REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 10, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members present were Councilmen Lambert, Daisey, Levitt, Pitts, Salters, Lynn, Weyandt and Hare.
Council staff members present were Chief Hutchison, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Worley, Mr. DePrima, Fire Chief Baker, Mrs. Boaman and Mr. Rodriguez.
The invocation was given by Reverend Roland Coker, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Lynn moved for approval of the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1992
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 27, 1992 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Lynn, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Richter.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 29, 1992
The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of January 29, 1992 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Lynn, seconded by Mr. Hare and bore the written approval of Mayor Richter.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - QUARTERLY OPEN TOWN MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1992
The Minutes of the Quarterly Open Town Meeting of February 3, 1992 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Lynn, seconded by Mr. Hare and bore the written approval of Mayor Richter.
RECOGNITION OF EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR - BEA MOORE
During the past year, 12 City employees have been selected for "Employee of the Month". Those selected as Employee of the Month were considered for selection of Employee of the Year. Mrs. Bea Moore, Assessment Administrator, has been chosen as the Employee of the Year for 1991. As the recipient of the award, Mrs. Moore was presented with a United States Savings Bond for $500, three (3) additional vacation days, and an engraved plaque. The Mayor, City Manager and City Assessor made the presentations and offered their congratulations to Mrs. Moore for her achievement, and thanked her for her dedication and hard work on behalf of the City of Dover.
Mrs. Moore conveyed her appreciation to Mayor and Council, City staff, and her family for helping her to achieve this award. She congratulated the other 11 employees that received the award for Employee of the Month. After 27 years of employment with the City of Dover, Mrs. Moore has seen many changes take place. Mrs. Moore stated that her fellow employees are dedicated to serving the public in the most courteous manner possible, and that it is a pleasure to work with them and for the City of Dover. She expressed her appreciation for the support of her family, which allowed her to do the best job possible for the City.
RESOLUTION - JANET MELVIN
By motion of Mr. Lynn, seconded by Mr. Daisey, Council unanimously adopted the following Resolution (Mr. Hare absent):
WHEREAS, Janet E. Melvin has been a faithful employee of the City of Dover Police Department since October 2, 1972; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Melvin served on the Dover Employee's Service Committee, building camaraderie among employees by coordinating picnics, and luncheons, and she never hesitated to help whenever needed; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Melvin was also very active in the City's Wellness Program by participating in off duty activities; and
WHEREAS, after 20 years of dedicated service, Mrs. Melvin has chosen to retire effective October 2, 1992 with terminal leave beginning March 30, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council wish Janet E. Melvin a happy and healthy retirement and extend their appreciation for the manner in which she carried out her duties as a City of Dover employee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to make this Resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover in appreciation of the faithful and dedicated services of Janet E. Melvin.
ADOPTED: February 10, 1992
Mrs. Melvin was presented with the Dover Cup and a City plaque in appreciation of her many years of service.
RESOLUTION - FRANCIS (BUD) O'NEILL
By motion of Mr. Lynn, seconded by Mr. Salters, Council unanimously adopted the following Resolution (Mr. Hare absent):
WHEREAS, Francis J. O'Neill has been a faithful employee of the City of Dover since September 30, 1974; and
WHEREAS, Francis (Bud) J. O'Neill began his employment with the City of Dover Public Works Department as the City Engineer; in 1982 was transferred to the Electric Department as a Mechanical Engineer; and in 1990 became Chief Mechanical Engineer; and
WHEREAS, after serving for more than 17 years as an employee of the City of Dover, Francis J. O'Neill has chosen to retire.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover wish Francis J. O'Neill and his family a happy and peaceful retirement and commend him for the excellent work he has provided to the City of Dover during his employment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to make this Resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover as a lasting symbol of appreciation for the dedicated service of Francis J. O'Neill.
ADOPTED: February 10, 1992
Mr. O'Neill was presented with a City plaque in appreciation of his contribution to the City of Dover.
RESOLUTION - AFRO-AMERICAN NATIONAL HONOR ROLL SOCIETY SENIORS - DOVER HIGH SCHOOL
By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Lynn, Council unanimously adopted the following Resolution (Mr. Hare absent):
WHEREAS, during the month of February we will be celebrating Black History Month and will be recognizing those influential African-Americans who have helped in the country's development; and
WHEREAS, on a more local level, recognition is given to six African-American National Honor Roll Society seniors from Dover High School for their pursuit of knowledge in the academic arena and in the area of social development; and
WHEREAS, these six students have demonstrated an extreme dedication to their studies as well as to their community by participating in many social and school activities; and
WHEREAS, the accomplishments of these African-American academic pacesetters serve as a very positive role model for their peers and for our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council express their sincere pride in the academic and social achievements of BRETT FENNELL, SHAWN PINKETT, KESHA ALSTON, TIFFANY PAUL, LATANYA DIXON, and LETICIA WILLIAMS.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council acknowledge the vital contributions made by these students, as well as the support and assistance provided by their schools, teachers, and family.
ADOPTED: February 10, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - LANDS LOCATED ON SOUTHERLY SIDE OF DENNYS ROAD - PETRILLO, SARICKS AND MANZO
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the southerly side of Dennys Road, owned by Edward Petrillo, Ronald P. Saricks and Francis L. Manzo.
The City Clerk reported that a letter was received requesting that the rezoning request be withdrawn to allow time to determine the availability of utilities and for the completion of the traffic study by the State Division of Highways.
Mr. Lynn moved for acceptance of the request to withdraw the rezoning request, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on January 28, 1992 with Chairman Levitt presiding.
Presentation - Joint Land Use Study
The City has been investigating the possibility of entering into a Joint Land Use Study with Kent County and the Department of Defense. If the City wishes to participate in this study, it will be necessary to pass a resolution in support. A presentation was made to the committee by Mr. David MacKinnon and Mr. John Lee from the Office of Economic Adjustment; Mr. Joe Petermo, Community Planner from the Dover Air Force Base; and Mr. Kevin Coyle from the Kent County Planning Commission.
Most major military installations were originally located outside urban centers or in sparsely populated rural areas. However, urban growth, attracted by the location of the installation and the economic activity generated by it, has resulted in the establishment of an adjoining community or the closer proximity of neighboring communities to the military facility. Military installations and associated mission activities have good and bad effects on nearby communities. Operations can cause adverse impacts from aircraft, which generate noise and pose accident potential. When communities are exposed to noise and accident potential, they will seek relief. This usually places pressure on the military base to modify operations, which could ultimately lead to total elimination of noise generating activities, and a commensurate reduction in personnel and mission assignments, which could result in reduced economic benefits to the community. Mr. MacKinnon advised members that both parties would lose; however, modifications to surrounding land uses can also help to resolve the conflict and both parties can be winners.
In 1985, the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) concept was initiated. It was designed to provide financial and technical incentives to help resolve the conflict that has occurred between mission objectives and community growth patterns. The intent of the JLUS is to develop a plan as the basis for implementing land use recommendations, including AICUZ, around a military installation.
Mr. MacKinnon provided members with a diagram of Dover Air Force Base and the recommendations from the AICUZ study. The financial incentive is cost-shared grants that are made available through the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. A community consensus is necessary whereby each local governing body within the proposed JLUS area must agree with the need for compatible growth around the military installation. Mr. MacKinnon explained that the JLUS efforts have the potential to spawn mutual benefits, as follows: 1) Protection of the health and safety of residents near military installations from the impacts of military operations; 2) Preservation of the long term compatibility of the installation and the community surrounding it; 3) Greater emphasis on community comprehensive planning; 4) Increased cooperative spirit between the base and local officials; and 5) Integration of community comprehensive plans with the installation and, when the JLUS involves several jurisdictions, with one another.
The committee recommended support of the Joint Land Use Study program and adoption of the proposed resolution.
Mr. Levitt moved for approval of the committee's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Daisey and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, Dover Air Force Base operates the largest and busiest aerial port in the continental United States, and is the largest employer in the Dover area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dover recognizes the major contribution that the base provides to the economic health of the state and local economy, and recognizes the positive relationship that exists between the community and the Dover Air Force Base; and
WHEREAS, there is a Joint Land Use Study program offered by the Department of Defense that will permit the City to participate in a process to promote compatible land uses around Dover Air Force Base in order to protect the City and its residents from the negative consequences of development and to protect the base from outside encroachment; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Land Use Study program can help insure the survivability of Dover Air Force Base by protecting the integrity of the base flying mission and facilitating community acceptance of the base Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dover is committed to long range planning for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Kent County Planning Commission will serve as the lead coordinating agency to carry out the study and be responsible for answering and participating in the preparation of the scope of work and budget in cooperation with participating communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. The City of Dover pledges its jurisdictional support and participation in the Joint Land Use Study planning process.
2. The City of Dover supports the Kent County Planning Commission as the lead agency and the creation of a coordinating committee and associated working groups to provide oversight and technical guidance.
3. The City of Dover agrees to commit local resources in the form of staff support and other in kind services to the coordinating committee and the technical advisory committee.
4. The City of Dover agrees to make a good faith commitment to implement appropriate and useful recommendations of the study to assure that compatible development will occur in accident potential zones and high noise impact areas.
ADOPTED: February 10, 1992
Annexation - South Side of Route #8 - Drs. DuShuttle, Varipappa and Andrews
The committee considered a request for annexation of property located on the southerly side of Route #8, approximately 270' east of Independence Boulevard and east of and adjacent to the Dunkin' Donuts property, consisting of 3.81 acres. The property is owned by Drs. DuShuttle, Varipappa and Andrews.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation and that the property be given a zoning classification of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial). In making their recommendation, Mr. DePrima stated that the Planning Commission considered the properties' present zoning in the County of R-S (Single Family Residential), B-G (General Business) and B-N (Neighborhood Business). He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan, as recently amended by the Route #8 Corridor Land Use Plan, recommends that this area be utilized for commercial purposes. Mr. DePrima advised members that as indicated through a conceptual site plan, the applicant intends to develop the site in accordance with the design criteria recommended in the Route #8 Corridor Study. Mr. DePrima stated that although there are several lots that form the 3.81 acres, the property should be considered as one site since the back parcels would have no street frontage.
Many adjacent property owners voiced their objections to the annexation. Although most did not object to commercial zoning for the front of the property, they strongly objected to commercial development on the rear parcels.
The committee tabled action on the matter to provide the residents the opportunity to meet with the developers in an attempt to resolve some of their concerns.
Unacceptable Water Quality - Petition - Residents of Presidents Way
A petition was received from residents of Presidents Way concerning the quality of the City's water. They indicated that the water has a sulfur smell, calcium deposits, and is unacceptable overall.
City staff explained that the odor is caused by hydrogen sulfide in the water system. This occurs most frequently on dead end mains throughout the City, and in new construction. Three procedures are used in response to these complaints, as follows: 1) The City "blows-off" the main; 2) the City recommends that the homeowner drain their hot water heater; and 3) the City recommends that the homeowner remove the anode rod from within the hot water heater. The above procedures will provide temporary relief; however, the only sure method to eliminate the odor from the water is to chlorinate the water. Chlorination has been discussed extensively in the past but Council has opted not to chlorinate.
The quantity of hydrogen sulfide is within all federal and state standards for drinking water. This area has been added to the regular preventative maintenance schedule for blow-offs.
The committee recommended that staff continue with the current policy for responding to water odor and that staff further investigate the possibility of extending the water lines past the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Levitt moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Weyandt and unanimously carried.
Bulky Refuse Fee
Members were advised that occasionally, a refuse customer places an excessive amount of brush or bulk at the street curb for City disposal. These pickups exceed the intent of the City's garbage/trash ordinance and exceed the capacity of the City's collection system. The City's sanitation system is financed by the General Fund and is designed for reasonable amounts of residential bulky and brush pickups. Extraordinary amounts of bulky and/or brush refuse are so great that there is strong justification for financing the collection through a user fee rather than through the General Fund.
Upon discussing the concept of charging for pickups of extraordinary amounts of refuse, the committee expressed concern with the amount of the charge and the definition of extraordinary refuse and suggested that staff present a more detailed description of these pickups.
The committee tabled action on the matter to allow staff to gather more detailed information for a report back to the committee.
Mr. Levitt moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on January 28, 1992 with Chairman Weyandt presiding.
Suggestions for Hiring Unemployed City Residents - James A. Burcham
The committee considered a letter from Mr. James A. Burcham suggesting that the City hire unemployed City residents as quasi-City employees with wages earned credited directly to City utilities or taxes owed. Noting that the economy is in a recession when labor is available and money is not, it was his opinion that
the City and residents could benefit from such a proposal.
The committee recommended that staff consider the suggestion made by Mr. Burcham for a report back to the committee.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
Proposed City of Dover Weeds Ordinance
By request of Council President Christiansen, City Solicitor Rodriguez investigated the possibility of amending the City's weeds ordinance to allow for quicker response time to an offense.
In researching the matter, City Solicitor Rodriguez informed members that there could be serious due process problems with inadequate notification; therefore, he felt that it would be inadvisable for the City to amend the weeds ordinance by repealing the notice requirement in the case of repeat offenses.
Mr. Rodriguez advised members that a possible solution to the problem may be responding to repeat offenses with gradually increasing fines. He noted that the only fine for which the Dover ordinance provides is for payment of a $50.00 per hour mowing charge.
The committee recommended that Mr. Rodriguez prepare an amended ordinance, for the committee's review, that would increase fines for repeat offenses with the costs becoming liens against the property.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Return Check Fee
The City charges a $10.00 fee for all returned checks, which has not been increased in approximately five (5) years. Last year, 536 checks were returned and $4,910 collected in returned check fees. The procedure for collecting returned checks is time consuming and can be laborious. The current return check fee of $10.00 does not cover the cost of processing a returned check through our system. Last year, the postage costs alone were 25% of the fee the City recovered.
Staff conducted a survey of the banks and businesses in the Dover area and found that the fee charged for returned checks ranged from $15.00 to $25.00. Staff recommended that the return check fee be increased to $20.00 to cover the increase cost of labor and postage and to maintain consistency of fees with the local community. It is also hoped that it will act as a deterrent and enable the City to collect their receivables in a more timely manner.
The committee recommended that the City increase the returned check fee to $20.00.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lynn and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Budget Process - 1992/93
In an attempt to provide a more detailed budget review process as requested by members of Council, staff recommended three meetings to allow department heads to present and discuss 1992/93 budget programs and goals with Council.
The committee recommended approval of the following schedule:
May 5, 1992 - budget presentations
May 6, 1992 - budget presentations
May 7, 1992 - budget presentations
May 18, 1992 - budget workshop
May 19, 1992 - budget workshop
May 20, 1992 - budget workshop
May 21, 1992 - budget workshop
May 27, 1992* - budget workshop *(if needed)
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the proposed schedule, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
Janitorial Services - 5 Reed Street
Staff requested quotes from four local cleaning firms for maintenance of the 5 Reed Street building. Only one quote was received from "Cleanway" for a price of $3,802.60 per month.
The committee tabled action on the matter until additional firms have been contacted for a quote.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the committee's action to table the matter, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
Sign Ordinance Amendments
City Council held a public hearing on January 13, 1992 to consider several sign regulation amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Code. During the public hearing, Mr. Dale McCalister, of Kent Sign Company and a member of the Sign Review Committee, addressed concerns with the proposed sign ordinance amendments. Council tabled action on the sign amendments, stipulating that the amendments be referred back to the Planning Staff and Sign Review Committee for further review.
Mayor Richter advised members that he met with Mr. McCalister and the Planning Staff concerning the sign amendments. Mr. McCalister was concerned with Article 7, Section 1.6 relative to non-conforming signs since this could create excessive hardships. Mayor Richter urged approval of the proposed amendments with the condition that Article 7, Section 1.6 (Non-conforming Signs) be deleted.
The committee recommended acceptance of Mayor Richter's recommendations and that the revised Sign Ordinance Amendments be presented to Council for approval.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried. (The final reading of the proposed ordinances will be taken care of during the latter part of the meeting).
Interest Rate - Electric Deposit Refunds
With the current economy and the interest rates declining considerably, the Finance Director informed members that the City is paying 7% interest rate on electric deposit refunds. He suggested that the rate should be reduced to 5.50% or 6%.
After discussion, members considered having the interest rate compatible with bank book savings, to be reviewed every six months.
The committee recommended that the Finance Director submit a recommendation to Council at their next meeting. To eliminate excessive paperwork in determining interest rates on a six month basis, the Finance Director recommended that the interest rate on the return of electric deposits be set at 5% simple interest rate, effective February 11, 1992.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the Finance Director's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lynn and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Weyandt moved for acceptance of the Legislative and Finance Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
ALLEY ABANDONMENT - FORREST STREET - MAURICE HARTNETT
During the Council Meeting of January 27, 1992, Council tabled action on a request to abandon an alley on the south side of Forrest Street, running in a southerly direction towards Bedford Drive. The matter was tabled to allow time for the Solicitor to research information relative to Council's action to abandon the alley on December 2, 1963.
Mr. Rodriguez researched the matter extensively (a copy of this letter is on file in the Office of the City Clerk). In summary, Mr. Rodriguez stated "I am confident that the City abandoned this part of the alley effectively at the request of Mr. Holden on December 2, 1963, and that no deed from the City to Mr. Holden was needed to finalize the abandonment. It would appear to me that no deed from the City would have been proper because under the circumstances of this case, the City never acquired fee simple title to the alley at any time."
Mr. Lynn moved to acknowledge receipt of the Solicitor's letter, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Responding to questions from Council, Mr. Rodriguez stated that no further action on the part of the City is necessary. Ownership of the alley will have to be addressed by Mr. William Holden and Mr. Maurice Hartnett. Mr. Lynn requested that the contents of Mr. Rodriguez's letter be conveyed to Mr. Hartnett and Mr. Holden.
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 27, 1992.
Request to General Assembly to Amend Code - Section 2901 of Title 25 Del. Code
Mr. Hare moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
Mr. Lambert moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Salters carried by a unanimous roll call vote:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That the General Assembly of the State of Delaware be asked to amend subparagraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 2901 of Title 25 of the Delaware Code by adding thereto the following subparagraph:
h. Assessments of the installation of sewer lines, water mains, sidewalks and curbing, including interest thereon.
ADOPTED: January 28, 1992
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES
The First Reading of the proposed ordinances were accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 9, 1991 and a public hearing was held on January 13, 1992 at which time the matter was tabled.
Mr. Lynn moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Mr. Lynn moved to delete agenda item #8F (Art. 7, Section 1.6 - Non-Conforming Signs) from those shown on the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Mr. Lynn moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinances be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
The following letter from Mayor John E. Richter was read into the record:
"As I explained to the Legislative and Finance Committee at its meeting of January 28, 1992, I am confident that the proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments, as recommended by the Sign Ordinance Review Committee, are a step in the right direction and in the best interest of the City of Dover, and I believe that City Council should enact the proposed amendments without further delay. It is my understanding that because a public hearing has already been held on this matter, the proposed amendments may be lifted from the table and considered for action by Council.
Because the proposed amendment dealing with non-conforming or "grandfathered" signs may create excessive hardships, that section should be eliminated. By copy of this letter, I am urging City Council to approve the proposed amendments with the condition that the section pertaining to non-conforming signs be deleted.
The Sign Ordinance Review Committee recognized that it would be virtually impossible to draft an ordinance amendment that would address every possible situation. The proposed amendments should not be construed to mean that the Board of Adjustment would no longer consider requests for variances from the Sign Regulations. Situations may arise in the future which involve legitimate hardships that make compliance with the regulations difficult or impossible. In those instances, persons will have every right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for review and consideration.
The Planning staff will monitor the performance of our Sign Regulations and will recommend modifications if and when problem areas become evident.
Lastly, through this process we know that there is a proliferation of illegal sign placements in the City. I am sure that the Department of Planning & Inspections will address this situation.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter."
Mr. Weyandt moved for adoption of the following ordinances, seconded by Mr. Lynn and carried by a unanimous roll call vote:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Amend the Dover Code Appendix B, Article 3, Section 9.14 (RG-0 - General Residence & Office) by deleting this section in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof, the following:
9.14 Signs announcing the name or insignia, or both, of the occupants of office space on the same lot, provided that:
(a) Sign Area. Aggregate sign area shall not exceed an area equivalent to 1% of the total floor area of the first floor of the principal building on a lot.
(b) Free-Standing Signs. One (1) free-standing sign shall be permitted, only on lots with at least 75 feet of lot width. In no case shall there be more than one (1) free-standing sign on a lot. Sign height shall not exceed 5 feet. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be maintained from the front lot line. A minimum setback of 5 feet shall be maintained from all other property lines. The maximum sign area permitted for a free-standing sign shall be 32 square feet.
(c) Wall-Mounted Signs. Wall-mounted signs are limited to one (1) sign for each wall facing a public street, limited to a maximum area of 10% of the area of the wall.
(d) Projecting Signs. Projecting signs shall be prohibited in this district, except that projecting signs may be permitted on properties within this district which are located within the Dover Historic District boundaries if approved by the City of Dover Planning Commission through the Architectural Review Certification process as set forth in Article 10, Section 3. Where permitted, projecting sign shall be limited to one (1) sign for every 75 linear feet of street frontage, or portion thereof, per lot. Projecting signs on the same building shall be separated by at least 50 linear feet of wall surface. Projecting signs shall not extend greater than 3.5 feet from the wall surface and shall be limited in sign area to 9 square feet per sign. At least 7.5 feet of vertical clearance shall be maintained from grade to the bottom of the projecting sign.
(e) Directory Signs. One (1) directory sign shall be permitted in office complexes with more than three (3) buildings with an aggregate floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet. Directory signs shall be limited in total area to 25 square feet and shall not exceed a height of 5 feet.
(f) Illumination. Signs may be internally illuminated only. All light sources shielded from view of adjacent properties and streets. If situated within 200 feet of any residence in a residential zone, hours of illumination shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
(g) Directional Signs. Necessary traffic directional signs shall be permitted on a lot, limited in area to 2 square feet per sign.
ADOPTED: February 10, 1992
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Amend the Dover Code Appendix B, Article 3, Section 26.5 (CP-O - Commercial/Professional Office District Sign Standards) by deleting this section in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
26.5 Signs announcing the name or insignia, or both, of the occupants of office space on the same lot, provided that:
(a) Sign Area. Aggregate sign area shall not exceed an area equivalent to 1% of the total floor area of the first floor of the principal building on a lot.
(b) Free-Standing Signs. One (1) free-standing sign shall be permitted, only on lots with at least 75 feet of lot width. In no case shall there be more than one (1) free-standing sign on a lot. Sign height shall not exceed 5 feet. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be maintained from the front lot line. A minimum setback of 5 feet shall be maintained from all other property lines. The maximum sign area permitted for a free-standing sign shall be 32 square feet.
(c) Wall-Mounted Signs. Wall-mounted signs are limited to one (1) sign for each wall facing a public street, limited to a maximum area of 10% of the area of the wall.
(d) Projecting Signs. Projecting signs shall be prohibited in this district, except that projecting signs may be permitted on properties within this district which are located within the Dover Historic District boundaries if approved by the City of Dover Planning Commission through the Architectural Review Certification process as set forth in Article 10, Section 3. Where permitted, projecting sign shall be limited to one (1) sign for every 75 linear feet of street frontage, or portion thereof, per lot. Projecting signs on the same building shall be separated by at least 50 linear feet of wall surface. Projecting signs shall not extend greater than 3.5 feet from the wall surface and shall be limited in sign area to 9 square feet per sign. At least 7.5 feet of vertical clearance shall be maintained from grade to the bottom of the projecting sign.
(e) Directory Signs. One (1) directory sign shall be permitted in office complexes with more than three (3) buildings with an aggregate floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet. Directory signs shall be limited in total area to 25 square feet and shall not exceed a height of 5 feet.
(f) Illumination. Signs may be internally illuminated only. All light sources shielded from view of adjacent properties and streets. If situated within 200 feet of any residence in a residential zone, hours of illumination shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
(g) Directional Signs. Necessary traffic directional signs shall be permitted on a lot, limited in area to 2 square feet per sign.
ADOPTED: February 10, 1992
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Amend the Dover Code Appendix B, Article 3, Section 16.2 ©-4 - Highway Commercial) be deleting this section in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
16.2 Signs and Illumination. Signs and illumination are permitted as provided in Article 5, Section 4 and as follows:
(a) Sign Area. Each commercial establishment in this district shall be permitted at least 150 square feet of aggregate sign area. For buildings with a first floor area greater than 5000 square feet, additional sign area shall be permitted, calculated at a rate of 0.5% of the area of the first floor. In no case shall a commercial establishment be permitted an a