REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on June 12, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. with Mayor Richter presiding. Members present were Councilmen Hall, Daisey, Legates, Lynn, Christiansen, Levitt, Salters, VanSant and Weyandt.
Council staff members present were Chief Hutchison, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Cregar, Ms. Bittner and Mr. Rodriguez.
The invocation was given by Reverend William F. Emery, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mayor Richter requested the addition of a letter from the law firm of Barros, McNamara & Scanlon, as item #19E.
Mr. VanSant moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Legates and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 22, 1989 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Lynn, seconded by Mr. Christiansen and bore the written approval of Mayor Richter.
PROCLAMATION - FLAG DAY
The City Clerk read into the record the following Proclamation:
WHEREAS, by Act of the Congress of the United States dated June 14, 1777, the first official flag of the United States was adopted; and
WHEREAS, some ten years later, here in Dover, the State of Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution of the Nation our proud flag represents; and
WHEREAS, by Act of Congress dated August 3, 1949, June 14 of each year was designated “National Flag Day”; and
WHEREAS, the Congress has requested the President to issue annually a proclamation designating the week in which June 14 occurs as National Flag Week; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1982, the National Flag Day Foundation was chartered to conduct educational programs and to encourage all Americans to PAUSE FOR THE PLEDGE of Allegiance as part of National Flag Day ceremonies; and
WHEREAS, at 7:00 p.m. on June 14, 1989, at City Hall Plaza all citizens of Dover are invited to “Pause for the Pledge of Allegiance,” as Dover joins with the nation to honor our flag; and
WHEREAS, Flag Day celebrates our nation’s symbol of unity, a democracy in a republic, and stands for our country’s devotion to freedom, to the rule of all, and to equal rights for all.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOHN E. RICHTER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM JUNE 14, 1989 as FLAG DAY in the City of Dover, Delaware, and urge all citizens of Dover to join with us to pause at 7:00 p.m. EDT on this date for the tenth annual PAUSE FOR THE PLEDGE and recite with all Americans the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag and nation.
Although the “Pause for the Pledge of Allegiance” will be observed at 7:00 p.m., Mayor Richter stated that Flag Day ceremonies will commence at 6:30 p.m.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION - GARY B. PATTERSON
By motion of Mrs. Legates, seconded by Mr. Lynn, Council unanimously adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, Gary B. Patterson has been an enthusiastic and hard working member of the City of Dover Library Commission since 1978, having served as Chairman for ten of those years; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Patterson has volunteered to serve as Chairman of the newly created Downtown Development Committee and will no longer be a member of the Library Commission; and
WHEREAS, while serving on the Library Commission, Mr. Patterson was a powerful influence in the decision to expand and renovate the public library, and worked diligently to expand the programs and improve the atmosphere of the library facilities for its users; and
WHEREAS, his sphere of influence and activity has extended outside the functions of the library into various community programs, making a definite contribution to community improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. The Mayor and Council express their sincere gratitude to Gary B. Patterson for his dedicated service to the City of Dover Library Commission and personal sacrifice of time for the good of the community and welfare of our citizens.
2. The Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to make this Resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover in recognition of their genuine appreciation to Mr. Gary B. Patterson.
ADOPTED: June 12, 1989
Stating that Mr. Patterson is the epitome of a citizen involved with his City, Mr. VanSant expressed his appreciation for the contributions made on behalf of the City of Dover.
PRESENTATION OF CHECK TO WDSD - PENNIES COLLECTED FOR RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE
The City of Dover employees were challenged by Kent County employees to “rally to the challenge” of collecting pennies to build a Ronald McDonald House in Delaware. Although City employees did not beat Kent County in the collection of pennies City employees saved a total of $517.27. On behalf of City of Dover employees, Mrs. Fran Hettinger presented a check in the amount of $250.00 from the Electric Department Employees Fund and a check in the amount of $267.27 donated by all general City of Dover employees. The checks were presented to representatives of WDSD Radio Station.
Mayor Richter extended appreciation to the City of Dover employees for their contributions.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 23, 21 AND 11 N. STATE STREET - MURIEL SCHWARTZ, SARA E. HUNN AND WESLEY COLLEGE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 23, 21, and 11 N. State Street, owned by Muriel Schwartz, Sara E. Hunn and Wesley College.
The rezoning public hearing was scheduled for May 8, 1989. By request of the owners, the public hearing was tabled and rescheduled for June 12, 1989 to allow sufficient time for the owners to meet with adjacent property owners to address their concerns.
Mr. Weyandt moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Levitt and unanimously carried.
Planner’s Review
The City Planner explained that 23 N. State Street is currently zoned as C-2A, and 11 and 21 N. State Street is currently zoned as RG-1. The proposed zoning for all three parcels is RG-5 (mid-rise apartment zoning classification). In considering the request, the Planning Commission took into consideration the existing land use and the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan which calls for this area to be utilized for government and institutional uses. The existing historical zoning classification that exists on the Howe House was also taken into consideration, as well as the recommendations of the Central Area Plan. The proposed rezoning supports the efforts in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Central Area Plan.
Correspondence
The City Clerk reported correspondence as follows:
1. A letter was received from Muriel Schwartz, dated May 24, 1989, requesting a modification to her request for RG-5 zoning to a zoning classification of RG-2.
2. Petition - Was received in opposition to the proposed rezoning to RG-5, containing approximately 85 signatures. The City Clerk reported that 46% of the property owners permitted to protest under the provisions of 22 Del. C. Sec. 305 did so by petition and, therefore, approval of the zoning amendment would require a three-fourths vote of the legislative body.
Petition - Was received in opposition tot eh proposed rezoning to RG-2 containing approximately 100 signatures. The City Assessor reported that 32% of the property owners permitted to protest under the provisions of 22 Del. C. Sec. 305 did so by petition and, therefore, approval of the zoning amendment would require a three-fourths vote of the legislative body.
3. Letter - from William S. Hudson, dated May 8, 1989, expressing opposition to the request and submitted the following concerns: excessively high density for a limited area; excessive impact on the traffic pattern in the area, and the on-street parking presently permitted in the area; adverse impact on the safety of children utilizing the adjacent street for access to and from Central Middle School.
A second letter was received from Mr. Hudson, dated June 1, 1989, stating that he was unaware of any change in attitude by residents due to downgrading the request to RG-2, and stated his opinion that a change in the zoning request would necessitate that the request be considered as an entirely new zoning change.
4. Letter - from Robert M. Berglund, President, Dover Hardware, supporting the rezoning request, reminding Council that central city revitalization consultants have advised that greater availability of high quality housing is needed in the area.
5. Letter - from G. Roland Everett, Jr. - 155 American Avenue, requesting diligent review by members of the Council concerning the request to allow a condominium complex in one of Dover’s oldest sections of town.
Mr. Everett cites such problems as increased traffic, insufficient parking, and the aesthetic impact to the historic decorum in this area of the City.
6. Letter - from Dr. Francis A. Stratford, Jr. - 16 N. State Street, opposing the proposed rezoning, feeling that high-density mid-rise dwelling units would irrevocably alter the charter of a predominately low-rise single-family Victorian neighborhood. Dr. Stratford cited problems with increased traffic in an area that is utilized by young children walking to and from a nearby school.
7. Letter - from Dee Coffey - 224 N. State Street, posing questions on the status of the rezoning and plans of the owner, and urged members of Council to preserve the historic nature of the City.
8. Letter - from Joseph S. Bellmeyer, Chairman of Finance Committee - Board of Trustees - Wesley College, stating that Wesley College takes no position on the merits of the zoning request.
Public Hearing
Mayor Richter declared the hearing open.
Ms. Muriel Schwartz addressed members of Council on the proposed zoning of the three properties. She explained the history behind the sale of the Wesley College and Hunn properties. Although the Wesley College property was placed on the open market over the country, Ms. Schwartz was the highest bidder and was awarded the property. Dick Johnson of Lincoln, Delaware was selected as construction manager for the project, and Bob Clendaniel was selected as architect. The proposed plan would permit the construction of residential condominiums. When her original plan for a hotel (bed and breakfast) did not materialize, she did not take advantage of the C-2A zoning by constructing something that would not be acceptable to the neighbors. Ms. Schwartz stated that she has attempted to maintain the best interests of the City and the community in her plans for this parcel. In this light, she requested the RG-2 zoning classification as an acceptable compromise to the concerns of neighbors of the high density allowance in the RG-5 zone.
Mr. Bob Clendaniel, architect for the project, displayed the proposed condominium plans, which decreases the proposed height and density of the RG-5 plan. The plan calls for underground parking for the entire complex, which would be accessed from American Avenue, and is based upon 54 units.
Ms. Schwartz stated her feeling that she was doing something very wonderful for the community. If downtown is to be vital, it must have people living in it, and she feels this plan will be a catalyst in achieving the City’s plans for downtown Dover. Growth in our community is inevitable and the most we can do is to grow in the very best way possible, which she feels this plan will do. There is a possibility that the Hunn House will be moved rather than demolished. Regarding concerns of excessive traffic, Ms. Schwartz stated that all residents will not be coming and going at the same time of day. Also, it is probable that elderly people will live in the units that may not drive, as well as young professional individuals that work in the downtown area that will not need to drive to work.
Letters from Helen and Anthony Vinciguerra and Ralph Lord were read into the record by Ms. Schwartz, as follows:
From: Anthony and Helen Vinciguerra
We have no objections to the rezoning to RG-2 of the properties bounded by State Street, Delaware Avenue, and American Avenue as petitioned by Muriel Schwartz.
From: Ralph M. Lord
Concerning Muriel Schwartz’s property on the corner of State Street and Delaware Avenue, I understand that she has requested a change in zoning from RG-5 to RG-2. I feel there is a definite need for condominium apartments in this area and feel that the plans submitted to the City will benefit the downtown area, therefore I urge your approval for the RG-2 zoning request.
Responding to a question by Mr. Hall on the possibility of constructing a similar project with lesser density allowance, Ms. Schwartz explained that the RG-1 zoning classification would limit the project to 30 units which would drive up the costs to an extent that they would be unaffordable. The costs for renovation of Richardson Hall is approximately $500,000, with the Howe property estimated at $300,000. Renovating the current structures is more costly than new construction.
Mr. James DeLeo, 105 N. State Street, addressed Council in opposition of the proposed rezoning. The neighbors in the area of the Schwartz parcels object to the density allowed in the RG-5 or RG-2 zone, feeling that this is too great for the area. Construction of the proposed project would require the removal of many of the existing trees along Delaware Avenue. The increased traffic would be extremely detrimental to the residential area and to the children that walk to and from a nearby school. Mr. DeLeo expressed concern with the possibility of demolition of Richardson Hall and the Hunn property which are two of the prettiest Victorian houses in the area. Mr. DeLeo objected to the fact that the condominium unit facing Delaware Avenue will not require architectural review since it is not in the Historic area. He feels that this project will drastically change his neighborhood and reminded members of Council that they took an oath to “always place the public interest above special and personal interests and to respect the right of future generations to share in the rich historic and natural heritage of Dover, Delaware”.
Asked for possible alternatives for the parcels that would be amenable to the neighbors, Mr. DeLeo suggested that the city, county, or state buy the back of the land for use as a park, although he acknowledged that this would be a costly venture. Responding to a question by Mr. Daisey, Mr. DeLeo stated his feeling that most neighbors would agree to a density allowance of 35 to 40 units.
Mr. Weyandt stated that the City recently paid for a professional study for the downtown area. The study indicates that this type of project is needed and will take private enterprise to implement. It would be impossible for the City to accomplish such a project with taxpayer’s dollars.
Mr. Salters stated that the City must take positive action or be prepared to see further deterioration of the entire inner City of Dover including State Street and Division Street. Although such decisions are hard to make, the City must look at what is best for the entire City of Dover. He alluded to the exorbitant amount of money that will be required for this project, stating that very few people would be willing to expend such funds.
Mr. VanSant asked Mr. DeLeo if he felt that the current deteriorating condition of Richardson Hall depreciates his property value. Mr DeLeo stated that the condition probably depreciates the value of his home, but the fact that a historical building is present probably increases its value.
Mr. John Gardner, one of the founders of a new homeowner’s association, addressed Council concerning the historical significance of the properties in question. Mr. Gardner informed Council that his organization is named HAVEN (Homeowners Association for Dover’s Victorian and Edwardian Neighborhoods) and was just recently formed. He distributed copies of a letter from HAVEN to members of City Council (on file in the City Clerk’s Office). The organization strongly opposes the rezoning request which could destroy historic buildings within the Victorian and colonial districts of Dover. Mr. Gardner stated that the properties are a significant part of the City’s historical heritage. HAVEN is impressed by the restoration and preservation efforts of New Castle and Odessa and are currently reviewing the role that architectural review has played. Their findings and recommendations for Dover will be submitted in the near future.
Responding to questions from Mr. Weyandt on suggested sources of funding for restoration and preservation efforts, Mr. Gardner stated that his organization has not had an opportunity to review this in detail, although he knows that federal tax benefits for such restoration work are available.
Mr. John Stevens of 115 N. State Street spoke in opposition to the rezoning, stating that development of condominiums at this location would be as onerous as such a development on the open space at The Green. Many property owners in this area of State Street are expending large sums of money in restoration of their homes in the Victorian District. Referring to economic growth, Mr. Stevens informed Council of a newspaper article he read of communities around the country that are using preservation as a tool for economic growth. The City of Dover will certainly grow, but he stated that Council must be sure that it grows in a quality manner.
Mrs. Norma Collins of American Avenue addressed Council, reminding them that such historical sites such as the Richardson and Robbins Building and the Rose Cottage has been restored and is still very much a part of the City’s heritage.
She cited the Loockerman Square project , located at the old Sears building on Loockerman Street, as an example of the type of development that can take place if not properly monitored. Mrs. Collins stated that Loockerman Square is a very modern type of building which is situated in the middle of colonial atmosphere. She urged members of Council to not allow destruction of the historical structures that are significant to the heritage of Dover.
Mr. Daniel Zeman of 31 American Avenue stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning. He stated that the Wesley College property has been steadily deteriorating over the years and he felt that the City should have taken steps to prevent further deterioration through utilization of building code laws.
Mr. Walter Ellis of Ellis & Burns Realty addressed members of Council concerning the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Ellis, residing at 5 S. State Street and owning property at 20 & 30 E. Division Street, stated that he totally restored the property located at 5 S. State Street a few years ago which was an expensive venture. Mr. Ellis stated that the proposed rezoning will not really change the use of the property, but the issue seems to be over density. As a realtor in the Dover area, Mr. Ellis discussed the issue of marketability of this project. The plan for underground parking will take the vehicles off the street as well as afford security to the residents of the complex. City ordinances require a developer to provide two parking spaces for each apartment unit. If Mrs. Schwartz develops this property without rezoning she would be forced to cut corners in order to make the project viable. Mr. Ellis predicted that the first thing to go would be the underground parking facility. Since she can develop 30 units at its current zoning, she could provide 60 parking spaces on the property. Although the number of units will be decreased, Mr. Ellis stated his opinion that it would be aesthetically less pleasing for the neighbors to have a surface parking lot at this location. Mr. Ellis stated his opinion that the project proposed by Mrs. Schwartz will be an improvement to the area that will enhance the property value of the surrounding neighborhood.
Mayor Richter declared the hearing closed.
Mr. VanSant referred to the one year expiration of Ms. Schwartz rezoning request which rezoned the property at 23 N. State Street to C-2A, asking the Solicitor if this would have any effect on the request now before Council. Mr. Rodriguez stated that this would be considered as a separate issue and will be acted on accordingly. If this rezoning request is approved, then the one year expiration zoning will become moot.
Since the Planning Commission has not acted on the revised request of a zoning classification of RG-2, Mr. VanSant felt that the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to Council action.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that although Council may act on a request that has been down-zoned from the requested zoning, Council certainly may refer the latest zoning classification request to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Mr. Lynn moved to refer the request for a zoning classification of RG-2 to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, seconded by Mr. Levitt, and carried by a voice call vote of seven (7) yes, two (2) no (Mrs. Legates and Mr. Christiansen).
The City Solicitor clarified that the public hearing has been held and will not be reopened. The Planner stated that the matter will be considered by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1989 for a report to Council at the Council Meeting of June 26, 1989.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - HORSEPOND ROAD - ELMA WILCUTTS
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the southerly side of Horsepond Road, owned by Elma Wilcutts.
Planner’s Review
The parcel consists of 3.4 acres, located on the southwest side of Horsepond Road, approximately 1,200 feet northwest of Janes Road. The present zoning is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (Single-Family Residential). The property owned by Elma Wilcutts was rezoned by the City during adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, taking into consideration the existing land use and the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated that the property contains a legal non-conforming single-family residence and that the request to rezone the property to R-8 will make it a conforming residential use.
Correspondence
The City Clerk reported that a letter from Mr. Glenn E. Hitchens was received; however, Mr. Hitchens requested to speak at the public hearing rather than have his letter read.
Public Hearing
Mayor Richter declared the hearing open.
Mr. Edward R. McNamara addressed Council on behalf of Mrs. Wilcutts. He advised Council that Mrs. Wilcutts has lived at the property since 1949 and that the home was built in 1912. He explained that Mrs. Wilcutts’ property was annexed into the City in 1970 and that the Comprehensive Plan indicated that her property was vacant farmland; therefore, was inadvertently given a zoning classification of IPM. Mr. McNamara requested that Mrs. Wilcutts’ property be given a zoning classification of R-8.
Mr. Glenn Hitchens, representing his client, Mr. Jacob Lutz the contract owner of a parcel of land which adjoins Mrs. Wilcutts’ property, addressed Council in opposition of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Hitchens explained that Mr. Lutz has contracted to purchase the four acres of land for the purpose of erecting an infectious waste incinerator. He advised Council that the project has been put on hold, pending State regulations. Mr. Hitchens stated that by Council resolving Mrs. Wilcutts’ hardship, it would only be creating a hardship for Mr. Lutz. Understanding the concerns of Mrs. Wilcutts, Mr. Hitchens suggested that a variance be granted or that the City change the non-conforming statute that would permit one to build a new home on their property if it were destroyed.
Mr. Hitchens explained that the site under contract by Mr. Lutz has a frontage of only 200 feet. If Mrs. Wilcutts’ property were rezoned residential, it would require a 100 foot sideyard setback and restrict Mr. Lutz from building the facility planned. When Mr. Lutz entered into the contract in July 1988, all surrounding areas were zoned industrial. It is Mr. Hitchens feelings that it would be unfair to change the zoning to residential at this time. He requested Council’s consideration for the hardship that would be created for Mr. Lutz should Mrs. Wilcutts’ property be rezoned residential. If Council approves to rezone Mrs. Wilcutts’ property to R-8, he requested that Council give Mr. Lutz consideration in applying for a variance.
Mr. Mike Foster, of Foster Realty, explained that Mr. Joseph Rizzo presently owned the 40 acres of IPM zoned land, part of which Mr. Lutz is purchasing. He stated that homeowners that reside in Dover Brook Gardens also purchased part of the property that was zoned IPM because it was adjacent to their present property and they wanted additional acreage. When the City Planner was questioned the possibility of these homeowners having their additional land rezoned, the City Planner stated that it could be considered.
Mr. John Kernan, a resident of Dover Brooks Gardens, stated that City Council adopted an ordinance which protects all wetlands within the City. Mr. Kernan advised Council that Mrs. Wilcutts’ property is completely surrounded by wetlands.
Mr. Hitchens stated that his is not aware of any record that substantiates these statement made by Mr. Kernan.
Mr. Foster explained that a wetland evaluation has been performed on the property that Mr. Lutz has under contract and has been approved for development.
Mayor Richter declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Christiansen moved to approve the rezoning in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Daisey.
Mr. VanSant clarified that a motion made by City Council on a moratorium was superceded by the State of Delaware and that the issue concerning construction of an infectious waste incinerator is presently being held up by action of the State of Delaware.
By questions of Mrs. Legates, Mr. Cregar explained that when Mr. Lutz applied for permission to build an infectious waste incinerator, determination was made based on the incinerator functioning and operating under the performance standards as set forth in the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cregar stated that the evaluation was performed through the Board of Adjustments under the regulations of the City’s ordinance. The only decision that has been made at this point is that an infectious waste incinerator, as proposed by Mr. Lutz, can perform to the performance standards as set forth in the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. Once the State of Delaware sets forth criteria for an infectious waste facility, then Mr. Lutz can apply for site plan review because the zoning would allow it. At that time, an evaluation would be made as to whether there are wetlands on the site, what their impact would be, and if the land could be developed in accordance with federal guidelines.
Mr. Weyandt called for the question and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF HORSEPOND ROAD.
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 IPM to R-8.
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 has been amended by changing the zoning designation from IPM to R-8 on that property located on the southerly side of Horsepond Road, owned by Elma Wilcutts.
ADOPTED: June 12, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - NORTHWEST OF MAYS LANE, WEST OF JANES ROAD - JAMES G. KOCH
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located northwest of Mays Lane, west of Janes Road, owned by James G. Koch.
Planner’s Review
The parcel consists of .8191 acres, located on the east side of 90 Janes Road. The present zoning is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (Single-Family Residential). The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, taking into consideration the existing land use in the area and the Comprehensive Plan which calls for low density residential uses.
Correspondence
The City Clerk reported that no correspondence was received on the proposed rezoning.
Public Hearing
Mayor Richter declared the hearing open.
There was no one present to speak for or against the rezoning request.
Mayor Richter declared the hearing closed.
Mr. VanSant moved to approve the rezoning request in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn and by unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF MAYS LANE, WEST OF JANES ROAD.
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 IPM to R-8.
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 has been amended by changing the zoning designation from IPM to R-8 on that property located northwest of Mays Lane, west of Janes Road, owned by James G. Koch.
ADOPTED: June 12, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - NORTHEASTERLY SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF MCKEE AND COLLEGE ROADS - H.BAXTER AND MARY E. MCKEE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the northeasterly side of the intersection of McKee and College Roads, owned by H. Baxter and Mary E. McKee.
Planner’s Review
The City Planner stated that the request is for 13.37 acres of interior property located in the northeast corner of the intersection of McKee and College Roads. The present zoning is R-20 (Single-Family Residential) and the proposed zoning is R-10 (Single-Family Residential). Referring to the Comprehensive Plan recommending that this area be utilized for governmental and institutional uses, Mr. Cregar explained that during the development of the updated Comprehensive Plan, it was thought that this area would be a possible location for an elementary school; however, in discussing this possibility with representatives of the Capital School District, they are no longer interested in this site. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, taking into consideration the existing land uses and densities in the area and its consistency with the overall development pattern of the area. The increases in density that would be permitted by this rezoning, is compatible with the existing residential character of the community.
Correspondence
The City Clerk reported that no correspondence was received on the proposed rezoning.
Public Hearing
Mayor Richter declared the hearing open.
There was no one present to speak for or against the rezoning request.
Mayor Richter declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Christiansen moved to approve the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Mrs. Legates. By unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF MCKEE AND COLLEGE ROADS.
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 R-20 to R-10.
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 has been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-20 to R-10 on that property located on the northeasterly side of the intersection of McKee and College Road, owned by H. Baxter and Mary E. McKee.
ADOPTED: June 12, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE - NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION TITLED COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (C-PO)
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a proposed ordinance that would create a new zoning classification titled Commercial/Professional Office Development District (C-PO).
Planner’s Review
Mr. Cregar advised Council that upon adopting the new C-PO zoning classification, it would be required to bring the text of the Zoning Ordinance into compliance, by amending Article 10, Section 5.19 (Closed Zones), Article 5, Section 4.4 (Supplementary Sign Regulations), and Article 12 (Definitions of Non-Residential Zones). He explained that although no new RG-0 classification’s would be created, all the existing RG-0 zoned lands would continue to be recognized and the current regulations would still prevail. The Planning Commission reviewed the new zoning district regulations and recommends that the district be created and the text amendment adopted.
Correspondence
The City Clerk reported receipt of a letter from the Kent County Board of Relators in support of the proposed C-P0 ordinance. It is there feeling that the proposed ordinance is a good approach to recent concerns regarding the RG-0 zoning classification.
Public Hearing
Mayor Richter declared the hearing open.
There was no one present to speak for or against the rezoning request.
Mayor Richter declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Weyandt moved to approve the new C-P0 zoning district rules and regulations as presented by the City Planner, seconded by Mr. Daisey. By unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance and text amendments:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
The Zoning Code of the City of Dover, Article 3, is hereby amended by adding a new section to be designated Section 26, to read as follows:
Section 26. Commercial/Professional Office Development District (C-P0)
26.1 General. In order to encourage, promote and protect superior professional office development and in particular, to encourage the establishment and grouping of office complexes for safer access, greater convenience and to prevent the development of professional offices in healthy, mature residential neighborhoods, office development shall be permitted in the C-PO district. Such district shall be located in order to serve as a transition area between low, medium and high intensity development.
26.2 Eligibility. No area shall be zoned for professional office development unless the following conditions are met:
(a) The development consists of a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet for a single office building development. Minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot depth of 100 feet shall be required for the establishment of a single office structure.
(b) The development shall be served by public water and public sewerage which shall be in place at the time construction begins.
(c) The frontage of the development shall be of sufficient width that safe and efficient access to the commercial professional office development can be adequately spaced from accesses to adjacent properties according to standards set forth by the Department of Transportation, Division of Highways.
26.3 Uses Permitted. In a commercial/professional office development district no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose except the following:
26.31 Business, professional or governmental offices.
26.32 Banks, Savings and Loan Associations, Investment Companies, Credit Bureaus, Brokers and similar financial institutions.
26.33 Service agencies, such as Real Estate Agencies, Insurance Agencies, Computer Services, Travel Agencies.
26.34 Medical and dental offices including clinics and laboratories incidental to these uses.
26.35 Offices for philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions and organizations.
26.4 Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted, conditioned upon the approval of the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in Article 10, Section 10.1, (Approval of Conditional Uses).
26.41 After a building complex in this zone has reached a gross floor area of one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet, then the following uses shall be permitted as Conditional Uses:
(a)Cafeteria
(b)Restaurant
(c)Barber Shop/Beauty Shop
(d)Copy Center
(e)Office Supply
(f)Retail Store
(g)Newsstand
(h)SPA and Health Club
(I)Associated Laboratories (other than those affiliated with permitted medical uses).
26.42 Drive-in facilities for any permitted use, designed primarily to provide services to persons while they are in automobiles.
26.43 Residential. Apartments provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted on the first floor and at least two off street parking space shall be provided in the area for each apartment.
26.44 Building height dimensions in excess of the maximum 3 stories and 35 feet as set forth in Section 26.8, may be permitted within the Dover Central Area, under no circumstances shall a building be permitted to exceed seven 7 stories and 85 feet in height above grade in this district.
26.5 Signs Standards. Signs announcing the name, insignia and/or logo of the occupants or uses on the same lot provided that:
(a) All signs shall be located within the respective property lines of the uses to which they refer.
(b) Not more than one (1) sign shall be permitted for each tenant on the premises, on each wall fronting on a street. Such sign shall not exceed a total sign area of twelve (12) square feet.
<