REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on May 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Council members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Chief Horvath, Mr. Cooper, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Green and Mr. Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President McGlumphy declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum
The invocation was given by Chaplain Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters requested the addition of items #1A - Presentation to Governor Ruth Ann Minner, #1B - Presentation to the City Manager, and #9 - Rezoning Request/First Reading for Property located at 87 and 89 Carver Road and 77 Saulsbury Road.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 14, 2001
The Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting of May 14, 2001 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Gorman, seconded by Mr. Carey and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PRESENTATION - GOVERNOR RUTH ANN MINNER
On behalf of members of Council, City Staff, and the citizens of Dover, Mayor Hutchison presented a City Key to Governor Ruth Ann Minner with the inscription “Governor Ruth Ann Minner - Key to the Capital of the First State - to the First Woman Governor in the History of Delaware - May 29, 2001”. Mayor Hutchison relayed best wishes and appreciation to Governor Minner for her leadership.
Governor Minner thanked the Mayor, members of Council, Staff, and the Citizens of Dover for the recognition. Since elected, Governor Minner has resided in the Governor’s House in Dover, feeling that it is most appropriate for the Governor of Delaware to live in the Capital of its State, Dover. She has found residency in the City of Dover most pleasurable. In relaying her appreciation for the generosity in offering a City Key, it is her hope that she can live up to being a good resident and serving the City well.
PRESENTATION - MR. JAMES R. O’CONNOR, CITY MANAGER
Mayor Hutchison and Council President McGlumphy presented Mr. O’Connor, City Manager, with a Dover Cup in appreciation for his service to the City of Dover since his appointment in 1993. Mayor Hutchison noted the many accomplishments that have been achieved under his leadership and relayed best wishes to him and his family in future endeavors.
Mr. O’Connor expressed appreciation to the City of Dover for giving him the opportunity to serve as the City Manager. The City has grown in such a manner that it serves as a service center for the entire County and the central part of Delaware. He stated that the City of Dover is a wonderful place to live and raise a family and hopes that the City will continue to prosper. He stated that, unfortunately, as a City Manager, in order to “move up” one must “move out”.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 627- 629 W. DIVISION STREET, OWNED BY TOLANO D. AND CATHY ANDERSON
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 627 - 629 W. Division Street, owned by Tolano D. and Cathy Anderson. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and the proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial).
Planner's Review
The present zoning of M permits manufacturing, assembling, storage, laboratories, wholesale storage and warehousing, building contracting yards, and public utility uses. The property is currently used as a Hair Salon and residence.
The proposed zoning of C-3 permits service establishments, wholesale and warehousing, bowling alleys, animal hospitals, motor vehicle service stations subject to conditions, manufacturing with less than 25 employees, and printing establishments; and conditionally permits planned senior housing developments. The proposed use of the property is for a Hair Salon and Sandwich Shop.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission is for approval. In taking this position, the Commission considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses: The property is in the commercial corridor along West Division Street, located west of the railroad tracks. Surrounding the property is a mix of commercial uses including a funeral home, offices, warehouses, bus storage, car wash, and auto detailing. All of the property is zoned C-3, except lands to the northwest, which are zoned M.
Comprehensive Plan: The property is given the Industrial and Public Utility designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed C-3 zone is one of the three (3) zoning designations used in Industrial areas.
Other Considerations: The change from M to C-3 would be down zoning, which is a part of a trend in the area. During the past years, there have been several rezonings to C-3 in this area. Although the property is zoned for manufacturing, it has never been used for uses permitted in the zone. Its small size makes it impractical for manufacturing zone uses. The C-3 zoning designation would put the existing beauty salon use in its proper zone.
Recommendation of Planning Staff: Considering that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and would make the existing uses conforming, staff recommended approval of the rezoning.
Correspondence
There was no correspondence received on the proposed rezoning.
Public Hearing
Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing open.
Mr. Tolano Anderson, 627 W. Division Street, stated that as the property owner, it was his feeling that there is enormous potential for the entire area surrounding the property proposed for rezoning to a C-3 zoning. He stated that as mentioned, not only is the C-3 zoning in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but it would be beneficial to the surrounding area.
There being no one else wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 26, 2001.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 627 WEST DIVISION STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from M (Manufacturing) to C-3 (Service Commercial).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from M to C-3 on that property located at 627 West Division Street, owned by Tolano D. and Cathy Anderson.
ADOPTED: MAY 29, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 346 AND 350 PEAR STREET, OWNED BY CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD. L.L.L.P.
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 346 and 350 Pear Street (on the west side of Pear Street, approximately 100 feet north of the intersection of Mary and Pear Streets), consisting of 2.404 acres, owned by Capital Investment LTD. L.L.L.P. The equitable owner is Campus Community School. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and the proposed zoning is I/O (Institutional and Office).
Planner's Review
The present zoning of M permits manufacturing, assembling, storage, laboratories, wholesale storage and warehousing, building contracting yards, and public utility uses. The property currently consists of a vacant industrial building (there may be some storage use on the premise).
The proposed zoning of I/O permits business, professional and governmental offices, public and institutional uses, and restaurants. Permitted conditionally are planned senior housing developments, fire arm ranges, correctional facilities, and public incinerators. The proposed use of the property is for a Charter High School.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission is to deny the rezoning application. In taking this position, the Commission considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses: To the north is land owned by the City of Dover, zoned M, and used for warehousing. The building owned by the City has a common wall with the building being proposed for rezoning. Further north of the property is the City’s Warehouse Facility also zoned M. To the northeast, east, and southeast, are lands used for truck terminals, truck storage, and contractor yards that are zoned C-3 (Service Commercial) and M. To the south is a warehouse building zoned M. To the west of the property is Norfok and Southern Railroad line, further west is the Playtex Manufacturing Complex zoned IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing).
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates all existing major industrial facilities and associated lands for industrial and manufacturing uses, which includes the subject property. However, the project neighborhood was identified as needing re-development and, during the Comprehensive Plan Update, it was formally discussed at the citizen workshops for the North-Central Planning area. Participants were asked how this area should be redeveloped in the future, considering that it appeared as if it would no longer be used for manufacturing. Residents were somewhat satisfied with the existing pattern of development but felt that office and institutional uses would be acceptable in the future.
Other Considerations: The surrounding area is heavily used for warehousing, contractor yards, and trucking facilities. These uses generate heavy traffic and noise. The adjacent railroad usage is also noisy and has associated vibrations. These conditions are obviously not ideal for a school environment. Noise, and to a lessor extent, vibrations could be dampened by interior construction techniques. Conflicts with traffic may be reduced through restricted student driving policies, and student arrival and departure times that are coordinated with surrounding facilities. The School Administration has acknowledged these conditions and indicated that they would not have any complaints regarding neighboring uses and that they would attempt to minimize traffic conflicts.
The positive aspect of this proposal is the commitment to invest and readapt this aging industrial building for a new and modern use. Often, buildings like these are left to slowly deteriorate and become abandoned. This area along the railroad line was one of Dover’s first heavy manufacturing areas. It has altered from manufacturing uses many years ago and is likely over time to move away from the warehousing, trucking, and contracting yards that now exist.
Recommendation of Planning Staff: The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map, however, the text does speak to the issue of the aging value of the industrial area. The surrounding land uses are not ideally compatible with the proposed use. Therefore, staff would only recommend approval after the Planning Commission and City Council has considered the issues and determined that the benefits of investment and readaptation of the property along with a new office-institutional direction for the entire area is greater than the risk of having incompatible land uses, including safety issues, in the future.
Planning Commission Public Hearing Comments: There were several comments in favor of the project made during the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. An adjacent owner expressed concerns and opposed the project. Due to the extensive comments made, members of City Council were provided the relevant portion of the Planning Commission minutes for their review.
Advisory Comments: The conversion from industrial use to educational use is considered a “change of use”; therefore, in accordance with Article 3, Section 10.7 of the Dover Code, Site Development Plan approval would be required. The Public Works Department indicated that the water system should be evaluated, including fire protection and domestic water systems, and that the water tower should be removed. The Fire Marshal’s Office indicated that fire separation walls will need to be constructed between the educational facility and the City Warehouse.
Mr. Ruane noted that during the workshops in developing the Comprehensive Plan, it was suggested that this area was in need of redevelopment and a possible different zoning classification. He questioned why the map was not changed accordingly. Mr. DePrima stated that as indicated in the text of the Plan, there was not an overwhelming swell of support from the neighbors requesting a change in the zone. The neighbors were not necessarily dissatisfied with the development pattern in the area. In addition, Mr. DePrima stated that the property owners in the area were involved in the workshops and public hearings and indicated that they did not want the property rezoned or the designation changed. He also noted that generally, staff did not change any zoning designations when the use was active. At that time, the area was used for storage; therefore, if the zoning designation was changed, the existing use would have been made non-conforming.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that during his tenure as City Planner, there have not been any applications submitted for use of this property. He also stated that there are other institutional uses of property in the area, explaining that further north on Pear Street there is an elementary school (Fairview), to the east is the field house and field associated with Wesley College, and the Wesley West community. The Little School is located in the general vicinity of the property as well as the Beth Sholom Congregation. Although staff did not conduct a percentage of use in the area, the Campus Community School provided details regarding this which he feels would be accurate for the area consisting of ½ mile long and ¼ mile wide. For the record, Mr. Ruane stated that the information referred to that was provided by Campus Community School describes the area to consists of 61% Residential, 20% Institutional/Office, 13% Manufacturing, and 6% Commercial.
Council President McGlumphy questioned the City’s legal liability regarding the change of the zoning classification as it relates to safety. As an example, if the property was rezoned by the approval of Council, the school came to fruition, and a student was either injured or killed, what would be the City’s liability. Responding, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper relayed confidence that under existing law, the City would not have any legal liabilities in this regard.
In response to Mr. Pitts, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper stated that unless the City was responsible for the presence of any toxic poisons or environmental hazards in or on the property, there would be no legal liability on the part of the City.
Correspondence
Council President McGlumphy reported that numerous pieces of correspondence were received in support of the rezoning request and that copies have been distributed to members of Council. In addition, he noted that a petition was received in opposition to the rezoning request. It has been determined by the City Assessor that the petition contains 20% of the adjacent property owners; therefore, in accordance with 22 Del. C. §305, the rezoning application cannot be granted unless affirmatively approved by a 3/4 vote of those elected to Council.
Public Hearing
Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing open.
Dr. Andrew Lloyd, 104 Quail Hollow Drive, stated that as a parent of a student of Campus Community School he requested approval of the rezoning request. He submitted a petition that consisted of signatures obtained from residents of the neighborhood immediately adjacent to theproperty, which indicates over 95% of the residents in the area supporting the rezoning of the property. Mr. Lloyd provided general information regarding the Campus Community School.
Mr. John Paradee, attorney with the law firm Prickett, Jones, & Elliott, stated that he is addressing members as a resident of the area (126 Walker Road). He requested those present in the audience that were in favor of the proposed rezoning to say “aye” (it was noted that there was an overwhelming response). Noting previous concerns regarding liability, Mr. Paradee advised members that there is a statute in the Delaware Code entitled “The Municipal Tort Claims Liability Act”. This Act provides insulation from liability not only to cities, but to public officials that are elected to serve the city. He explained that as long as an individual is exercising their legislative discretionary function, such as considering a zoning proposal, the individual cannot be held personally liable for any of the consequences of the decision.
Mr. Paradee referred to the 5-4 vote of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the rezoning application. Unfortunately, he explained that they did not have access to several critical facts which he felt would have made a dramatic difference in the Planning Commission’s analysis of the application. He relayed confidence that Council will be compelled to approve the rezoning application based on the facts and provided a Power Point presentation in explanation of the facts, as follows:
1) The Comprehensive Plan does recommend approval of the rezoning application.
Mr. Paradee referred to page 5-13 of the Comprehensive Plan which indicates that in respect to the redevelopment of this area, future office or institutional uses were identified as acceptable roots for the future of the area. He also referred to the report submitted by the City Planner, which indicated that the area was identified during the Comprehensive Plan process as needing redevelopment and was formerly discussed at workshops where participants indicated that they would prefer the area to consists of office and institutional uses in the future. He noted other comments included in the City Planner’s report such as the positive aspect of the proposed project and the commitment to invest and readapt this aging industrial building for a new and modern use. In many instances, these types of buildings slowly deteriorate and become abandoned. This area has transitioned from manufacturing uses many years ago and is likely over time to move away from warehousing, trucking, and contracting yards that now exist. In addition, Mr. Paradee referred to the City Planner’s conclusion that the issue to be resolved is that the benefit of investment and readaptation for this property to a new office institutional direction is greater than the risk of having incompatible land uses in the future.
2) The rezoning application comports with the history of approval of other school sites throughout the City. In fact, there are preceding examples which demonstrate that schools are compatible with commercial uses.
Mr. Paradee noted the many schools in the City of Dover that are adjacent to commercial uses. A map depicting the areas surrounding several schools in the City of Dover, such as Booker T. Washington, William Henry, and Fairview, which are zoned I/O, indicated that they are adjacent to and in close proximity to manufacturing and commercial uses, trucking firms, and heavily traveled roadways. Mr. Paradee referred to a recent zoning application approved for a charter school to be located on the old Ice Plant site. This area too is adjacent to IPM zoned land, commercial and manufacturing uses, and a trucking firm. He stated that there are numerous examples throughout the City that demonstrate that schools are compatible with industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses and that institutional uses can exist with these uses; therefore, the proposed rezoning application is consistent with past practice.
3) There is no legitimate traffic safety issue at this site.
Due to the concerns regarding traffic safety, Mr. Paradee advised members that a traffic study was conducted by an engineering firm, which conclusively demonstrates that there is no traffic safety issue on Pear Street. It was his feeling that there is only a perception of a traffic safety issue. He introduced Mr. Randy Duplechain of Davis, Bowen, and Friedel to provide details regarding the study.
Mr. Duplechain confirmed that the perception of the area is that it consists of a lot of traffic. In reality the results of the traffic analysis indicated that the traffic volume on Pear Street is low, most particularly trucks that are larger than 3 axles. It was determined that the proposed project would have minimal impact on the level of services and traffic delays, and that it would actually improve pedestrian safety in the area with the installation of sidewalks and other traffic control devices. Mr. Duplechain explained that the traffic counts were taken during the hours of a day when students would be arriving and departing the school and provided the results of the traffic counts in the area as follows:
Totals Cars/Pickups 2 Axle 3 Axle
April 6, 2001, 7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. 190 166 21 3
April 6, 2001, 2:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. 219 195 19 5
Note: 2 axle vehicles (school buses, maintenance vehicles, etc.)
3 axle vehicles (trash trucks and larger tractor trailers)
Mr. Duplechain stated that a comparison of counts in similar areas was also conducted. This study provides details as to the number of vehicles traveled per minute and provided members the results, as follows:
Morning Afternoon
Location Vehicles Per Minute Vehicles Per Minute
Pear Street (currently) 3.17 3.98
Pear Street (projected) 5.62 6.43
Walker Road 18.35 20.90
Saulsbury Road 20.60 24.60
Mr. Duplechain advised members that the level of service for each of the intersections was calculated. The level of service is a value determined to measure the delay that would be experienced by an average approaching vehicle at an intersection. A letter code is provided to indicate the delay, with “A” representing the best level of service with a delay of 10 seconds or less and “F” representing the worst level of service with a delay of greater that 50 seconds per vehicle. Mr. Duplechain stated that the study indicated that the existing level of service along Pear Street at the intersection of Clara and Mary Streets exhibits a level of service of “A” (8-9 second delay). It has been projected with the proposed school entrance that the level of service at this intersection would drop to a “B” (14 second delay). He also noted that all intersections in the area provide a level of service of “A” with the exception of the right turn from Pear Street onto Mary Street which will result in a level of service of “B” (10.9 seconds) with the construction of the school.
According to the study, Mr. Duplechain assured members that the traffic in the area would not be impacted by the additional traffic created with the construction of the proposed school. He also confirmed that there will be improvements in the area such as sidewalks, crosswalks, flashing speed limit signals, and other traffic control devices that will provide additional safety in the area.
Mr. Paradee referred to traffic studies that have indicated other schools in the area that must address motorized traffic concerns, which he felt proves that the proposed site has the least amount of traffic safety concerns. As an example, he stated that Booker T. Washington fronts onto Route 8, which is the City’s gateway to the west and one of the busiest streets in the City. There is 10 times more traffic in this area than the area proposed for the Campus Community School. It was his feeling that if traffic and safety concerns can be addressed and resolved in the more problematic locations, then these types of concerns can easily be addressed and resolved at the proposed location of the Campus Community School.
4) Failure to grant approval of the rezoning application will only ensure that the site remains an abandoned wasteland of urban blight.
With regards to economic development, Mr. Paradee stated that the Central Delaware Economic Development Office and other economic development entities that work with the City have been trying for years to attract manufacturing uses to this site and have been successful. He stated that the condition of the site requires extensive demolition and renovations. As it exists, the site offers insufficient parking for any use that would entail a significant number of employees, which will deter a potential manufacturing employer. The site also has very poor access to and from major traffic arteries and there would be utility problems for a major industrial user. It was his feeling that no industrial, manufacturing, or commercial user will locate to this property in the future; therefore, insisting that the zoning remain manufacturing will only ensure the site’s continuing demise.
Mr. Paradee introduced Dr. Stephen Putman, Professor and Chairman of the Graduate Group in City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania. He specializes in metropolitan transportation and land use interactions and in the design and evaluation of regional land use and transportation policies. Feeling that citizens should work towards the betterment of their communities, Dr. Putman stated that he volunteered to review the relative data and after doing so, feels that the proposed new school at the proposed location will definitely prove to be a benefit to the community. He advised members that some of the data reviewed was U.S. Census, excerpts from the Central Delaware Economic Development Counsel, the Dover Plan, the Traffic Study prepared by Davis, Bowen, & Friedel, and a variety of other information that was made available. Dr. Putman stated that in his review of the information, he concentrated on the argument that the location of the proposed school would have a negative impact on the immediate area, which he feels is unlikely.
Dr. Putman considered the economic sectors which currently dominate the immediate area which are not expected to be the growth sectors of the future in this region. Both manufacturing and transportation, communications, and public utilities (TCP’s) are expected to decline, wholesale is expected to decline slightly in the near future and then increase slightly after the year 2020. The proposed school site has not been a demanding location for economic activity nor is it expected to become one in the future. The present zoning allows only the location of activities which are in declining economic sectors. In the Dover Plan, this was recognized and it was suggested that the area may be utilized for institutional sector activity. Locating an educational institution at this site with its connections to other educational institutions in the area is likely to be a considerable economic benefit, both for the neighborhood and for the Dover region in general. The growth of all components of the education sector of the region’s economy is a possibility along with Dover continuing to evolve as an educational center for the central Delmarva region. This would prove beneficial with the prospect that the more active component of the manufacturing sector that requires higher skilled level employees could also be a significant contributor to Dover’s economic future. In summation, Dr. Putman advised members that it was his professional opinion that the proposed site for the proposed school would prove to be beneficial for the City of Dover and the region.
Mr. Paradee requested approval of the rezoning application, reminding members of the following issues: 1) the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) institutional uses are compatible with manufacturing and commercial uses; 3) there are no legitimate traffic safety issues at the site; and 4) the alternative would be the very sort of urban blight which the Comprehensive Plan decries. He also provided members with information regarding the Campus Master Plan and Action Plan for Wesley College, which includes acquisition of and rezoning of a substantial amount of property in the immediate area for the purpose of developing a satellite campus entitled “Wesley West”. Mr. Paradee assured members that Campus Community School will wholeheartedly work with the surrounding neighbors to have the project palpable. He urged members to consider the merits of the rezoning application based upon facts and to exercise independent judgement in evaluating these facts in rendering a decision.
Mr. Paradee questioned the petition submitted that requires the 3/4 vote of Council for approval of the rezoning request. Responding, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper indicated that letters were submitted this afternoon from Mrs. Lynn Bergold and Mrs. Dorothea Weyandt (widow of Mr. Francis Weyandt) joining the protest petition. He stated that the protest of Mrs. Weyandt actually adds 7,000 sq. ft. to those properties previously protesting the rezoning application. Deputy City Solicitor Pepper indicated that City Council is subject to 22 Del. C. §305, which requires 3/4 vote for approval of the rezoning application.
Mr. Allen Coblentz, 192 Roundabout Trail in Camden, addressed members as the President of the Congregation Beth Sholom, which is located at the intersection of Queen and Clara Streets. He advised members that there are 120 member families and approximately 300 congregants that utilize the facility on a regular basis. Mr. Coblentz welcomed the Campus Community School as
a neighbor and considers the building of the school as a major part for the revitalization of the area increasing both the property and intellectual values of the greater Dover area. He recommended that Council approve the rezoning to allow for the Campus Community High School.
Mrs. Janet Schukoske, 208 Meadows Drive, relayed support for the proposed school and on behalf of the parents of students of the Campus Community School, urged Council’s approval of the rezoning request. As a parent of children with special education needs, she requested that members realize the impact a positive vote of Council will have on the students attending Campus Community School. Mrs. Schukoske advised members that her children have developed tremendously at this school and that their success is credited to this school. She relayed concern with the alternatives if there is no high school available for Campus Community students to attend.
Miss Jennifer Lambertson, 2578 Central Church Road, a student of the Campus Community School urged Council’s approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Rodney Byers, 606 Walker Road, relayed support of the rezoning request and his feeling that the proposed school is needed in the area.
Mrs. Debbie Puzzo, 6 Kensington Court, indicated her support for the proposed school and the rezoning of the property. Referring to concerns of safety, she stated that parents choose to have their children attend this school. As a parent, she understands the concerns of safety and after considering all the facts that were presented, she felt that there were no safety issues and would choose to send her child to this school. On behalf of the parents, students, and community she thanked members for their consideration and urged the approval of the rezoning request.
Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, reminded members that she was a previous member of the Planning Commission and indicated her experience serving on school boards. She stated that as a charter school, the Campus Community School is a unique institution, operated by the most hardworking, dedicated, and compassionate individuals. Mrs. Ornauer advised members that the governance of this school is different than most of the charter schools with which she is familiar. Rezoning property where there is an aging, decrepit, building located in an area that needs revitalization, and to further enhance the mission of this school will do nothing but make the City of Dover better for the future.
Mrs. Chritine Stang, 5 Waterwheel Circle, stated that to vote for approval of the rezoning is to vote for the future. It was her feeling that the proposed school for this location is an incredible opportunity and that to deny the rezoning application would be denying the opportunity to diminish urban blight in this area.
Mr. Richard Weyandt, also representing Francis Weyandt Trust and Mrs. Lynn Bergold, relayed concerns regarding the safety of children in this area. He advised members that he owns and operates the trucking firm and yard located adjacent to the proposed site. He advised members that he has served on several traffic and motor vehicle safety boards and explained that large trucks have considerable “blind spots”. It has been his experience that children, big trucks, and equipment do not mix. There are 17 school buses for the Capital School District that enter and exit the area every day there is school. Mr. Weyandt stated that his objection is not with the school, but with the safety aspect of the proposal. He advised members that in previous discussions with representatives of Campus Community School he asked if the school was already at the site and he came to them requesting to open a trucking company adjacent to the school, would they support the proposal. He stated that everyone in attendance responded negatively.
Mr. Bob Edgell, 10 Forest Hills Court, stated that he is the owner of Teal Construction, 612 Mary Street, which is located southeast of the proposed site. He stated that his concerns are also with safety, explaining that his utility contractor business has heavy equipment coming and going from the yard. He advised members that there is a material storage yard directly across the street from the proposed school and that there are tractor trailers entering and exiting this area during all hours of the day and night. Teal Construction has been in this location for several years and, with the current surrounding businesses, they have been operating in their own environment. Mr. Edgell felt that a school in this area would create a potential for accidents. If the rezoning request is approved, he stated that the businesses in this vicinity will be assuming additional liability, considering that there will be additional students and traffic in this area. He relayed support for the Campus Community School and the need for alternative schools; however, due to the safety issues involved, he does not feel that the proposed location is the right place for a school.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the rezoning request for property located at 346 and 350 Pear Street from the current zoning classification of M to I/O. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ritter and by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Pitts), Council adopted the following ordinance: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 26, 2001.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 346 AND 350 PEAR STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from M (Manufacturing) to IO (Institutional Office).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from M to IO on that property located at 346 and 350 Pear Street, owned by Capital Investments, LTD, LLLP.
ADOPTED: MAY 29, 2001
Mr. Speed stated that it is public record that he spoke in favor of the rezoning during the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. At that time, he was a private citizen and had not been elected to City Council. It was his feeling that as a member of Council, it would be his duty and responsibility to consider all issues based on their merits. He stated that he has no financial interest in the school or property involved. Mr. Speed assured members that his vote was based on objective judgement on this subject.
Since the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request, those members of Council voting for approval of the motion to approve the rezoning request were requested to publicly state the reasons for their vote.
Mr. Ritter stated that he voted in favor of the rezoning of the property feeling that it was in the best interest of the City and for aesthetic purposes.
Mr. Pitts stated that he voted against the rezoning based on concerns of his Fourth District constituents regarding the lack of minorities in attendance at the Campus Community School and for meeting the needs of the minority community. He also stated that he does not support over-riding a decision rendered by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gorman explained that his vote in favor of the rezoning was mainly due to the results of the following issues: 1) receipt of the neighborhood petition; 2) aesthetic improvements; and 3) feeling that the rezoning would be a good investment for the City as well as the community.
Mr. Truitt stated that he voted favorably for the rezoning of the property because he felt the area was in need of revitalization. He also felt that the safety issues and concerns were addressed by the information provided.
Mr. Carey stated that he voted in favor of rezoning the property considering that other local schools are surrounded by the same adjacent zoning classifications and he felt that it would end the dilapidation in this area. However, he relayed grave concerns regarding the safety aspects and requested that these concerns be addressed through the Planning Department and site plan review process.
Mr. Speed indicated his favorable vote was based on several issues, most importantly, he felt that the rezoning application was in conformance with the Dover Plan. He felt that the traffic concerns were overstated and that the proposed project would be a tremendous improvement to the City of Dover and the community.
Mr. Salters explained that his vote in favor of the rezoning was for aesthetic reasons and to improve the area. He also felt that education was extremely important to this community and that the proposed project will enhance the education of our children. After hearing and considering all the testimony, it was his opinion that the rezoning of this property would be in the best interest of the City as a whole.
Mr. Ruane stated his reason for voting in favor of the rezoning request was based essentially on the report provided by the City Planner. The area transitioned away from manufacturing uses many years ago and would likely, over time, move away from the warehousing, trucking, and contracting yards that currently exist in the area. He noted that this was recognized five years ago when the Comprehensive Plan was being reviewed. It was his feeling that the Campus Community School would be doing a favor to the City by committing to invest and readapt this aging industrial building for a new modern facility. Mr. Ruane indicated that the benefits of the investment and readaptation far exceed the incompatible use issues that were mentioned.
Council President McGlumphy stated that his decision to vote in favor of the rezoning request came only after hearing all the testimony presented. He felt that the rezoning of the property was necessary for the improvement of the area. It was his belief that the concerns of adjacent property owners could be addressed during the site plan review of the project.
Mr. Salters moved for a 10 minute recess, seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.
Meeting recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL
Council President McGlumphy recommended the following committee appointments:
Legislative and Finance Committee
Bruce T. Gorman, Chairman