also responding Mr. Galvin stated that approximately the density per acre would be eight (8).
Mr. DiMondi further stated that this is what the Comprehensive Plan recommends.
Colonel Welsh stated that the Senior Housing Option PND allows them to exceed the maximum density of eight (8) units per acre and is the only thing that does this without changing the zoning.? In looking at project density, it defines what the Senior Citizen Housing Option in the Planned Neighborhood Design option would be.? ?There were numerous commercial institutions that have to be made available to those people within a quarter of a mile.? Those items were grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, physician?s offices, a senior center or similar convenient service establishments.? It also must be within close proximity to public transit services as these projects get preference.? The only things that he can see that are within a quarter of a mile of this project are a very limited convenience store, a liquor store, and a bank.? With proposed developments that are coming into this area, he does not see any room for further development for any commercial establishment to satisfy that requirement.?
Colonel Welsh further stated that it also would seem that maybe there is a demand for senior housing; however, it would seem that we are using that in this case to give you the maximum use in the minimum footprint.? You can get 52 units on this property if in fact it is allowing senior housing and it?s Planned Neighborhood Design.? In the Planned Neighborhood Design, you have to have a recreation area. ?In looking at your plan and even though the Parks, Recreation and Enhancement Committee approved it, from that aspect it is okay, it looks to him that if he were a senior citizen living there and he wanted to recreate the only thing he would be able to do is walk in an oval or on the outside sidewalk along the perimeter.? It seems that there is too much going into such a small space.? The elevation of the plan looks super as it is a very attractive building.? When he compares it to single family homes that already exist in Hidden Oaks and will exist in Emerald Point, the fact that there are numerous lots that boarder right up to your property from where Hidden Oaks is, it seems to him that this is going to be very, very imposing.?
Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Ashburn stated that they have done market research on senior housing.? The number one thing that seniors want is a place to walk.? As far as desirability, he was in Philadelphia this weekend where his daughter has a townhouse located next to a 20 to 30 story condominium building. ?This is the most desirable sect