paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, May 21, 2018 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall, City Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1) Conditional Use Application C-18-03 Kidz Business Day Care Center at 65 North DuPont Highway will not be heard by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2018 due to incomplete public notice. This Application and its Public Hearing will be rescheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting and will be subject to Public Notice requirements for the new meeting date. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING & QUARTERLY WORKSHOP SESSION of April 16, 2018 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for MONDAY, June 18, 2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. 2) Update on City Council Actions 3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING APPLICATIONS OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Update on Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28) NEW APPLICATIONS: 1) C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy Day Care Center at 822 South State Street – Public Hearing and Review of Application for Conditional Use to permit conversion of an existing 3,526 SF one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 52 children. The subject site contains three (3) separate buildings, and the Day Care Center is proposed to occupy only the southernmost structure which is the largest. The property consists of a 0.585- acre parcel and is located on the west side of South State Street, south of Gooden Avenue and north of Wyoming Avenue. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The owner of record is TVEN3, LLC and the applicant (lessee) is Latoya Boseman. Location Address: 822 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-03-43.00-000. Council District 2.

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 2 2) SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments at 100 Isabelle Isle – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit subdivision of the 28.67 +/- acre parcel of the Leander Lakes Apartment complex into two (2) new lots. Parcel A is proposed to have 22.94 acres (Buildings 1-8) and Parcel B is proposed to have 5.73 acres (Buildings 9 and 10). The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) requirements. The property is located on the southeast side of Forrest Avenue, and southwest of Dover High Drive. The owner of record is Leander Lakes, LLC. Property Address: 100 Isabelle Isle. Tax Parcel: ED- 05-075.00-01-05.01-000. Council District 1. 3) S-18-04 Dover Police Department Impound Lot at 401 West Water Street – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a 11,940 S.F. Impound Lot for the Dover Police Department as a fenced area for motor vehicle storage. The site is located on the north side of Water Street between West Street and South Queen Street. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is 0.78 +/- acres. The owner of record is the City of Dover. Property Address: 401 W. Water Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.12-04-35.00-000, ED-05-076.12-04-39.00-000 and ED-05-076.12-04-40.00-000. Council District 4. NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities b. Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations ADJOURN THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Posted Agenda: May 11, 2018

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2018 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden (arrived at 7:03PM), Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mrs. Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mr. Jason Lyon, Mr. Julian Swierczek and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. David Edgell, Ms. Patti Miller and Mr. Bill Swiatek. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Holt moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Holden and Mrs. Welsh absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2018 Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of March 19, 2018, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Holden and Mrs. Welsh absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on March 26 & 27, 2018 and April 9 & 10, 2018. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities (Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 and Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8 and Article 12) –The Planning Commission on March 19, 2018 tabled action on the Review of Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 of Text Amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Lend Lease Communities; to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8- Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone; and to Zoning Ordinance, Article 12- Definitions. A Report on the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing and action to table this application was forwarded to City Council for their meeting of April 9, 2018. Planning Staff is working on the information requested by the Planning Commission; continued review is anticipated at a future meeting. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 Representatives – None Mr. Hugg stated that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered Ordinance #2018-01 which is a variety of amendments to the Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities portion of the City Code and Zoning Ordinance. This matter was tabled at that meeting as a result of a fair amount of input and materials that were presented by representatives of the manufactured housing community. At the Council meeting, Council tabled the second (final) reading of this Ordinance, deferring to the Planning Commission for a future recommendation. In the interim, he and Mr. Diaz have met and consulted with the Deputy City Solicitor as recently as today in terms of the various issues raised and we will be scheduling a meeting within the next few weeks with representatives of the manufactured housing organization to discuss their concerns. There may be areas where they can agree or agree to disagree and then bring a recommendation back to the Planning Commission that is a reflection of that discussion. Mr. Tolbert stated that you may recall that at the last meeting he recused himself for this application. His recusal still stands for this meeting. Ms. Maucher moved to defer action on MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities (Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 and Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8 and Article 12) until Staff has had sufficient time to collect the information that the Commission has requested until the June or July meeting. Mr. Diaz stated that it would help Staff a lot if they knew specifically which month she would like to defer action to so that they have more of a target. Responding to Mr. Diaz, Ms. Maucher stated that she would like to defer action to the June meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roach and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to the ongoing work that Mr. Hugg has relayed as ongoing and the Planning Commission would enjoy the benefit of that before they make a decision. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that we need all of the information that they can possibly gather to come up with a correct response. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he would like to be fully informed before making a decision. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. 1) Update on Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they still do not have confirmation of the two potential members outside the Commission to serve on that body, but they will work diligently to get that confirmed. NEW APPLICATIONS: None 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 NEW BUSINESS 1) Presentation on Delaware PLAN4Health a. Guidance for Incorporating Health into the City of Dover’s Comprehensive Plan Representatives: Ms. Patti Miller, Nemours Children Health System; Mr. Bill Swiatek, Delaware Chapter of the American Planning Association Ms. Miller stated that she and Mr. Swiatek were on the Leadership Team for PLAN4Health and they are also joined by another member team, Mr. David Edgell. They wanted to present on the outcomes of Delaware PLAN4Health and to also share some recommendations for the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. PLAN4Health was funded by the CDC. Kent County, Delaware was one of seventeen coalitions that was awarded at that time. The project engaged the State affiliates of the American Planning Association and the American Public Health Association and the intent was to get planning and public health professionals to work together. The focus of the funding was to address lack of physical activity and lack of access to healthy foods because these are determinants of chronic disease. They leveraged an already existing coalition known as the Delaware Coalition for Healthy Eating and Active Living so that they could get the different stakeholder groups and sectors to the table that were needed for this work. They applied on behalf of Dover and Kent County because of compelling health data that showed that there were some local challenges. They were also aware that Dover’s Comprehensive Plan and Kent County’s Plan were both due to be updated in the near future. One of the aims of the funding was to change the way Comprehensive Plans are updated so that health and equity are considered on the front end during the planning process. The outcome of them wanting to change the process was that they developed some guidance documents to give to Dover and Kent County. A few of the data points that were highlighted in the application were shown so that they could make the case that there were health disparities and that there was a need for some planning assistance. Kent County is the county with the highest adult obesity rate in the State. They highlighted that the unemployment rate in Kent County exceeds that of the State and the nation and also that there are 13% of the population living below the federal poverty line which exceeds the statewide rate. There were a lot of different moving parts. They conducted health equity mapping so that we could see areas of the County where there were concerns about healthy food access, availability of parks and open space and walking and biking. They used this to identify what they called “equity hotspots” that they could drill down on more closely. They also conducted a household survey of five hundred households in Kent County to gather data on health status, health behaviors and the built environment. Then because community engagement was really at the heart of this work, they had two three-day planning workshops: one in Downtown Dover and one in Kent County in the Magnolia and Woodside areas. The intent was to have a forum where residents could come to look at maps. They could give their ideas of what a healthy community looks like and they could vote on different strategies that they put forth for consideration. There are the guidance documents that she talked about. One they developed for the City of Dover and one they developed for Kent County. They also wanted to develop some tool kits on areas of 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 consideration that would advance healthy new physical activities so they developed a tool kit on shared use because they wanted to encourage the use of that in Delaware. There were five hundred households in the County that completed the surveys. They learned that most people have to drive at least three miles to get groceries. They heard that there are limited walkable and bikeable destinations. She doesn’t think that it is so much a problem for the City of Dover but it was something that came across in the survey. They learned that people are biking as a mode of transport and not necessarily choosing that to recreate. They also heard that most people do not live close enough to walk or bike to parks. These are the findings from the three day workshop. These were the things that we heard from the residents who dropped in and other stakeholders. We heard that a lot of people are shopping at convenience stores and as a result, we should bring healthier options to where people are already going. They heard that in places where there is a sidewalk network, there are gaps and barriers. They heard that a bike network would be really helpful to connect destinations of interest. They heard that there are not enough parks that people can walk or bike to and that new parks should be created and that they should be linked to where people live with sidewalks and bike routes. Mr. Swiatek stated that the biggest thing that they want to talk about is really seven core principles that came out of this plan to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan update. It’s really for not only for Dover but for any Comprehensive Plan update that could occur. Those involve health equity; the mobility for all modes of transportation; recognizing the health value of the park system; community facilities that support health; food system planning; economic value of healthy communities; and then land use with the compact mixed-use place-based types of development. These are some of the highlights. There are twenty-three firm recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan for Dover that they kind of dug through and said here is exactly what language could be included to really put health at the forefront of that plan. In terms of the population and demographics section, including relevant health and demographic data into that document would be great as well as the discussion of the trends and then the analysis of population just related to health. With natural resources, its considering health benefits that are there to access nature, to access open space and to access the natural areas that are around the city. Promoting access to the City’s natural resources is really the biggest recommendation in that section. In terms of community services and facilities, restructuring the chapter to emphasize the community services that are there and their ability for health promotion. (He shared the Concept Plan that they created during one of the charrettes held in Dover for Saulsbury Park.) You can see the variety of uses that could be there for people of all different age groups with playground facilities, community gardens and courts. Easy access to that park is a big feature of this concept design. There are bike lanes on the street, easy access into the neighborhood and an easy trail for folks to recreate. In terms of transportation, he thinks that most recommendations in this section focus on mobility, equity and health. It emphasizes the non-motorized system such as pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes because they promote healthy activity. Improving connectivity especially between schools, between parks, between housing, points of interest and healthy food retail. Often times we design a development that’s not really accessible to reach so improving connectivity is a big 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 part of that and they think it should be in the Comprehensive Plan. This Map Exhibit is an example of what was created during the charrette that shows a proposed bike network in the City of Dover that would create that connectivity for active transportation. In terms of economic development, it’s emphasizing the potential for economic development driven by active recreation, driven by healthy food retail and also something important as well is pursuing an inclusive workforce development programs and strategies, especially for groups that are economically disadvantaged. The relationship to health is to have good economic ability to be able to afford healthy foods and education and so forth; it all is tied in there. Perhaps what he thinks is the most important is land development. Promoting a compact mixed use development really underscores a lot of this. If we keep developing in ways that kind of spread out, we are going to be shooting ourselves in the foot to have that connectivity that we are looking for in all of these other measures. This document is available electronically at www.DEPlan4Health.org . Mr. Tolbert questioned if he understood correctly that Kent County has the highest obesity rate in Delaware? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Miller stated that at the time that they applied for the grant they had the highest adult obesity rate. She doesn’t know if that is still the case but when they made application it was. Ms. Maucher questioned if they have gone through the City’s ordinances? She is thinking that parking is one where there is a requirement for a minimum number of parking spaces which encourages additional vehicles. Are there specific recommendations? These seem to be broad and lack a certain what do we need to do to get this goal? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Swiatek stated that they just looked at the broad Comprehensive Plan; they didn’t dig into the Code. Mr. Hugg stated that as was indicated, their Comprehensive Plan has to be updated this year and recertified by early June 2019. Staff has been looking at the plan now for 2-3 months and accessing where it is, what parts may need some additional attention. But starting from the premise, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan is a pretty darn good plan and what they need to do is not necessarily take blank sheets of paper and start over but in fact look at that plan in terms of adding context and adding some dimensions to it particularly in a couple of areas. Health is clearly one of those areas that they have recognized not only in the comprehensive planning process but in the Restoring Central Dover planning process and a lot of things are going on Downtown. The recommendations and conclusions that were identified early on here are spot on. If you are a resident of the west end of Loockerman Street, your only real easy food choice is the Family Dollar which has an interesting array of foods. You could probably meet your basic requirements on a day to day basis, but he certainly wouldn’t describe them as fresh vegetables and high-quality foods that we would encourage people to be eating. They primarily have processed foods and canned foods and things that are probably not as good for you as you might think. Related to that, they have also had discussions about how to reuse Brownfield sites in the urban area in the West Loockerman Street area. This is also a hot topic in EPA with their Urban Agriculture Program. He thinks there is a focus on health and that a being an issue that really 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 needs to be incorporated in our planning. As we go through the rest of the evening tonight, they are going to be talking to Commission about their strategy for revising the Dover Plan. He wants to thank and commend the Plan4Health group for bringing this to the Commission. Not only does it re-enforce the need to kind of think about some of these issues, but he likes the fact that they have been given recommendations that can be incorporated in the plan to make the plan a whole lot stronger; particularly by chapter. He thinks that there are probably a couple of areas like that where the plan does not have a strong emphasis on health and it does not have a strong emphasis on energy. There are some things that we as planners have learned over the last ten years that maybe it’s time to take a look at our Plan and reshape it in terms of more policy documents and less prescriptive. This is very appropriate and timely that we would be addressing these kinds of issues, particularly if we try to revitalize older neighborhoods and first year suburbs. Mr. Holt questioned the smoking problem that seems to be everywhere now and if there is a way to possibly eliminate childhood smoking in their teenage years and that would help eliminate it when they get older. Now would be a good time because tobacco companies have already admitted that they have been lacing their cigarettes with high grade nicotine to try to get people addicted to cigarettes. Prices of cigarettes are really up there so now would be a good time to try to do it. To do something like that would really be a major effort but he thinks that it would be well worth everybody’s health especially young kids growing up today. You could do some type of monetary reward system or some kind of job reward to get kids not to smoke. If they don’t smoke by the time that they are 17 or 18 then they probably aren’t going to smoke. Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Miller stated that it was beyond the scope of what they are doing but she knows that they are groups in Delaware who are focused on that issue like American Cancer Society and American Heart Association. Dr. Jones stated that she did read through the document and found it very interesting. The consideration of educational strategies is needed to make sure the plan works in the final analysis. All of the wonderful ideas that we have from the 500 households who participated in the survey didn’t really give a lot of information about the demographics of that survey. We are going to be dealing with some individuals who need education in order to understand that it may not be quicker to run to the Family Dollar store but it’s not healthier. For those of us who have worked with certain populations, we know very well that because we say something it doesn’t mean anything; we have got to demonstrate. Was there an educational component? Responding to Dr. Jones, Ms. Miller stated that she would say they were able to educate the people who came to the planning workshops, but she doesn’t know if the general public intuitively realized how land use can shape their opportunities. So, by virtue of them having an opening presentation, a closing presentation, putting some options out there and kind of talking to them about the pros and cons for that smaller subset of people, she would say that they were educated. Beyond Delaware Plan4Health there have been a lot of groups that have been working on the education piece like the Delaware Coalition for Healthy and Active Living. They have presented to boards such as you. They have worked with schools and different stakeholders. She thinks there have been a lot of those campaigns and the beauty of this is bringing the public health and planning professionals together because we have to shape the environments people are in. If we wag our fingers and tell people to eat better but there is nowhere near them to get it because the zoning isn’t supported or the land use isn’t supported, our education can only go so far. To her, it’s the 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 beauty of bringing those different professions to the table and coming at it from a programmatic side, policy side and education side. Mr. Swiatek stated that he would echo what Ms. Miller said and also there are just so many places that you have those barriers and really a lot of this is just about giving people choice. Choice to get that healthy food and choice to go to the park on a bicycle instead of riding in your car. He lives in Bear, DE and they have a great park called Glasgow Park. This weekend it was beautiful and the park was packed because everybody had to drive there because it’s a suburban environment and because it was designed poorly in that section. This plan is about how we can assist Dover with their Comprehensive Plan update so that same thing doesn’t happen here. Mr. Roach stated that in looking at their research in regards to healthy eating, did you identify certain areas within Dover that seem to have more places that are more prevalent in regards to the options that they can have? Responding to Mr. Roach, Ms. Miller stated that with the mapping that she referred to, they mapped a retail food environment index that was a ratio of healthy to unhealthy or vice versa. They did do some mapping that showed how much of the population was within a one mile radius of grocery stores. We were able to map that and then they also from the survey they over sampled some zip codes and they could kind of see those zip codes depending on where the questions fell out in terms of higher obesity rates and less access to food. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Office does have the full document including the appendices if the Commission is interested they can make it available. Mr. Holden stated that he wanted to thank them for the work and bringing the information to us tonight. It is helpful to hear you and understand it a little bit better. Mr. Roach stated that he also wanted to echo that statement and say thank you as well. That was one of his platforms when he was speaking about community involvement and things to be able to provide people with other opportunities, not only just with health and recreation. When he opened this document and saw Saulsbury Park he thought that is right where he lives. He honestly does appreciate that and he would love to see that come to fruition especially in that neighborhood because they have nothing else to do. Mr. Tolbert stated that he doesn’t know if their department has any contact with the State health department that deals with the problems of women, infants and children. We have had a high rate of infant mortality in Delaware. Are you concerned about that and do you deal with the agency that deals with that problem? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Miller stated that she has colleagues at Nemours that are part of the Delaware Healthy Infant and Mother Consortium and obviously that is one of the issues that they deal with. They didn’t address it in this plan was it is obviously a negative health outcome that needs to be addressed. There are environmental components to that as well. Mr. Hugg stated that one of their recommendations that he whole heartedly agrees with is the need for some kind of food hub or central location. Part of the problem is that we have surpluses of fresh fruits and vegetables in places and places that have no access to them because they are 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 not convenient. He knows that the County has looked at the food innovation notation. He wants to know if this group has any suggestions on how to get a food hub to come to fruition here in Dover or Kent County. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Edgell stated that he is with the Office of State Planning Coordination and also a leadership team member of the Plan4Health. Due to the work that they started with Plan4Health, they engaged a broad range of stakeholders throughout the agricultural community, food producers, and a bunch of different groups. Out of that, they were able to talk with the Department of Agriculture’s new secretary, Secretary Scuse. There was a report done at the end of the Markell administration about this very issue and the new administration has picked that up and just held a food and farm policy forum about two or three weeks ago and that was the essential question. They have a lot of farm producers and they’ve got a lot of food production and planning systems that are complex in Delaware. It is really a global system and really looking at how we do something like a food hub here in Kent County and all throughout Delaware. It’s a work in progress but he thinks that it is something to stay informed about. Hopefully, Kent County is a place where that can be successful. Mr. Roach stated that in regard to healthy eating, the one thing that he has learned just by working at Child Protective Services now and also working as a family crisis therapist at Booker T. Washington Elementary School, a lot of times people that live in the income-based housing facilities most of the time don’t have cars. He was always told that the issue is that our DART system and our public transportation system shuts down so early that it is impossible to be able to get to these places to get groceries and get them back home. A lot of the times that he speaks to his clients’ family members and people in those income-based houses. They always say if there was public transportation that would run later when people get off of work they would have more opportunities to go to grocery stores to bring things home. A lot of times if you look at Capital Park, Capital Green and Simon Circle areas you will find a Royal Farms around the corner where you can get a box of chicken quicker than you can walk across the street to go to a Food Lion. It makes sense, whether you would send the kids around the corner to go pick something up as opposed to you getting on the bus and have access to transportation to be able to make that. There is a difference between walking somewhere to grab something and then having to walk back with the groceries. You end up with grocery carts in neighborhoods and then people walking around with them. It is a difficult fix but he does know that every single time he talks to people in regards to eating healthier they always say that if they had easier access or more available access and time to be able to do these things they would. Most of the time they don’t have time because DART shuts down at 5 or 6 PM. Ms. Maucher questioned if the City offers incentives to bring those types of businesses into the Downtown Development District? She knows that we offer incentives but are there targeted incentives? Are there best practices that cities who are faced with this problem have adopted and have worked well? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Swierczek stated that the Downtown Development District doesn’t specifically target any kind of food type businesses; it’s more business in general. Mr. Edgell stated that it’s not a bad idea to think about that sort of thing. He thinks that when you read the healthy food retail policy recommendations that’s really the spirit. They heard exactly the same things that Mr. Roach was speaking about. The interesting thing about the food mapping that they did is that Dover is full of grocery stores. But within walking distance of 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 where people live, there really aren’t any. The Food Lion in Gateway West is maybe close to Lincoln Park but it is tough for somebody who doesn’t have public transportation or a vehicle to get there. He thinks that it is an excellent idea to look at Downtown and all neighborhoods and think about how to incentivize healthy food retail in those areas. Mr. Holt stated that he used to take DART (Paratransit) to get places since he can’t drive because of his eyesight but their fees have recently gone up. He doesn’t know what the reason for that is but it’s eliminated a lot of people from taking DART. The price used to start out at $2.00 and now he thinks that it’s close to $5.00 per trip. It doesn’t seem like a lot but if you are just going across the street to get groceries, that is expensive since it’s the fee for one way. They are good about helping people get their groceries from the cart onto the bus and then when they get home, they would help the person get the groceries off of the bus. Recently, he has had to eliminate DART because it got to be a little too expensive. He doesn’t know if DART was trying to eliminate passengers or what the reason was but he would like to see them reconsider their rates and get back to where people can actually afford to use them. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Swiatek stated that he thinks that DART tries to do the best job that they can do but they are really being stretched thin by the land use issue. His day job is with the Wilmington Area Planning Council which is in New Castle County and they have done an analysis looking at the percentage of the population within walking distance to a bus stop and that has been falling for the last decade. Things are getting a little more spread out and they are having to spread out their system a little more and it’s causing costs to go up. The ridership has been nose-diving in the last couple of years because of that. Mr. Roach stated that as far as with the state assistance, sometimes they do give DART passes. It’s difficult because in order to go to apply for these types of services and to get some of the assistance that we do have, you have to go way out to the State Services buildings that are usually so far from everywhere where people are located. Now you have to go behind the Blue Hen Mall which is where a lot of the programs are. It’s just a difficult task when you are talking about healthy eating because sometimes for these populations, the main thing they are worried about is just eating. So to think about eating healthy as well, that’s not on the forefront of their minds. Just to know that they will either have money to get a provided meal or get a DART bus. A lot of, it’s just that switch so maybe if we allow opportunities to be a little bit more accessible in regard to those assistances. He knows people who will literally sell their food stamps to have money to be able to pay a bill and then be able to save a little bit of that money to get a bucket of chicken to eat for 2 or 3 days. They are not going to think about the benefits from being able to cook and be able to have that food last longer because at that point, it’s an immediate need. You deal with the fact that you tell a parent with 3 or 4 kids that they have to sit in a State services assistance building all day. Have you ever gone down to receive any assistance? You are going to be there all day. When you look at things like that, there is more to infrastructure in regard to being helpful to these people that have to walk. Because like he said, he has a car and he will go to Food Lion 24/7 to shop for his family but the people who have a lot of different barriers that comes across as more than just a choice. Sometimes the choice isn’t that they want to eat healthy or not healthy. Most of the time it’s just that they want to eat. He thinks that it is maybe trying to tackle some of those outside barriers in regards to ways that are hindering people from allowing themselves to be able to make that choice to have a choice at all. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 Mr. Tolbert stated that he would like to thank the presenters very much and he would like to ask them to keep the Commission informed as they further develop their plan. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Swiatek stated that they look forward to Dover really being one of the first cities in the State that can implement this and really be an example for other towns across the State to incorporate health in their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tolbert stated that it is very important that they do become successful with the efforts. PROJECT FOR DOVER’S 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Update on Project Activities Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Commission has gotten a slight taste of what is the next big project other than applications for the Planning Office and that is Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The current plan that is certified for the City dates to 2008. Lot of the current Commissioners were not on the Commission at that time. Mr. Hugg has already mentioned that Staff has kind of started the behind the scenes efforts in what will be the process to develop the next plan. The Comprehensive Plan has a whole series of chapters on different topic areas and a whole series of maps that go along with it. The document is available on the City’s website if you want to start reading the current plan. In March, the Planning Staff submitted their current plan for what they call a Pre-Update Review by PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Services) review process that is typically utilized for applications of a certain size. They also offer the opportunity for you to send your current plan through and get initial comments from a variety of State agencies so that you have some data about where you need to make improvements to your plan and information about new State regulations that may have come into play since 2008. They did that presentation in late March and they are expecting comments back from that process at any time. That will all go into their process for creating the new plan. Planning Staff has been meeting to organize what their strategy is for research, the assignment of tasks of the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan and to talk about what the outreach processes will be for that plan. It’s something that is ongoing. They have a weekly meeting to discuss that so that it doesn’t get away from them. They have actually already started some of the very specific agency outreaches. There are a number of State agencies and other entities that they will be directly working with. So far, they have met with people from DelDOT in their Regional Systems Planning section which is an office at DelDOT that is starting to look a little more holistically in long range planning about the transportation systems. They are going to be a data resource for us. We have already asked them some questions and they have tossed some information back, but they will see more information that way. They have also shared information with the Public Works Director and the Electric Department Superintendent about those chapters that focus on activities that other City departments are involved in and have a much greater knowledge than the Planning Office does as to what our water system, sanitary sewer system and electric system look like today and how they have been improved and what their plans for the future are. Mr. Hugg may want to speak directly about economic development. He has been working with that and has some significant ideas about how to approach considering economic development for the plan. Tonight, you heard about the Plan4Health items which give them an excellent starting point for ways to incorporate looking at health in all of the chapters. If you really look through that document, they really 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 setup a whole series of things that we can easily incorporate into our plan which just brings that issue of health to the forefront at this point. Mr. Hugg stated that they are beginning to think through the process of how to get input from people who are subject matter experts and how do we get input from the general public who may be affected by some of these issues like transportation and access to food. And more than anything else, how do we set the proper context for what they are recommending in the plan given that in many of these areas, the world as we know it has changed a lot in ten years and it’s probably going to change a lot more in the next ten years. No matter where you look, you start thinking what will be the effect of autonomous vehicles? What will be the effect of electric vehicles? We’ve seen retail go from mom and pop to small strip centers to huge malls to mega malls, back down to shopping centers and back down to neighborhood stores. You would not have imagined ten years ago that UPS and FedEx would be more prevalent in your neighborhood than the postal service but they are. There are all these things going on out there that they sometimes as planners tend to miss because we don’t quite understand the market dynamics. In the economic development arena they are going to be doing two things that he thinks will prove to be very informative and also provide good guidance for our plan. One of the things that they recognized that the education community in Dover was not really involved in the planning process to the level that some of us thought they should be. We have five institutions of higher education in Dover so in essence, we are a college town but we don’t see any evidence of the college involvement in the Downtown. We don’t see those people being integrated into the community. The education institutions largely occupy their campuses and do their job but we have never really asked them what they think about the future economy of Dover. They are going to have a big heads talking conference where somebody from each of the universities is going to be asked to think about and talk about where they see the Dover regional economy changing over the next twenty years to kind of get a better sense of should they be recruiting certain kinds of industries or certain kinds of businesses. What is really driving some of what they are seeing that’s happening? At the other end, they are going to be talking to the bricks and mortar people; the property owners and business owners to maybe look at some of these questions like how do you get a Green Grocer in Downtown Dover? That is a theme that they are applying across the board in each of the chapter assignments that they are working on. How would you set the context for the discussion so that you understand the thinking behind it and won’t just start off by saying, we have five hundred miles of local streets and we have to do this, that and the other to improve transportation? Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet is a chart titled Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations. This first chart looks at the goals of the Comprehensive Plan from 2008. Each of the main topic area chapters has a series of goals; typically anywhere from 3-5 goals and there is a statement that is associated with them. With this chart, Staff would like the Commission to evaluate the importance of each of those goals. They are asking the Commission to use a rating system from 1-5 with 1 being less important, 2 being somewhat important, 3 being important, 4 being more important and 5 being very important. They have also provided a location for the Commissioners to jot down any notes or comments in regard to that goal or if they think there is something missing. Certainly, any kind of notes helps Staff start to figure it out. The first set of items focuses on the chapters of Natural Resources and Environmental 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 Protection and Historic Preservation. There is a chapter that deals with Public Utilities and Community Infrastructure. The chapter on Community Services and Facilities is where you find City areas and some of the other City type services as well as some discussion of things that aren’t owned by the City. The next chapter is Transportation followed by a chapter on Economic Development and lastly a chapter on Housing and Community Development. Staff would like the Commissioners to take a look at those goals, give them a rating of 1-5 and they are judging each goal in itself. You don’t have to compare it and come up with the priority number one out of the entire list. Judge each one on its own merits and provide Staff comments. What the Staff did not include in the packet is Chart 2. (Mr. Swierczek handed out) Ms. Maucher questioned if these were the goals in the 2008 Plan? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that these are the goals that are in the 2008 Plan. They are consolidated in Table 1-1 in the Plan which is the Introduction Chapter but then these goals are very specifically for Chapters 5-11. The Commissioners have everything that they need to do right on the chart. They don’t have to go in search of the document itself. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the second chart that was just handed out takes the next step and that is looking at the series of recommendations for each of those chapters. Staff would like the Commission to do that evaluation of importance using the same rating scale of 1-5 and again providing some comments on each. If you look at the recommendations, they start to be a little more defined as to project activities that you might think of but somewhat still very broad. Each of these chapters has a series of goals and then under each goal is a series of recommendations. Staff has kind of split them out into two charts for the Commissioners to start evaluating. This is the Commissioners’ homework assignment. The Planning Staff has its own homework assignment. They will also be getting a very similar chart which will also take a look at the action items that were in the Comprehensive Plan in support of these goals and recommendations. They will be working on a status of those action items. Are they done or complete? Did Staff not start them at all? Or are they ongoing? Mr. Tolbert questioned when the homework assignment was due to be turned in? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that by the next meeting would be wonderful. If you want to be super anxious and want to get it to Staff by Friday of this week that would be fine as well. Staff would like to have them back at the next meeting because this is starting to inform our decision-making process about how this process for development of the new document will transpire. Mr. Holden questioned if it would be possible to get the homework assignment in digital form to type responses in? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they can certainly do that as it is an Excel spreadsheet but you can still use pencil and paper. Staff will send it by email to all of the Commissioners. Ms. Maucher questioned when Planning Staff expects to have their homework assignment done? She is very curious to see what the goals were in 2008 and have we met them or exceeded them. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they can certainly see what Staff 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 has available for the Commission for the May meeting. Some of these are not quite as easy as you think to answer. Mr. Hugg stated that Staff is on the same kind of timeframe that they are asking the Commission to be on. If you work backwards from next February, the draft plan needs to be to the State for review in the early fall. They really need to use April, May and June to come to a level of confidence and comfort with the goals, the recommendations and whatever the action items were because that will drive a lot of the rest of the discussion. Dr. Jones stated that the agrees with Ms. Maucher because for her it would help to give some additional information so that she is responding a little bit more intelligently. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that they will certainly share with the Commission all of the things that they are developing but he doesn’t think that any of them on the Planning side want to tell the Commission what they want them to think. They really do want the Commission’s input because they have a particular role in this process. They are the professional staff that is telling them how the plan should be organized and what some of the objectives are, but the Commissioners actually sit in judgment at most meetings of land use decisions and rezonings. They are more important than what Staff might think of a particular goal. Staff will share the goals with the Commission. They are not going to keep the Commission in the dark, but he doesn’t want to influence anyone’s thinking. The Commission is also invited to come to the Planning Office to chat with any Staff member about these topics. They certainly would appreciate the Commissioners coming in to do that and they are also welcome to come to the weekly Comprehensive Plan meetings as well. They are turning out to be held on Thursday mornings. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS UPDATE Summary of 2017 and 2018 Applications Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Summary of Applications was included in the packet. It includes the summary of application tallies for 2017 and 2018. This chart includes all of the applications for the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Historic District Commission and a number of things that are reviewed administratively or otherwise given an application number for tracking processes. They finished 2017 with a total of 77 applications. That was slightly down from 83 in 2016 but it was still enough to keep them fairly busy. They were a number of large projects moving through the Site Plan review process; some of which have gone final. They have started the construction activity related to the new Residence Hall at Delaware State University. They have been through the first phase which dealt with utility relocation. They expect to issue the Building Permit for construction within the next few weeks. It is ready to go, just waiting on them to organize all of their financing with that project. She is not concerned that 77 is less than 83. You can see that for 2018 through four months of the year, we are sitting with 11 applications. Hopefully, those numbers will continue to grow and we will be extremely busy all year long. Updates on Current Studies and Projects • Downtown Parking Study Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mr. Hugg mentioned earlier the Downtown Parking Study. There was a final presentation on that that Mr. Hugg can enlighten us about. 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 Mr. Hugg stated that the MPO and their consultant presented their final report on Downtown parking. It’s one of those situations where the science and the perception don’t necessarily agree with each other. The report basically says that there is plenty of parking in Downtown Dover. Even in the busiest lot at the busiest hour we don’t approach 80% utilization. The flip side of that is that the parking system that we have is convoluted, confusing and not very well organized. If you were to venture into the Bradford Street Lot you would find four different kinds of parking options depending on whether you wanted to feed a meter, wanted to try 2-hour free parking or had a parking permit. There are a lot of recommendations that deal with simply making the system itself more efficient and maybe eliminating some of the classes of parking and doing a much better job of signage. With that being said, there is also a lot of interest on the part of the City leadership where the science doesn’t necessarily support the perception to do something serious about Downton parking in the way of perhaps a parking garage or some kind of parking structure. They have initiated some discussions to get some better engineering and cost numbers to see if that really does make sense. The Parking Study essentially says, some day you may need a parking garage but probably not right now. The perception from 99 out of 100 people Downtown is that there is no place to park. The Parking Study did do what some of the people involved in the parking study process were hoping. It documented what the situation was and some of the low hanging fruit that they might be able to deal with so you will see some things happening in that area soon. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Parking Study document is available on the MPO website. Staff can make sure that the Commissioners have access to that. • Research Update on Potential Zoning Ordinance Amendments Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she has a bullet point list of things that they are working on. There is an interest in developing a zoning classification that is specific to an airport or aeronautic related activities. Staff, along with some other interested stakeholders, have been looking at perhaps developing what would be an IPM-3 zone that would focus on those types of things given the location of the Dover Air Force Base and the Civil Air Terminal and potential options for air cargo opportunities in Dover. They have also been looking at the parking calculation yet again and looking at ways to adjust that maximum parking limitation that we have by looking at options for impervious surface coverage limitations instead of a number calculation. Then they have the laundry list of what they call the Phase 2 fixes to the Supplementary Regulations. That also includes a number of questions that have recently risen again regarding the Sign Regulations. Those are the big topic areas that Staff are doing various levels of research on and in the next six months the Commission may see more text amendments for consideration. • Certified Local Government (CLG) FFY2017 Grant Project and FFY2018 Grant Application Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it was a grant that the City was a recipient of and it really focuses on working with the Historic District Commission, but it is a grant that they received in order to retain consultant services to look more carefully at the Design Standards for the Historic District and what it means for modern materials. They are not quite sure what is going to happen with that grant because they have not had the time to dedicate to it so that is a pending situation 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 at the moment. They also have information that has recently come to them about the next round of grant opportunities with the Certified Local Government Program. That application is due in mid-May. Again, it focuses on historic preservation activities, be it studies or research, not a bricks and mortar grant. Because the City of Dover is a Certified Local Government, they are eligible to apply for just under $6,000; it is a matching grant. Staff will be working with the Historic District Commission to once again try to make application for those monies. Updates on Program and Plan Activities • Downtown Development District Program Mr. Swierczek stated that in January 2015, Dover became one of the first municipalities in the State along with Seaford and Wilmington to have a designated Downtown Development District, specifically with the aim to incentivizing business and real estate investment. The area officially designated for the City of Dover extends as far as Cherry Street to the west, Mary Street to the north, just beyond State Street to the east and Water Street to the south. In total, it’s about 225 acres which is the maximum that the State would allow for this program. The main program is managed by the Delaware State Housing Authority which grants rebates for both small and large project investments. With the City of Dover, particularly the Planning Office, they complement that by managing programs to waiver permit and impact fee waivers as well as business license fee waivers. The Planning Office evaluates applications for those particular incentives. Over the course of FY17, the City authorized $12,945 in permit fee waivers for 24 properties in the Downtown Development District and this included 11 new homes. This includes the 6 new duplex houses which were completed at the corner of Kirkwood Street and Reed Street which is the largest residential project in the Downtown Development District. There are also new homes on West Street, Queen Street and North New Street. In FY17, the City also waived business license fees in the amount of $1,254.50. As mentioned, the Delaware State Housing Authority receives from the State, a certain level of funding which the State decides for two types of rebates, for small and large investments. A small project investment is considered an investment below $250,000 and a large project investment is anything that is over $250,000. To date, the State Housing Authority has authorized over $353,000 in small project rebates for Dover’s Downtown Development District and over $153,000 for large project investments. For 2018, there is an ongoing application process for the small project rebates; however, the large project rebates have an application deadline for May 21, 2018. For moving forward into 2018, the Planning Office has dedicated him to manage and coordinate the incentive program. One of the main issues that they have identified over the last 2 years that they are seeking to address moving forward is improving outreach to inform any potential investors of incentive opportunities. Obviously, if you can reach them before they actually decide to invest you might encourage them more. Mr. Hugg stated that the Downtown Dover Partnership is aggressively in the process of trying to recruit a new Executive Director and they are hoping to have some interviews before the end of the month. They are also engaged in some strategic planning initiatives and looking for some additional incentives. They have rewritten their Façade Grant Program and are doing some work on their Architectural Design Incentive Program. In case you missed it in the newspaper last week, the announced in Dover the initiation of the Unlock the Block Program which is a statewide program for which the City is the pilot working with the Office of Small Business Development and Tourism (the old DEDO) to provide technical assistance and some marketing 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 assistance to both property owners and potential entrepreneurs in the Downtown. There are a number of things going on as well as the DDD Incentives that are part of that program. Mr. Holt questioned how they are making out on the absentee ownership of some many of these properties Downtown? People have inherited these properties and don’t live in the area anymore and that is one of the big problems. Have they been receptive to some of the incentives to get these properties revitalized a little bit? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that it is a continuing problem. He will say that one of the absentee owners that the City has had a long effort of trying to work with did apply for the Unlock the Block Incentive which is kind of a competitive thing. He thought that it was very encouraging that that person came forward after ten years of a vacant building that pretty much sat there. The good news is that probably half of the vacant buildings that were in place on Loockerman Street a year ago have now been occupied. They are seeing the number of vacant properties is starting to shrink in the first and second blocks of Loockerman Street. People are starting to pick them up and use them for a variety of business purposes. The four properties that are involved in the Unlock the Block Program include The Loockerman Exchange, the Simon’s complex, a property at the intersection of Governors Avenue and Loockerman Street and then one of the vacant units on the first floor of the Bayard Building. We are starting to see some very progressive things happening Downtown. The concern is to try to get properties that are in the first block north and south of Loockerman Street on Governors Avenue and State Street to get people vested and interested in them. Mr. Holt questioned if they have been able to bring some of those property owners in on the committee? They might actually have suggestions on how to get other owners more interested. • Restoring Central Dover Community Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an ongoing initiative. There are a number of committees as part of that implementation that both Mr. Hugg and now Mr. Swierczek are involved in as well as Mrs. Harvey that focus on specific topic areas. They focus on issues like safety, housing, green infrastructure and community outreach items. As they mentioned earlier, the Open Streets Event is somewhat linked to that Restoring Central Dover Initiative where they are helping to support NCALL. Staff is helping support that initiative as well to really bring a number of different programs and incentives and implementation projects to the Downtown area here in Dover. Open Discussion for Planning Commissioner Comments Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she does have another item that is not on the agenda and it’s kind of a heads up. Some of the recent actions by City Council in the last few months have now mandated an Ethics Training component for Staff and for all members of the various boards and commissions. Today we got a preliminary announcement of what will be the Ethics Training dates. Some of them are during the day times and there are some early evening times but it will be something that the Commissioners will need to participate in. Staff will provide more detailed information as they get it. It’s a couple hours course that the Commissioners would have to participate in. The preliminary dates that they received from the City Clerk’s Office are May 23, 2018 at 5:00PM, May 24, 2018 at 9:30AM, June 5, 2018 at 9:30AM, June 6, 2018 at 5:00PM and June 7, 2018 at 9:00AM. They will work to get some more details so that the Commissioners 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 can select a time that is most appropriate for them. It is our understanding that they will be able to pick the specific date. Keep an eye out on your emails for that. The City of Dover as part of its Dover Code of Ordinances has a whole section on Ethics. Mr. Tolbert stated that two small businesses recently left the Dover Mall but neither one of them came into Downtown Dover for their new locations. One was the Jeweler’s Loupe and one was the shoe repair shop. He doesn’t know why they left the Dover Mall but he can guess that maybe the rent is too high for the businesses but they didn’t come to Downtown Dover. The shoemaker is now located in the shopping center near TGI Fridays and the Jeweler’s Loupe went to the Dover Towne Center shopping center. He doesn’t know if more businesses are going to leave the mall or not but is there something wrong with the Mall? Maybe we can get some of these businesses interested in coming to Downtown. Mr. Holt stated that he heard that the hours of the Mall required that they be there were too restrictive. Mr. Tolbert stated that he heard that as well. One of the merchants told him that they had to keep the place open seven days a week and he was getting tired of working. Also, the rent is high. His point is, is there something that we can do to attract them to come to Downtown Dover to help commercialize that area more? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hugg stated that he thinks that the good news is that they didn’t leave Dover. He heard the same things about the number of hours that their business had to be open. On the flip side, Pandora and another merchant have signed leases for the Mall so that is kind of a normal turnover. In terms of Downtown, he thinks that they still have a ways to go to overcome some of the perceptions that people have. He thinks that either one of those businesses would have been an ideal Downtown candidate. We all remember the shoemaker that was on Governors Avenue for decades where Blu Vintage is located now. The good news is that they didn’t leave Dover. For the record, the Dover Mall is going through a re-assessment of their competitiveness and what it’s going to take to continue to make them a competitive facility. It’s no secret that two of their anchors are in financial trouble and we may very well see one of them go out of business before the end of this year which would be a real shame for everybody. There is an economic study that was done probably within the last year identified potential tenants for a commercial complex in the Dover area. Interestingly, about half of them have already come to Dover. Five Below, Kirkland’s and Home Goods were originally targeted for a mall setting. That is something that we are keeping an eye one. It’s a concern across the country that traditional malls are suffering and in many cases closing. The loss of anchor or two at the Dover Mall could be very significant. Mr. Holden stated that he was curious if there were any updates that are available relative to the work to get the individual access off of Route 1 to the Mall? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Hugg stated that was kind of what he was referring to in terms of the economic study that was done a while ago. That project seems to have lost a little bit of its momentum; he thinks in part because some of the potential clients actually jumped the gun and came to Dover. There is still active work being done by private investors to figure out what level of tolls or other subsidies through business improvement district taxes or some other kind of thing might be needed to make that viable. 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 Dr. Jones questioned if anything was going on with the Schwartz Center that is positive? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated no. Mr. Roach stated that he has heard rumors of the hospital buying Spence’s Bazaar and supposedly building a parking garage. He doesn’t know if it’s true or just people talking. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Hugg stated he was unsure. Ms. Maucher questioned if the transfer of the old library to Wesley ever occurred and also if the land transfer to Delaware State for the convocation center ever occurred? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated that the Wesley transaction has occurred. He does not know what is going on with the convocation center. As Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated, there is an active dormitory construction project going on at Delaware State right now. In the early competition for that project, one of the people submitting a proposal talked about a convocation center as part of a project that would have linked the Sheraton Hotel and the north end of campus. His best guess is that Delaware State University has its hands full with trying to build a 620 bed student facility and that the convocation center is probably down the road a ways. Mr. Holt stated that he wanted to touch on the homeless situation in Dover. It doesn’t seem to be getting any better and they seem to be around the library. He knows that they have been working on doing something to try finding a place for them to go to. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that is one of those stay tuned topics. The task force is actually making pretty good progress given the complexities of that issue. The development working group has actually implemented a couple of actions that will at least help in the short term. One is through working with the Interfaith facility. They have acquired 50-60 lockers from the YMCA as part of their remodeling project. They are being put together and will be located around that facility under shelter so that people who are homeless will have the ability to actually have a place to lock up their possessions. It doesn’t sound like it’s too important but many of the homeless people actually have jobs, but their problem is that they have to take everything that they own with them because they can’t leave it with fear that someone will take it. That project is well underway and we should have some things happening as soon as the weather improves a little bit. The other thing is that there is now a draft for a Central Delaware Housing Coalition. It’s a new non-profit housing entity, part of whose job will be to particularly address the affordable housing issue. A lot of the homeless that they have talked to say they can’t afford $700-$800 a month for housing. Their housing limitation is a few $100. Perhaps they could get into facilities where they could share spaces and perhaps get the benefit of some services. He thinks that we are going to see an announcement on that fairly soon. There is a new services map but he is not sure if it has been put online yet. The idea is to identify and put on a map all of the services that are available to people who are homeless. It seems to be a missing piece so that is making progress as well. He thinks that they will be pleased with some of the initiatives. They are also working with the Police Department on some quality of life issues. In May or June you may see some initiatives to further improve the general quality of life in Downtown Dover particularly through a variety of mechanisms. Mr. Holt stated that some of the homeless people that he has run into aren’t actually from this area; they have been coming here from other states. Why are they targeting Dover? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that it is a very tough group to get a handle on. There is a core 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018 group of people who are truly homeless. There is a group of people who are in various kinds of accommodations whether that be a tent, those who are actually employed in the area and then there is a large group that tends to be very mobile and right now they are in Milford. He is being told that a lot of the groups that we saw here 6 months ago are now popping up in Milford. It really is a network of where are the best services and they actually migrate based on where there are quality services and people available to help them. It’s a tough universe of people to get a handle on. The one thing that they do know is that there are about 200-250 people in the immediate Dover area who are in some level of homelessness which could be a lack of affordable housing who are otherwise employed and engaged. Their problem is not their behavior or what they are doing; it’s the fact that they just don’t have shelter. Ms. Edwards stated that she is very sensitive to the situations of the homeless that we have in the Dover area but it’s concerning to her at the gateway of the City when homeless people are standing at the intersections and collecting donations. She thinks particularly at the gateway of the City when they are trying to encourage people to come into the Dover area that there is some level of concern that that’s what they are being greeted with. Is there anything that we can do as a City to try to negate that? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hugg stated that he wishes that he had that answer. He knows that enforcement is one part of it and providing housing and services is a part of it. It’s the condition of the physical environment itself. There are two or three gateway plans that have never really been implemented so the gateways are particularly attractive to begin with so it doesn’t take much to make them look really unattractive. They are not populated by people on a regular basis who are shopping or whatever so it kind of becomes the dead zone. He knows that the task force has been working very hard on trying to figure out how to deal with a variety of those issues. Ms. Edwards stated that it is a very challenging situation but it is concerning. Meeting adjourned at 8:43 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 19

Ethics Training Sessions The City of Dover requires members of the various elected and appointed Boards and Commissions to attend an Ethics Training Session annually. This annual training focuses on the City’s ethics policies and procedures. The sessions are approximately 2 hours in length and are in reference to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30 – Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission. See the following link: https://library.municode.com/de/dover/codes/code_of_ordinances ?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH30STETCOETCO 2018 Session Dates & Times Wednesday, May 23rd at 5:00pm - 7:00pm Thursday, May 24th at 9:30am -11:30am Tuesday, June 5th at 9:30am – 11:30am Wednesday, June 6th at 5:00pm – 7:00pm Thursday, June 7th at 9:30am – 11:30am Monday, June 11th at 7:00am – 9:00am Thursday, June 14th at 7:00am – 9:00am Tuesday, June 26th at 5:00pm – 7:00pm Please RSVP to the Planning Office at 736-7196 as to which session you plan to attend.

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF May 9, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF May 21, 2018 Plan Title: All Beautiful Children Learning Academy Day Care Center C-18-02 Plan Type: Conditional Use Plan Property Location: West side of South State Street, south of Gooden Avenue and north of Wyoming Avenue Property Addresses: 818 and 822 South State Street Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-03-43.00-000 Owner: TVEN3, LLC Present Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) Existing Use: Vacant building One family residence with detached garage Proposed Use: Child Day Care Center One family residence with detached garage Site Area: 25,482 S.F. +/- (0.585 acre) Building Area: Child Day Care Center Building – 3,526 S.F. All Existing Buildings - 5,903 S.F. Existing Paving - 9,649 S.F. Existing Sidewalks -737 S.F. Total Existing Impervious – 16,289 S.F. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of CITY OF DOVER Dover Planning DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Office APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 APPLICATION: All Beautiful Children Learning Academy at 822 S. State Street FILE #: C-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Tracey Harvey PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY: This Plan is for review of the Conditional Use Plan to permit conversion of an existing 3,526 S.F. one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 52 children. The subject site contains three (3) separate buildings, and the Child Day Care Center is proposed to occupy only the southernmost structure which is the largest. The property consists of 25,482 S.F. and is located on the west side of South State Street, south of Gooden Avenue and north of Wyoming Avenue. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The owner of record is TVEN3, LLC and the applicant (lessee) is Latoya Boseman. Property Address: 822 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED- 05-077.17-03-43.00-000. Council District 2. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The existing site has 3,526 S.F. and it is currently a vacant building. The existing parcel has a single-family home addressed as 818 South State Street and a detached garage that will not be utilized as the Child Day Care Center. The applicant is proposing to occupy the existing vacant building as a Child Day Care Center that will serve 52 children. Twenty-eight (28) children and with twenty-four (24) additional children will be serviced in the future. The proposed hours of operations are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm with extended hours not to exceed 12 hours 5 days a week. A fence is proposed to surround the 1,242 S.F. playground area in the rear of the building. III. ZONING REVIEW The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 1.14 (a). This building is not currently occupied as a Child Day Care Center. A Child Day Care Center requires Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission based on the requirements noted in Article 5 §14 and Article 10 §1. The substantive requirements for Child Day Care facilities are given below: Article 5 Section 14 Child day care facilities. 14.1 General. In order to promote the development of quality child care outside of the home (day care facilities), the following two basic assumptions have been made:

C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy - Child Daycare Center at 822 S State Street Final Report for May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 6 14.11 The establishment of child day care services and facilities, wherever there is a need, is a necessary public objective; and 14.12 Day care programs for children shall be treated as community facilities and shall be permitted to locate in any zoning district, provided that need has been demonstrated, state licensing requirements have been met and no physical hazard to children can be reasonably anticipated. 14.2 Definitions. Child day care facility. For the purposes of this ordinance, the facilities described furnishing care, supervision and guidance of a child or group of children unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, for periods of less than 24 hours per day shall be defined as follows: 14.21 Child day care center. (a) Any place, other than an occupied residence, which receives children for compensation for day care or large family day care home; and (b) Any occupied residence which receives 13 or more children for compensation for day care. Child day care centers shall be required to obtain conditional use approval by the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10 and to any specified requirement set forth in subsection 14.3 below, except in zoning districts where listed as a permitted use. 14.22 Family day care home-children. An occupied residence in which a person provides care for children other than his/her own family and the children of close relatives for compensation. Such care in a family day care home is limited to that care given to six or fewer children with a maximum of three children allowed for after school care. Such child care facility shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zones and shall be exempt from obtaining a conditional use permit and site plan approval. 14.23 Large family day care home-children. A facility which provides child care for more than six, but less than 13 children with a maximum of three children allowed for after school care. This care may be offered in a private home or in a property converted to the purpose of providing child day care. This form of day care facility requires the submission of a site plan application in accordance with the procedures and subject to article 10, section 2 of the zoning ordinance. If a large family day care home is not to be located in an occupied residence, then a conditional use site plan application shall be required in accordance with article 10 section 1 of the zoning ordinance. 14.3 Zoning criteria. 14.31 Number of children. Child day care centers shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in all residential zones. 14.32 Outdoor play area. Must meet the state requirement for day care centers. 14.33 Off-street parking/loading. One space per each adult attendant, plus one space for every ten children. 14.34 Signage for child day care facilities: (a) Signs in residential zones i. Family day care homes-children and large family day care homes-children. One wall- mounted sign limited to two square feet.

C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy - Child Daycare Center at 822 S State Street Final Report for May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 6 ii. Child day care center. One sign, wall-mounted or freestanding, limited in area to 12 square feet. The planning commission shall consider the location of such sign as part of the conditional use review and may approve a lesser amount of sign area if deemed necessary by the commission to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular. (b) Signs in nonresidential zones. Child day care centers within nonresidential zoning districts shall be governed by the sign regulations in effect for the particular nonresidential zoning district in which the day care center is located. 14.35 Licensing requirements. Child day care facilities must meet state licensing standards and must be inspected by the City of Dover Fire Marshal’s Office. A City of Dover Business License and a Public Occupancy Permit is required. Conditional Use Review With Conditional Use Applications, the Planning Commission reviews the proposed project to determine whether or not the intended use is appropriate in type and scale for the immediate neighborhood. The Commission must also consider whether or not the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the future orderly development of the surrounding area. The following sections of the Zoning Ordinance which relate to the role of the Commission in reviewing Conditional Use applications: This property is located adjacent to a residential zone. ARTICLE 10. PLANNING COMMISSION Section 1. - Approval of conditional uses. On application and after public notice and hearing, the commission may authorize the issuance by the city planner of permits for any of the conditional uses for which this ordinance requires, in the district in which such use is proposed to be located. In approving any such use, the planning commission shall take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and of the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular, and may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be required in order that the results of its action may, to the maximum extent possible, further the expressed intent of this ordinance and the accomplishment of the following objectives in particular: 1.1 Accessibility for emergency response. That all proposed structures, equipment or material shall be readily accessible for fire, ambulance, police, and other emergency response; 1.2 Harmony of location, size and character. That the proposed use shall be of such location, size and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the zone in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties in accordance with the zoning classification of such properties; 1.3 Residential zones. That, in addition to the above, in the case of any use located in, or adjacent to, a residential zone: 1.31 The location and size of such use, the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout and its relation to access streets shall be such that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith will not be hazardous or inconvenient to, or incongruous with, the said residential district or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood; and 1.32 The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, the nature and extent of landscaping, and other improvements on the site shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and us e of adjacent land and buildings.

C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy - Child Daycare Center at 822 S State Street Final Report for May 9, 2018 Page 4 of 6 If the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use, the use is granted as a Conditional Use Permit. Such permits may be permanent, subject to limitations outlined in Zoning Ordinance Article 10 §1.41, or be required by the Commission to undergo periodic renewal, using the procedure described in Article 10 §1.42. Any Conditional Use Permit, permanent or not, may be revoked using the procedure described in Article 10 §1.43 if the conditions prescribed by the Commission in conjunction with the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit have not been, or are no longer being complied with. For a property seeking Conditional Use approval which does not need associated Site Development Plan approval (due to occupying an existing building), Article 10 §1.8 outlines the submission requirements. These requirements include a map of the property showing existing conditions with the appropriate legal data and information about the proposed use. IV. PARKING SUMMARY Child Day Care Centers require one parking space for every ten children and one parking space for every adult attendant. Based on the number of proposed children (52) and the number of adult attendants (5), a total of eleven (11) parking spaces are required. The Site Plan dated April 6, 2018 indicates that there are fourteen (14) existing parking spaces, with one (1) handicap parking space on the property. The parking spaces are located along the property line to the south of the building. The project includes adding a proposed concrete parking bumper at the head of each parking space. The existing parking lot does not include curbing. Bicycle Parking The site is required to provide bicycle parking. The bicycle parking calculation is one (1) for every twenty (20) parking spaces. Based on the number of required parking spaces one (1) bicycle parking space is required. The proposed bicycle bollard with the capacity for two (2) bicycles has been identified on the Site Plan at the northeast corner of the building. V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Access The property has access from South State Street with an existing paved driveway that is partially covered. The rear of the property shows an existing paved and gravel area that is adjacent to the alley. From the placement of the angled parking, it appears that a one-way circulation leading west towards the alley from South State Street will serve the parking lot. Dumpsters Dumpsters for trash collection are required for the utilization of the site. Based on the size of the building, one (1) dumpster pad location is required. The plan identifies a 12x12 dumpster pad location. Sidewalks Sidewalks exist along the property’s entire street frontage of South State Street. From the existing sidewalk, the connecting into the site to the building is a paved area connecting to the Child Day Care Center Building. A separate sidewalk leads to the residence.

C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy - Child Daycare Center at 822 S State Street Final Report for May 9, 2018 Page 5 of 6 VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The existing one-story building is a masonry and frame building that is compatible with the other buildings in the area. There will not be any exterior improvements or additions to the existing building. VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The submitted plan includes the Landscaping details. Based on the 11,690 S.F. development area for the Child Day Care Center, a total of four (4) trees are required. There are two existing trees in the yard area of the dwelling. All trees are required to be guaranteed for one year; if they do not survive, they shall be replaced. VIII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with this agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) The data column needs to be updated prior to Final Approval. Some of the items which need revising are as follows: a) Add “Child” to Day Care Center to read as “Child Day Care Center.” b) Indicate the calculation of required tree plantings. One (1) tree per 3,000 S. F. of development area. c) Add note of City Planner’s waiver of upright curbing requirement. d) Any changes recommended by the Planning Commission. 2) Provide the following information on the Plan Sheet: a) Provide the tree planting calculation and the number of trees to be planted to meet the code requirements. b) Identify the location of required tree plantings. c) Provide a note stating that the trees shall be guaranteed for one year and will be replanted if they do not survive the one year. d) Construction details for Dumpster enclosure and for the fencing material/height. e) Ensure placement of signage and striping for the handicap parking space. 3) The 14 parking spaces identified on the Site Plan are required to be striped whenever space is provided for 10 or more vehicles in the open. 4) The City Planner recognizes the lack of upright curbing in the existing parking lot area and will not require the installation of upright curbing. 5) The appropriate City of Dover Business Licenses and Public Occupancy permits will need to be obtained prior to opening of the Child Day Care Center. IX. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §1, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon Conditional Use Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the

C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy - Child Daycare Center at 822 S State Street Final Report for May 9, 2018 Page 6 of 6 public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed in subsections 1.1 to 1.3. To meet these code objectives, Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission prescribe the following conditions and safeguards: 1) Staff recommends the addition of traffic control signage and directional arrow striping in parking lot drive aisle to establish one-way circulation. X. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 2) Following Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement. 3) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the plan occur in the finalization of the site plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 4) For a new use in an existing building, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and the City of Dover Fire Marshal for these requirements. The resolution of these items may impact the site design including such items as building setbacks from property line, building dimensions and height, building openings, and fire protection needs, etc. 5) The applicant shall be aware that Conditional Use Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. 6) The applicant shall be aware that Conditional Use Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign. • Currently signage from a previous tenant remains on the building. All signs that confirm to the current regulations which are deemed abandoned shall either be refaced with a blank or blacked out face or removed totally (including the supporting structure and/or mounting hardware) within 90 days of abandonment in accordance with Article 5 Section 4.11 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding abandoned and damaged signs. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF May 9, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF May 21, 2018 Plan Title: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments, SB-18-02 Plan Type: Minor Subdivision Plan Associated Plan: Leander Lakes Apartments, S-12-18 Applicant/Owner: Leander Lakes, LLC Property Location: Southwest of Forrest Avenue and Dover High Drive Property Address: 100 Isabelle Isle (Address of Clubhouse Building for complex) Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-05.01-000 Existing Site Area: 28.67 acres+/- (Parcel was 30.00 acres prior to right-of-way dedication) Parcels to be Created: Parcel A: 22.94 acres (Buildings 1-8) Parcel B: 5.73 acres (Building 9 and 10) Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Use: Total of 10 apartment buildings with 24 units each for a total of 240 units 8 apartment buildings and Clubhouse Building are complete 2 apartment buildings under construction Sewer & Water: City of Dover P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments FILE #: SB-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP, Principal Planner PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY: This application is the Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan to permit subdivision of the 28.67 +/- acre parcel of the Leander Lakes Apartment complex into two (2) new lots. Parcel A is proposed to have 22.94 acres (Buildings 1-8) and Parcel B is proposed to have 5.73 acres (Buildings 9 and 10). The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) requirements. The property is located on the south side of Forrest Avenue, and southwest of Dover High Drive. The owner of record is Leander Lakes, LLC. Property Address: 100 Isabelle Isle. Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-05.01-000. Council District 1. This Report has been updated to reflect review of the Plan Set (Sheet CR-01, CR-02, and CR-03) dated May 7, 2018 which further details the proposed subdivision plan. The original plan submission (colored plan) is provided for reference. Previous Applications The Planning Commission originally granted conditional Site Plan approval (S-09-13) for a 240 unit apartment complex at their meeting in August 2009. Construction did not commence, and the plan expired on August 31, 2012. Previously, a Record Plan was recorded to subdivide the subject property from the Destiny Christian Church parcel creating a 30-acre parcel for the apartment development. Another Record Plan recorded the contribution of a forty (40) foot width area of property by Leander Lakes, LLC to assist in the creation the right-of-way for Dover High Drive. This right-of-way dedication recorded in 2012 of 1.331 acres results in the current parcel size of 28.67 acres. Site Development Plan S-12-18 was granted Planning Commission Approval on October 15, 2012 to permit the construction of the Leander Lakes Apartment complex through the construction of ten (10) buildings with twenty-four (24) units each on the site for a total of 240 dwelling units. The RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) has a maximum density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed apartment development was 8 units per acre as calculated on the original size of the property. Following Final Site Plan approval on October 14, 2014, construction commenced and as of the Spring of 2018 a total of eight apartment buildings and the Clubhouse building in the Phase 1 area were complete and the last

SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 2 two buildings (Buildings 9 and 10) were under construction. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Minor Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide the Leander Lakes Apartment property into (2) separate parcels. See the following Table for summary of the parcels. Site Building Area Proposed Acreage Buildings 1-8: Parcel A 22.94 acres Total of 192 units Building 9 and 10: Parcel B 5.73 acres Total of 48 units 10 Buildings with Total 28.67 acres total of 240 units Parcel A is predominately in the southern area of the site where a series of eight (8) Apartment Building and the Clubhouse with pool ring a central stormwater management pond. It has frontage on Dover High Drive. The proposed parcel also extends to the north to encompass a large open area adjacent to Forrest Avenue. Parcel B is the northeastern portion of the site surrounding Buildings 9 and 10 and the north stormwater management pond. It has frontage on Dover High Drive, but requires cross access over Parcel A to reach the site access point on Dover High Drive III. ZONING REVIEW RM-2 Zoning District The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and is subject to the regulations of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §7 and Article 4 § 4.8. The following table highlights some of the lot design standards for the RM-2 Zone for garden apartment dwelling development: Minimum Required RM-2 Minimum Requirements per Dwelling Unit: Lot area (sq. ft.) 3000 Off- street parking spaces 2 Minimum requirements per building: Lot Area 1 acre Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 125 Front Yard 30 Minimum side yard (ft.) 20 Total side yards (ft.) 40 Rear yard (ft.) 30 Maximum Permitted RM-2 Building Height: Stories 3 Feet 35 Lot Coverage 60% Number of dwelling units per building 24

SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 3 The proposed subdivision appears to comply with the RM-2 bulk standards of Article 4 §4.15 as outlined per dwelling unit and per building. The calculation of lot coverage per parcel is not listed on the plan to determine compliance. Regarding the density limitation of the RM-2 zone to eight (8) dwelling units per acre, the applicant with this subdivision request continues to follow the density calculation of 8.37 units per acre that resulted at the property following the land dedication for right-of-way. Parcel A and Parcel B continue to have a density of 8.37 dwelling units per acre. The previous project density approval for 240 units was granted based on the initial property size of 30 acres (prior to right-of-way dedication process). COZ-1: Corridor Overlay Zone The subject site involved with this application is partially located within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The first 500 feet of the property is within the COZ-1 and is subject to its requirements. The Zoning Ordinance details the requirements of the COZ-1 in Article 3 §26 and its subsections. The Corridor Overlay Zone as a planning and growth management tool is designed to foster and attractive, efficient, and economically vibrant urban corridor along Route 8/Forrest Avenue and Saulsbury/McKee Roads. To this end, more stringent standards are applied to development taking place in the corridor. Development of the site is not significantly affected by the Corridor Overlay Zone as the planned development occurs outside of the overlay area. For the Leander Lakes apartment development, none of the buildings or parking areas are located in the COZ-1 area of the site; only aspects of the landscaping requirements will apply to this project. The site is providing the required landscaping along the road frontage on Forrest Avenue and along the sides that are subject to the Corridor Overlay Zone. V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Easements The plan will require cross access and other utility easements that are ready in place to be documented on the Minor Subdivision Plan. Additionally, any additional easements to be recorded with the subdivision to ensure the unified character and usage of the apartment complex between parcels such as including cross access from Buildings 9 and 10 to reach Dover High Drive must be shown; there is a cross access easement at the connection of Bliss Bayou and Isabelle Isle to Dover High Drive. Site Access Residential developments over 150 dwelling units require two connections to public streets (Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI Section A8). The overall apartment complex will continue to meet this requirement with the two (2) access points to Dover High Drive (previously referred to as Rinnier Row in S-09-13). Dover High runs down the east side property line of this property and the Capital School District property. Dover High Drive intersects Forrest Avenue/Route 8 then continues south to connect to Tribbitt Street. Site Circulation There are three named drive aisles within the proposed Leander Lakes apartment development. Bliss Bayou is located along the Buildings #9 and #10. It takes access off Dover High Drive. Isabelle Isle loops around Buildings #2 through #8 connecting twice to Dover High Drive. The final drive aisle MacDonald Grove runs parallel along Dover High Drive east of Building #1. In

SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 4 the northern portion of the site near Building #10, there is a vehicular connection to the existing Destiny Christian Church property. Parking The minimum parking requirements for this project as multiple dwelling/apartment buildings is two (2) parking spaces for every dwelling unit, one for every 200 S.F. of office space, and 0.25 for every dwelling unit for guest parking. Based on the number of proposed 240 dwelling units and office of 600 S.F., a total of 543 parking spaces were required. There are eighteen (18) handicap parking spaces located throughout the complex. The site is also providing five (5) parking spaces for the use of the leasing office. Each proposed parcel includes areas of parking. Bicycle Parking The minimum bicycle parking is one (1) bike space for every twenty (20) parking spaces. Based on the number of parking spaces, a minimum of 28 bicycle parking spaces are required. The development Plan places bicycle parking racks in front of most, but not all, apartment buildings; thus, each parcel will include bicycle parking opportunities. Sidewalks & Pathways According to Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18, sidewalks required along all street frontages of the properties with certain types of development reviews. The subject site provides sidewalks on Dover High Drive and a multi-use path along Forrest Avenue. There are sidewalk connections leading into the site from Dover High Drive. Landscaping and Tree Planting Landscaping requirements are subject principally to the regulations found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Sections 15 and 16 and are also addressed in other various sections of code related to buffering, screening, and open space. VI. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with this agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) The colored concept plan sheet presented is for reference and understanding of the proposed subdivision. The formal Record Plan set will be the sheets that will be recorded upon completion of the approval process. 2) Cover Sheet CR-01: a. Update sheet title and title block to be Kent County (not Kent Castle County). b. Correct the Parcel labels on the drawing as the incorrect acreage is list for each. c. On the drawing at the COZ-1 boundary line clarify the zoning on both sides of the line i.e. on the north side the zoning is RM-2 and COZ-1 (and R-10 with COZ-1 for adjoining property). d. Clarify the note box giving the previous Record Plan recordation details. This information should be presented in the Plan data column with the information name of the plan it refers to. e. Item 4: Also list size of parcel in square feet.

SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 5 f. Item 9: Add note that Landscape Plan is part of Site Plan S-12-15. g. Item 10: Provide proposed lot coverage per parcel (Parcel A and Parcel B). h. Item 11: Refer to Site Plan S-12-15 Leander Lakes Apartments. i. engineer certifications, etc. j. List zoning of property. k. In title block, including owner’s address as in Maryland. 3) Sheets CR-02 and CR-03: a. Clearly label each of the proposed parcels. It appears that letters and numbers are being used. b. Label the new proposed property lines (to create Parcel B). 4) There are several existing easements recorded with previous Record Plans that are indicated on Sheets CR-02 and CR-03. Check status of all easements; clarify which are “new” being proposed by this plan. For example, update the notes regarding several drainage easements and the permanent easement dedicated to the State along Dover High Drive to indicate the previous action that recorded them. Ensure plan notes or labels with the easements provide their reference sources. 5) The Record Plan identifies the fifty-foot conservation easement and associated agricultural practices notes due to the property’s proximity to the Agricultural Preservation District. 6) The Final Record Plat submitted must include requirements described in Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article IV, C. Plat. VII. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: The Land Subdivision Regulations, Article I. Purpose, indicates that the regulations are adopted in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare; ensure the orderly growth and development of the City, the conservation, protection and proper use of land, and adequate provision for housing, recreation, circulation, utilities and services; and safeguard the City from undue future expenditure for the maintenance of streets and public spaces. Similar safeguards are also in the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and in the Site Development Plan objectives listed in subsections Article 10 §2.21 to 2.28. 1) This Minor Subdivision Plan creates two parcels out of one parcel; the areas remain zoned RM-2 and partially subject to the COZ-1 zone. The Subdivision Plan complies with the Land Subdivision Regulations. Other agencies may recommend additional conditions and safeguards in accordance with their areas of expertise. The Recommended Additional Considerations to Meet Code Objectives are offered for consideration by the Planning Commission. VII. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Minor Subdivision Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Planning Office. These changes may require resubmittal

SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 6 for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 2) Following Planning Commission approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement prior to recordation at the Kent County Recorder of Deeds Office. 3) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 4) The engineer or surveyor signing and certifying the Plan is required to have a City of Dover Business License. Contact the Permitting & Licensing Section at 736-7010 for more information. 5) Any future property line alterations not recorded with the current application will also be subject to Planning Commission review. 6) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign may require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4. 7) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MAY 2, 2018 APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes 100 Isabelle Isle FILE #: SB-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes 100 Isabelle Isle File #: SB-18-02 May 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2 WATER / WASTEWATER 1. The existing easements that are in place shall be re-recorded to the new property. STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/. WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / GROUNDS / GENERAL / STREETS / SANITATION 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. SANITATION 1. The solid waste on these properties shall be served by a private contractor. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

C F SB-18-02 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 05/09/18 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apts 100 Isabelle Isle FILE #: SB-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. All Fire Lanes shall be marked as follows: both the inner and outer edges of the fire lane shall be marked, where curbs are present, the top and face of the curb shall be painted yellow, where no curbs are present, a four inch (4”) solid yellow demarcation line shall mark the edge(s) of the fire lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 2. The specific color yellow shall be the uniformly accepted yellow as utilized by State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Only vivid and durable paint shall be used and shall be suitable for street surfaces 3. Fire lane signs shall be located as follows: see Figure 5-16 – Approved Sign For Marking Fire Lanes, fire lane signs shall be spaced at 150 foot intervals maximum, all fire lane signs shall be located no less than six feet (6’) and no higher than eight feet (8’) above the pavement, signs shall be placed at each end of the fire lane, and signs shall face all oncoming traffic. Where parking is not restricted roadway markings shall utilize the words "FIRE" and "LANE" in lieu of fire lane signs, and shall conform to the specifications of 7.6. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 4. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment.

5. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 6. All fire hydrants shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All fire hydrants shall have minimum of four-inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, where fire hydrants are located along a curb line with permitted parking, the area between the fire hydrant and the street or fire lane shall be stenciled with four inch (4") demarcation lines and the words "NO PARKING", demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the fire hydrant and extend for a distance 15 feet on both sides. Where fire hydrants are located in parking lots or other areas susceptible to blockage by parked vehicles they shall be treated as follows: fire hydrants shall be protected in all directions for a distance of seven feet (7') with barriers or curbing, Minimum four-inch (4") diameter steel bollards filled with concrete and marked yellow shall be installed at the outermost corners of the fire hydrant demarcation area. The minimum height of the bollard shall be 36 inches above the finished grade of the adjacent surface, and the steamer connection of all fire hydrants shall be positioned so as to be facing the edge of the street, or traffic lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 2) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 7. Hydrant barrels shall be provided with reflective material, such as paint, durable for highway/roadway markings or a reflective tape of a minimum of 2” in width around the barrel under the top flange, hydrant bonnets shall be color coded based on the following criteria: class AA 1500 GPM - painted light blue, class A 1,000 GPM -1499 GPM - painted green, class B 500 - 999 GPM - painted orange, class C 250 - 499 GPM - painted red, class D under 250 GPM - painted black. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 703, Chapter 3. 4) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 8. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. This office has no objection APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: May 2, 2018 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Leander Lakes Apartments FILE#: SB-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 760-2768 =============================================================== The reasons and conditions applied to this project and their sources are itemized below: Comment: 1. No Comment to the minor subdivision.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY May 2018 APPLICATION: Leander Lakes Apartments FILE #: SB -18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jessica L. Verchick, EIT PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2014 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the minor subdivision of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF May 9, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF May 21, 2018 Plan Title: Dover Police Impound Lot, S-18-04 Plan Type: Site Development Plan Owner of Record: City of Dover Location: Northwest corner of West Water Street and South Queen Street Addresses: 401 & 415 West Water Street Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.12-04-40.00-000, ED-05-076.12-04-39.00-000, and ED-05-076.12- 04-35.00-000 Site Area: 54,162.9 SF (1.24 acres) Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Existing Uses: Vacant; stormwater facility Proposed Use: Police Impound Lot on center and west parcels; east parcel to remain stormwater facility Building Areas: None Impervious Areas: Existing – None Proposed – 12,471 SF (31.1% of center parcel and 17.2% of west parcel) Off Street Parking: Required – None Proposed – Unknown Sanitary Facilities: City of Dover Water Supply: City of Dover Waivers Requested: None Waivers that may need to be requested: Elimination of curbing requirements P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018 APPLICATION: Dover Police Impound Lot at 401 West Water Street FILE #: S-18-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office CONTACTS: Eddie Diaz, AICP, Planner I PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY Review of a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a 11,801 S.F. Impound Lot for the Dover Police Department as a fenced area for motor vehicle storage. The site is located on the north side of Water Street between West Street and South Queen Street. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is 1.24 +/- acres. The owner of record is the City of Dover. Property Address: 401 West Water Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.12-04- 35.00-000, ED-05-076.12-04-39.00-000 and ED-05-076.12-04-40.00-000. Council District 4. Note: This Report reflects review of a revised plan received on May 11, 2018. The size of the Impound Lot was reduced and its location revised. Previous Applications The most recent development application related to the Dover Police Department headquarters was S-02-03, approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2002. This project replaced an existing police warehouse on the site with a larger one and associated parking. The new warehouse is located west of the Impound Lot proposed in the present application. Additional previous applications include S-94-25, an addition to the main police station building approved in December 1994, and the Justice of the Peace Court approved in December 1996. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Queen Street and West Water Street. The City of Dover owns all the land bound by these two streets, Bank Lane, and South West Street, except the Delaware Justice of the Peace Court (building footprint). The developed City land is used as the headquarters of the Dover Police Department. The three parcels subject to this application include the remaining developable land within the block. They are listed on the application as follows: • Parcel 39: a 33,522.1 SF vacant lot located in the center of the site. This parcel was last used for several small residential buildings demolished around 2003. Under the current plan it is proposed to be developed with the larger part of an 11,801 SF Impound Lot, connected to the Police Station’s east entrance drive via a 670 SF +/- driveway. The

S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Impound Lot is to be surrounded by an 8-foot high chain link fence with slats and barbed wire. Also proposed for this parcel are a new bioretention area and five new trees. • Parcel 35: an 11,990.5 SF vacant lot located at the west end of the site. This parcel was last used for a one-family residence demolished around 2015. It is proposed for development with the west end of the Impound Lot in this application. • Parcel 40: an 8,650.3 SF lot located at the east end of the site. This parcel is used as a bioretention area, with the outfall coming from a drain on the east entrance drive. The plan proposes adding some new riprap to this bioretention area but otherwise leaving it as is. Nearby uses include the old Chesapeake Utilities campus to the north of the Police Station, an academic building owned by Wesley College to the northeast, several large apartment buildings and small commercial office uses to the east, the Kent Correction Institute to the southeast, the Dover Transit Center to the south, and the Eden Hill Farm TND across the railroad tracks to the west. A Revised Plan was received on May 11, 2018 showing the current east-west orientation of the Impound Lot. The original submission had the Lot oriented north-south instead, so that it was entirely contained within Lot 39. This revision was made following discussion between Planning Staff and the City Department of Public Works and the City Police Department (acting as the applicants) concerning the future development potential of the corner of West Water Street and South Queen Street. III. ZONING REVIEW IO Zoning District The development site is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §10. Motor vehicle storage facilities accessory to a public or institutional use are considered a permitted accessory use in the IO Zone. However, the Impound lot will be the primary use on its parcel. Therefore, the Impound Lot can alternatively be permitted by considering it a type of Police Station use as well as a vehicle storage use. Police Stations are among the institutional uses specifically permitted in the IO Zone. SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Most of Parcel 40 and the northeast corner of Parcel 39 are located within the SWPOZ (Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area) and as such would ordinarily be subject to Article 3 §29 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, according to Article 3 §29.79, areas within the “downtown redevelopment target area” as defined in Appendix C- Downtown Redevelopment of the Dover Code of Ordinances are exempt from the requirements and restrictions of the SWPOZ. As the project site is within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area, it is not required to comply with the 30% maximum impervious area normally required by the SWPOZ. IV. PARKING SUMMARY The proposed Impound Lot is intended to replace an existing Impound Lot of similar size at the rear of Schutte Park. According to the applicant, the existing Lot typically has ten to fifteen cars in it at any given time, and the same would be true for the new Lot. The Lot is large enough to fit more cars; however, as a vehicle storage use, the Impound Lot is not considered “parking,” under

S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 4 of 8 the Zoning Ordinance, i.e. a place for semi-public temporary placement of vehicles by employees, residents, or visitors. It is therefore not subject to most of the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to parking, including those that would put a minimum or maximum number on the vehicles to be stored. No loading spaces or bicycle parking spaces are required for the use. V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Adopted Plans This site is within the area addressed by the 2011 Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book. The purpose of this plan is to guide development around the transit center site, with the goals of using the transit center as an anchor for mixed use development, encouraging new development in the area that compliments the existing historic architecture of Dover, and improving the gateways to downtown, among others. The corner of South Queen Street and West Water Street is identified as a gateway due to its immediate proximity to the transit center. Accordingly, the plan’s conceptual development build-out has part of the proposed Impound Lot site developed with a prominent, corner-occupying building. The Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan also contains recommendations for the design of parking lots. While the Impound Lot may not be considered a parking lot under code, it is a similar enough use that the recommendations may still apply. Some of the recommendations include that access to parking lots should be off minor streets and alleyways if possible, that surface parking should be located at the rear of a building if possible, and that surface parking should be screened from the public right of way by landscaping, fencing, or architectural detailing. Entrances and Drive Aisles While the Impound Lot is not considered parking, the 670 SF +/- entrance is still considered an access drive subject to all the appropriate regulations for drive aisles. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 §3.6, it is required to have upright curbing and to be composed of a hard, paved surface. These requirements may not currently be met if the drive has depressed curbing. Possible Waiver Request: Elimination of Upright Curbing According to the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planner may relax the upright curbing requirement for a portion of a parking or drive area when there is a demonstrated need to convey stormwater to a proposed or approved stormwater management area. Authority for granting this waiver no longer rests with the Planning Commission. The applicant has not provided a written waiver request but may submit one directly to the City Planner at any time for consideration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations The Impound Lot is not intended to be open to the public, so direct pedestrian and bicycle access to it is not needed. Both West Water Street and South Queen Street have existing sidewalk frontage. In addition, the Police Station overall will be served by the West Street Trail, a multi- use trail currently under construction, which will connect from the end of the existing North Street Trail at the intersection of South West Street and West North Street down to the Dover Transit Center. The Transit Center itself presents another opportunity for people to reach the site without using a car.

S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 5 of 8 There are some concerns that the sidewalk along West Water Street is of poor quality. DelDOT may require this sidewalk to be repaired, and the adjacent curb cuts for the driveways of the demolished houses to be removed. Lighting The Site Plan does not currently propose any new lighting. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §7.1, minimum lighting is only required for commercial uses, so for this institutional use any additional lighting only needs to light the site to the owner’s satisfaction. The applicant has stated a desire to avoid lighting, so attention is not drawn to the site. Security is instead proposed to be provided by a security camera. Dumpsters According to Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §6.12 the proposed use is not required to provide a specific number of dumpsters. Therefore, the site must provide trash and recycling receptacles sufficient to address the needs of the site. The Impound Lot is not expected to generate any trash, and accordingly no receptacles are proposed. VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE There is no proposed building to accompany the Impound Lot. The only new upright structure on the site will be the fence surrounding the lot, which is proposed to be an 8-foot-tall chain link fence with a barbed wire topping and slats run through the chain link to make it opaque. Based on the required yard areas for the IO zone shown in Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.15, the fence meets the maximum height requirement for fencing in non-residential zones. The fence is also not adjacent to a residential zone, the only circumstance under code that would restrict the use of barbed wire or require the fence to be opaque. The Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the material of fencing; the current material is proposed for security reasons, as it is harder to break into than other types of opaque fencing. VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The Site Plan submitted for the application doubles as the Landscape Plan. According to the plan, there are five (5) existing Red Maple trees located on Parcel 40. The applicant proposes to plant another four (4) Red Maple trees on Parcel 39 and one (1) Red Maple tree on Parcel 35, bringing the total number of trees on site to ten (10). The applicant cites a “disturbed area” of 12,610 SF as the basis for a tree planting requirement of five (5) trees. The Zoning Ordinance however requires that the tree planting requirement be based on a delineated “development area” that contains all new site improvements. For this site, Planning Staff calculates that a development area of 29,333 SF could be used. At a rate of one (1) tree per 3,000 SF, ten (10) trees would be required, meaning the tree planting requirement is met. VIII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with this agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been

S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 6 of 8 identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) Please add upright curbing to the drive entrance. Alternatively, if it can be demonstrated that flush curbing is required for stormwater management purposes, please submit an administrative waiver request to the Planning Office. 2) Please delineate a development area on the plan for the purposes of tree density calculation. The required delineation method for the development area is given in Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Section 16.2: Development area: The area containing all new site features (buildings, parking and drive areas, pedestrian walks, stormwater management areas, buffer areas etc. but not underground utilities) proposed by a plan. The development area shall be delineated using property lines and lines run straight across the property from one property line to another without bending or curving. Planning Staff suggests a development area of 275 feet by 107 feet, to capture the Impound Lot, the drive entrance, the new stormwater management area, and the improvements to the old stormwater management area. 3) Please specify the maximum vehicle capacity of the Impound Lot. 4) In the Data Column, please provide the area of the site in acres as well as square feet. 5) Please correct the Legend to show the correct materials of the surfacing- gravel for the Impound Lot, and asphalt for the entrance. 6) Please add the building setback lines of the IO Zone to each lot on the plan drawing. This is to demonstrate that the fencing is outside of front yard areas, where the maximum fence height is restricted to four feet. 7) The “Planning Commission Approval” signature block is not necessary for this type of application. 8) The project may need a Details sheet. Possible details include the fence elevation, stormwater management equipment, and pavement sections. 9) The Site Plan must be updated with changes required or approvals granted, including any waivers granted by the Planning Commission, prior to Final Plan Approval. 10) Any Sediment & Stormwater Management Plans granted approval by the Kent Conservation District must reflect the Site Plan layout and design conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and comply with the Zoning Ordinance and technical review requirements of other agencies. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.2, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon Site Development Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and

S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 7 of 8 safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed in subsections 2.21 to 2.28. 1) Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider for several site improvements to improve the Impound Lot’s compatibility with the 2011 Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book. Specifically, Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission ask for the following improvements: a. Materials: To further subsection 2.28 related to architectural characteristics, Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider options for the fence and a lot surfacing material more in line with the Transit Center Neighborhood Plan’s aspirations for the physical appearance of new development in the neighborhood. In the absence of a new building, the architectural design standards of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Transit Center Neighborhood Plan should be applied to the overall project. Staff recommends the Commission discuss alternatives for a fence material other than chain link, and for there to be no use of barbed wire. Staff also recommends the Commission consider the appropriateness of the proposed Lot surface as gravel versus a hard-paved surface. Meeting these design standards will keep the immediate area attractive for future development that may want to locate near the transit center. b. Landscaping: If the Planning Commission agrees with the applicant that the current design of the fence is necessary for security reasons, Planning Staff recommends the Commission ask for more robust landscaping that would provide year-round screening for the fence especially on the south, in accordance with subsection 2.25 related to landscaping. The currently proposed Red Maple trees only provide seasonal screening for part of the fence. There was concern from the applicant that planting tall evergreens would obscure the Impound Lot from the proposed security camera. This could be avoided by planting a thick hedge as screening instead, with a mature height slightly taller than the fence. The security camera could also be moved to a location where it would have a better view. X. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1) The Planning Commission should act upon any non-administrative waiver requests for the project as part of any motion to approve this project, or as a separate motion if necessary. Note: Waivers brought before the Planning Commission are at their discretion. The Commission may approve or deny waiver requests. 2) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 3) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Plan, the Plan must be revised to

S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot DAC Report of May 9, 2018 Page 8 of 8 meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff and directly to other agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement. 4) If major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of the Site Plan, contact the Planning Office. Examples include relocation of site components or site entrances and large increases in impervious surface coverage. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations regarding the plan. 5) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections, Pre-Construction meetings, and permits are required. 6) Construction may affect adjacent property owners and nearby travel lanes. Any work requiring the closing or rerouting of potential customers or visitors to adjacent properties should be coordinated as to offer the least amount of inconvenience to the adjacent property owners. 7) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign. 8) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit, Demolition Permit, and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of these Permits from the City of Dover. A Demolition Permit will be required prior to demolition of any existing building remaining on the site. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.