CITY OF
The Regular Meeting of the City of
Staff members present were Mr. Jorgenson,? Ms. Melson, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Koenig.? Also present were Mr. Keith Kooker, Mr. Bangalore Lakshman, Mr. Bill Lanahan, Mr. Aneyo Ezeigbo, Mr. Paul Sykes, Mr. Doug Liberman, Mr. Sal Leone, Mr. Gregg Moore, Mr. Jerry Peters, Mr. Jessie Collier, Mr. Bill Byler, and Mr. Kevin Minnich.
Mr. Sadusky moved approval of the March 17, 2003 agenda, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion unanimously carried.
Mrs. Horsey moved to adopt the minutes of the regular meeting of
ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF QUARTERLY WORKSHOP OF
Mrs. Horsey moved to adopt the minutes of the quarterly workshop meeting of
Mr. Jorgenson stated that on
Mr. Jorgenson further stated that the Comprehensive Plan Update would be reviewed by Planning Commission Staff at a meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at 7:00 PM for the purpose of discussing the Draft.? At this stage in the Draft, Staff has been trying to keep the public engaged in as much as possible through the update process and is trying to move forward with the process to get the update to the State for their review and comment for certification.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that he had no further information to report on as he covered these items under communications.
?
Mr. Jorgenson advised the audience of policies and procedures for the meeting.
Mr. Friedman stated that agenda items tonight included February and March items due to the major snowstorm in February, which closed City Offices.
SB-02-02C Patriot Village Subdivision ? Conceptual Plan ? Review of Conceptual Subdivision Plan for 43.60 +/- acres of land zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) and R-8 (One Family Residential). The Plan proposes the construction of a total of 134 dwelling units consisting of 59 single family homes and 75 townhouse units.? The parcel is also subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone).? The parcel is situated on the east side of Acorn Lane north of South Hancock Avenue.? The owner of record is Bangalore T. Lakshman.
The Chairman sought a motion to lift this item from the table for discussion as it was tabled at the December meeting.
?
Colonel Welsh moved to lift the application from the table for discussion, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and the motion unanimously carried.
Representatives:? Mr. Keith Kooker, Landmark Engineering and Mr. Bangalore Lakshman, Property Owner.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that this is the review of the Conceptual Plan to determine whether or not the plan is in keeping with the growth management policies and strategies of the City of Dover.? The specifics as it relates to this development, will be discussed as we go through the approval process.
Ms. Melson stated that the Conceptual Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide this tract into 75 townhouse lots and 59 single family dwelling lots for a total of 134 dwelling units.? The majority of the development would be accessed from Acorn Lane.? Four proposed lots take direct access from Acorn Land north of the subdivision entrance.? A section containing seventeen (17) single family homes takes access from Hopkins Avenue and South of Hancock Avenue.? The applicant has requested a waiver from the City of Dover Subdivision Street Design Standards.? The applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum thirty-eight (38) foot paved width requirement to permit paved widths of thirty-two (32) feet.? The right-of-way would be maintained at sixty (60) feet.? The Planning Commission should forward a formal recommendation to City Council with regard to the requested street waiver.
Ms. Melson further stated that as the application moves forward more details would be shown.?? The applicant has submitted plans that include concepts for a landscaping plan.? Areas of trees located on the eastern portion of the property meet the criteria for classification as woodlands.? The applicant would also be permitted to clear up to 50% of the woodland area.? The non-woodland area consists of 30.67 acres +/-? and will require 446 trees to meet the tree density requirements.? The Plan depicts these additional plantings to be located on the southern property line, on the south side of the main entrance to the subdivision and along the south and east property lines.
Ms. Melson further stated that based on the number of residential dwelling lots proposed, the subdivision shall provide 0.85 acres +/- of open space designed to function as active recreation space.? An area of active open space is proposed in the northern section? of the subdivision adjacent to the townhouses with an area of 0.63 +/-? acres.? The Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan shall be prepared for review and recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Committee of City Council prior to submission of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan.? The Parks and Recreation Committee shall provide a recommendation for the Planning Commission?s consideration.
Ms. Melson further stated that Dover Air Force Base submitted comments regarding the Airport Environs Overlay Zone.? The Planning Commission has received some correspondence from a nearby property owner and Commissioners were supplied a copy.? Since the December meeting, the applicant has provided two different correspondences with regards to the property, one from DelDOT relating to transportation issues and another related to soil studies that were completed.
Mr. Kooker stated that he would like to expand on a couple of issues that were brought up in the December meeting with regards to two of the major concerns of the site.? The two concerns are traffic that would be generated due to the subdivision and conditions of existing soils and the ability to be able to handle the proposed construction.?? Input was received from various agencies and consultants to try and address these issues.
Mr. Kooker further stated that a letter dated March 7, 2003 to the Planning Department is included with regards to a letter received from DelDOT.? In accordance with DelDOT?s regulations regarding traffic standards, they generated a traffic generation figure based upon the number of units proposed in the development and asked DelDOT to comment on what they felt the improvements could be for the development.? DelDOT has responded with no recommendations for improvement for the intersection of Acorn Lane and White Oak Road or Acorn Lane and Little Creek Road.? However, possible modifications should be made to the entrance to the site along Acorn Lane with a small right turn lane into the subdivision.
Mr. Kooker further stated that another issue is with regards to soil conditions.?? Original D.A.C. comments from the Kent Conservation District in December indicated that there was a soil known as Othello soil on the property.? This soil is questionable as to whether it would be able to handle the proposed construction as this type of soil has severe limitations.? A map of the site was produced and outlined the types of soils according to the soil conservation maps.? The O.T. soil location for their property, which is the Othello soil, is located mainly on the eastern side of the site.? They had twelve soil borings done in these areas by local consultants in seeking recommendations for this type of construction and soil conditions.? The letter recommends that foundations should be constructed to bear on firm native soils, which is existing soils on the site.? Also based on their results, they estimated a total potential construction site of one inch or less.?
Mr. Kooker further stated that there were issues brought up at the last meeting regarding the site being very wet with lying water.? The letter submitted provides what was found concerning ground water elevations for the site.? The ground water was reported at a 7-S foot elevation below existing grades.? Water on the site may have to do with very silty soils found on the site.? They recommend that property drainage be designed to avoid significant wet conditions.? The soils on this property are poor infiltrators and there is not much slope to the property and this is where the water build up exists.? In accordance with the Kent Conservation District regulations, they would not be allowed to discharge stormwater off of their site and onto other property; therefore, these items will be taken care of and addressed.
Mrs. Horsey stated that in looking at the letter submitted from the Dover Air Force Base with regards to decibel levels, the statement of? ?however, should the City determine there is a compelling need for such housing in this area, measures to achieve an overall noise level reduction of 25 decibels should be recommended in the design and construction of the affected dwelling units.?? Does this mean that these houses would need to have special sound barrier systems built in?
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Kooker stated that there are specific required measures that they would have to meet regarding decibel levels and was unsure as to how they would accomplish this; however, they would probably be some sort of additional insulation added.
Mr. Nichols stated that when they conducted their vehicle study and it was sent to DelDOT, how many vehicles per home did you suggest would take place in this development?
Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Kooker stated that they have a traffic expert in their office who developed the figures.? There were various figures that they came up with, depending on the entrance.? In AM peak traffic, there would be a traffic flow of 80 vehicles with a PM peak of 97 vehicles, which would be entering and exiting the development.? All of the vehicle calculations were based off of DelDOT regulations regarding number of lots.
Responding to Mr. Kooker, Mr. Nichols stated that if everyone that resided in the neighborhood had one vehicle, there would be 134 cars.?
Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Kooker stated that typically, the way the calculations are done,? there are a various number of formulas according to use and in this case, it would be by number of lots.? They obviously do not assume that everyone leaves and returns at the same time and this is why they suggested the lower numbers.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that this type of development would generally generate 10 vehicle trips per day, per dwelling unit, which would be approximately 1,300 vehicle trips per day as a result of the establishment of this subdivision.
Responding to Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Kooker stated that based upon their calculations, there would be about 977 trips; however, there were some additional trips for the existing site entrance of about 171 additional trips, thereby bringing to total to around 1,100 to 1,200 trips per day.
Mr. Kevin Freeze - 329 Acorn Lane:? Stated that he is located about 30 feet across the street from the subdivision and stated that he still has several issues with this property.? He is concerned with the ground survey and stated that he had a national ground wetland map that he received from the Department of Natural Resources, which indicated that over half of the property to be developed is considered to be wetland by the Department of Natural Resources.? Unfortunately, DNREC does not have final say over this issue, the Army Corps of Engineers does.? They have not received delineation reports from this location, which is something that would be required to make a final determination of what would be considered wetlands.? He was present when they were doing the ground digging and regardless of whether the water table level is 7 feet below ground level, as soon as they punched a hole with the backhoe, water was spraying up.? He feels that numbers for the traffic study have been manipulated to the low side.? With the traffic configurations calculated as mentioned before, once all of the developments have been built, there could be up to 4,580 trips a day that may or may not be going down Acorn Lane.? Acorn Lane was not designed to handled this kind of traffic load.? He recommended that a traffic impact study be completed and provided before anything is allowed to proceed further.? Mr. Freeze stated that he was also concerned with the noise impact this development would have.? If this new development is required to have homes built to meet the specific standards, what about the homes that are already in the area that were built 20 or 30 years ago?? At that time, these standards were not in place, so their homes are not equipped to handle the additional noise.? When a plane flies over now, his windows rattle.? The amount of traffic that will flow down Acorn Lane will also affect the safety of children in the area as there are no sidewalks on Acorn Lane.? Many of the residents in this area have private wells and septic tanks, if they divert all the ground water some place else, how will this affect the water tables and how will it affect his well?? Will he be forced to go onto the City services to get water at that point?? He has spoken to Ruth Ann Minner?s office with regard to the ?Livable Delaware Act? and how this legislation is opposed of leap frogging developments and irresponsible building of homes in Kent County, and she was unaware that this many developments were going up in this area.
Mr. Friedman stated that at this point, having listened to your presentation, there is a process in place that will deal with everything you brought up through various agencies.? Mr. Friedman also stated that it was brought to his attention that the Public Hearing was closed at the last meeting of this application; therefore, a motion must be made to re-open the Public Hearing.
Mrs. Horsey moved to re-open the Public Hearing, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion unanimously carried.
Mr. James Wright ? 1425 S. Hancock Avenue:? This development would have a severe impact on South Hancock Avenue.? Everyone on South Hanock Avenue has three cars and everyone does go to work.? These homes will be built in his back yard and he does not want to see attached homes being built.? He would like to know what the Code is for single family homes regarding how far apart they should be built?? Would like to have at least 10 feet between the homes.? Also he is concerned with the one way in and out of the development.? South Hancock Avenue is a dead end road and there are a lot of children on this street, they do not want to see a road loop around from the new neighborhood to the dead end of South Hancock Avenue.
Responding to Mr. Wright, Mr. Kooker stated that with this development, they propose single family homes as well as townhomes.? In accordance with the regulations, they must abide by all setback requirements.
Mr. Friedman, seeing no one else wishing to speak, closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that Staff is in receipt of two correspondences, both from the Freeman?s who reside at 1427 S. Hancock Avenue, who re-enforce the view points that were stated earlier regarding Acorn Lane and the impact on traffic from the new development being adverse to the citizens interest from their view point.? They also expressed concern with soil conditions, which would be the responsibility of both the review authority and the developer and not of this body.
Colonel Welsh stated that it is essentially important to remember that this is a Conceptual Plan and if it is approved, the developer will be returning with a Site Plan that will contain more specifics.? Colonel Welsh questioned whether DelDOT had accepted their traffic study or would there be modifications?
Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Kooker stated that they will be required to generate an entrance plan for the property and they will be submitting the same traffic generating figures as previously submitted for further review.? At this point, DelDOT has indicated that there does not need to be a traffic impact study completed.
Colonel Welsh further stated that he has been out to the site several times since the December meeting and this area looks no wetter than most areas in Dover.? In Acorn Farms, some of the lots have standing water on them.? If proper drainage is provided, there should be no problem with standing water.
Mr. Nichols questioned whether there was any conflicting between flood plain and the areas that the applicant is building around?
Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Kooker stated that no, they are not within the 100 year flood plain according to the FEMA map and there is no encroachment onto their property.
Colonel Welsh moved approval of SB-02-02C Patriot Village Subdivision, Conceptual Plan with appropriate DAC comments, with approval of the street width waiver from 38 feet width? to 32 feet width, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion carried with Mr. Holt in opposition.
S-02-11 Revised Office Building on Lands of Robert M. Duncan: Revised Architectural Elevations:? Review of Revised Architectural Elevations (Drawings received February 12, 2003) proposing a five (5) story building consisting of 72,294 square footage +/- of building floor area.? The subject property consists of 2.3580 acres +/- of land located at the southwesterly corner of the intersection of West Loockerman Street and Slaughter Street.? The owner of record is Robert M. Duncan.
Representatives:? Mr. Bill Lanahan, Jackson Architects.
Mr. Friedman stated that a Public Hearing is not required and would not be held.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that the only difference from what has previously been reviewed has to do in the form of the fifth floor, the roof, and the central tower element.? ?The building footprint and building materials remain essentially unchanged.? It was returned to the Historic District Commission for their review and it was felt by Staff that since there were no significant changes, and that the recommendation from the Historic District Commission to the Planning Commission they could approve the changes as proposed by the applicant.
Ms. Melson stated that the project site is located at the southwesterly corner of the intersection of Loockerman and Slaughter Streets and includes construction of an office building, bus stop and associated parking lot with site improvements.
Ms. Melson further stated that the changes of note are mostly located within the fifth floor of the structure.? The fifth floor level of the building occupies a smaller floor area to create roof deck spaces.? The walls of the fifth floor level are predominately glass topped by a hipped metal roof.? Brick stairtower elements are situated at the easterly and westerly ends of the building breaking the horizontal windows/wall elements.? The major difference between the previously approved architectural elevations and the current revised proposal deals with a reduction in the overall height of the building, a change in the form of the fifth floor of the building, and the roof form on the central tower element.? The building footprint and materials of the building remain relatively unchanged.
Ms. Melson further stated that the tower element previously had a peaked roof and will now be a curved form; the materials will remain the same.? This Historic District Commission moved for acceptance of the revised Architectural Elevations.
Mr. Lanahan stated that the owner has requested that they reduce the volume of the building.? With this opportunity, they took the fifth floor and brought it in from the perimeter walls to reduce the mass of the building.? They kept the stair towers up the side of the building as a featured element.? They changed the center section peaked roof to a curved top roof so that the main roof in the center is not as dominant as previously presented.
Mr. Holt questioned why they changed from a diamond shaped roof to a hipped roof?
Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Lanahan stated that the roofs of the main portion of the building previously were flat roofs, with perapets around them and the center section was a peaked roof.? They wanted the design to fit into the community and with other buildings within the neighborhood, most buildings in this area have hip roofs.
Mr. Holt further questioned whether the tree issue had been resolved?
Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Melson stated that it was reported at the January Planning Commission meeting with copies of correspondence Staff had received from the developer regarding the unauthorized clearing of the Sycamore Tree that had occurred in late December on the property.? The zoning ordinance has provisions for steps of mitigation that occur when unauthorized clearing occurs.? In this case, that tree is required to be replaced by five (5) trees of three inch caliber.? In reviewing the check print of the site plan, the applicant has added the five trees.? These five additional trees are over and beyond what is required for their tree density plantings on the site.
Mr. Holt questioned what kind of power the Planning Commission holds when they request a developer to do certain things and they ignore or do other things that were not requested?? As a body we should be respected with requests and recommendations that are made.
Mrs. Horsey stated that she agreed with Mr. Holt?s statements regarding the tree and that there is no excuse for taking down a stand alone, beautiful old Sycamore tree.?? We did specify in the motion to do everything to keep it and the developer agreed to do that.? With the tree removed, will the building be moved back on the property or will it remain where it was originally proposed for?
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Lanahan stated that the building location would remain where it was originally proposed.
Mr. DiMondi moved to approve S-02-11 Revised Office Building on Lands of Robert M. Duncan: Revised Architectural Elevations subject to the recommendation that was received from the Historic District Commission and also subject to all D.A.C. comments as well as Staff?s current recommendations, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion unanimously carried.
S-02-14? 84 Lumber Storage Building/Yard Expansion: Waiver Requests:? Review of Waiver Requests pertaining to the Site Plan for construction of 9,600 S.F. +/- storage building.? The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) consisting of 4.60 +/- acres.? The property is located on the east side of U.S. Route 13 and north of Public Safety Boulevard.? The owner of record is Dorothy P. Handy, Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership.? Property address:? 529 South DuPont Highway.
Representative: ?Mr. Keith Kooker, Landmark Engineering
Mr. Jorgenson stated that at some point, the applicant in this process has changed engineering firms.? Mr. Kooker, who has been engaged by the applicant, has requested on behalf of the applicant, with regards to curbing and the opaque barrier fence types that they prefer not to layover the plot of land but to reduce the amount of impervious surface to reduce the curbing, therefore allowing for faster stormwater dissipation.? In addition, they did not want to break up the chain link fence with a barb wire top and replace it with a wooden fence, which would be the basis for the request in the opaque barrier.? To reduce the impervious surface and provide for what the current engineer feels is appropriate engineering of stormwater management practices, are both positive.?
Mr. Lee stated that at the original submission the past engineer had proposed to pave the entire site surface.? Since the change of engineering firms, the current engineer is asking for additional waivers on paving, curbing, and the opaque barrier.? The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement that all open permanent parking areas shall be properly drained and all such areas be provided with paved asphalt, concrete and other hard, paved, dust-free surface.? The applicant feels that it is not necessary to make the entire site impervious.? By not paving the northeast segment of the site, a net reduction in runoff would be helpful with the bio-filtration swale in a limited area and the area would be relegated to outdoor storage only.? The original plan showed this area as required parking for the site to comply with the Planning Commission?s 50% waiver of the construction of required parking.
Mr. Lee further stated that the applicant is seeking to waive the requirement of a wooden fence and to continue with a chain link fence with barb wire for the entire site.
Mr. Kooker stated that some of things that have changed since the original submission are the stormwater management pond area.?? The applicant would now like to design an infiltration stormwater swale basin, which has been encouraged by the Kent Conservation District.? They would like to remove the curbing in the area that runs along the back of the lot as it would be a lot easier to drain the site if there were no curbing.? They intend to have some type of storage located outside of the fire lanes.?? It would be a lot easier on forklifts to pick up material if there were no curbing in this area.? With regards to screening, they want to maintain security of their site and are being requested to install a wooden fence.?? On the back portion of this property that backs up to the residential developments, they feel placing a wooden fence would compromise their ability to secure their lot.? They plan to continue to follow the landscape plan as submitted.
Mr. Winsley stated with regards to the six inch curb height waiver, are you asking for a complete waiver of the site or for the surrounding parking lot?
Responding to Mr. Winsley, Mr. Kooker stated that they are proposing some curbing on the site.? When you enter the back of the site, between the two main gates, it currently borders pavement and? stone, which is mainly their loading area.? They propose to curb along the north side to facilitate drainage in this area as there is no real direction for stormwater currently.? The areas that they do not propose curbing for is the area along the back side of the site where the warehouse is located, which is also where drainage will flow onto the grassy area and eventually become a bio-filtration swale.?
Mr. DiMondi questioned whether the curbing request is driven by financial concerns rather then the need to properly feed the bio-filtration swale?
Responding to Mr. DiMondi, Mr. Kooker stated that obviously, if the curbing is not built, it would be less of a cost, which would be a benefit to the client.?? Currently, their site is basically all stone, they store materials on the stone and when these materials are moved, because of the curbing it is hard to maneuver in this area.?
Mr. DiMondi further stated that curbing is a dual purpose, one is security, safety, and maintaining and separating pedestrians from vehicular purposes.? The second purpose is to direct stormwater off site or into stormwater management ponds or the infiltrat