paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, December 17, 2018 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall, City Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING of November 19, 2018 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for TUESDAY, January 22, 2019 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. 2) Update on City Council Actions 3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates a. Education and Training Opportunities 4) Schedule of Deadlines and Meeting Dates for 2019 OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS 1) C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 South DuPont Highway – Public Hearing and Review of Application for Conditional Use to permit conversion of an existing 4,300 +/- SF one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 40 children. The property consists of a 0.69-acre (30,000 +/- SF) parcel and is located on the west side of South DuPont Highway, south of River Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Christian Life Center and the applicant is Jaqueline Harris. Property Address: 614 South DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.14- 01-19.01-000. Council District 4. NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities b. Continued Review of Preliminary DRAFT Goals & Recommendations c. Continued Review of Preliminary DRAFT Land Development Plan Map Series d. Continued of Preliminary DRAFT Annexation Plan Map Series 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: December 7, 2018

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mr. Roach was absent. (Mr. Roach arrived at 7:05 pm.) Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mr. Julian Swierczek and Mrs. Tracey Harvey. Also represent were Mr. Leonard Iacono, Mr. Tolano Anderson, Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Chris Mondoro and Mr. Luis Marcelino. Speaking from the public was Ms. Debra May and Ms. Carol Young. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Roach absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTBOER 15, 2018 Mr. Holt moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of October 15, 2018, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Roach absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Swierczek provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on October 22 & 23, 2018 and November 13 & 14, 2018. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Delaware APA 2018 Regional Conference was held in Rehoboth Beach, DE over two days at the Atlantic Sands Hotel. All of the Planning Staff attended that event with a series of workshop sessions on various topics and keynote speakers. They heard some interesting information on autonomous vehicles and what that may mean for land planning in the future. It’s coming sooner than you think. They also learned about getting your message across and how to simplify and use different techniques for that as well. Overall, it was a great conference and you may certainly see some of the ideas that they gathered at that conference in future activities here. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they recently participated with the City Manager’s Office in conducting an information meeting night on Flood Plain Mapping for the area of Bay Tree Neighborhood. There are some flood mapping changes that have occurred and that are pending in that area and this was an opportunity for outreach to property owners in that area. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: a. S-16-13 Revised Dunkin Donuts at 1116-1128 Forrest Avenue – Request for One Year Extension of the Planning Commission conditional approval granted November 21, 2016 for the Site Development Plan application to permit the construction of approximately 34,813 S.F. of retail and office space in four buildings and other site improvements. The project is to include a Parcel Consolidation Plan to merge the six parcels on site. The project’s initial phase consists of one 7,389 S.F. building with three tenant spaces, one of which will be occupied by a Dunkin Donuts, and one 3,712 S.F. building with one tenant space. Construction would involve demolition of all existing buildings on site. The property consists of 7.7 acres and is located on the south side of Forrest Avenue west of Saulsbury Road. The property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Ennis Business Associates. LLC. And developer/purchaser is Franchise Management Services, Inc. Property Address: 1116- 1128 Forrest Avenue. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.11-02-22.00-000, ED-05-076.11-02- 59.00-000, ED-05-076.11-02-20.00-000, ED-05-076.11-02-21.00-000, ED-05- 076.11-02-23.00-000 and ED-05-076.11-02-20.01-000. Council District 1. Waivers Granted: Partial Elimination of Curbing, and Opaque Barrier Requirements – Fence Component (Material & Location); and Consideration for Determination of Superior Urban Design. Representatives: None Mr. Diaz stated this project was originally approved in November 2016. At that time, the approval was for 34,813 SF of new commercial and office space divided between four buildings and the intention was to have construction of those buildings happen in several phases. We did not specify at that time how many phases there would be. In November of this year, the project received Final Plan approval and a Building Permit was issued for Phase 1 of the project which is a 7,389 SF building that contains the Dunkin Donuts and two other tenant spaces. There is some concern that the applicants might not be able to start construction before the original Planning Commission approval expires on the 30th of this month. If there aren’t people out there actually doing work by that date then approval would expire even if they had the Permit in hand. You will see in their letter that they are requesting extension of the project mainly out of abundance of caution and they are continuing to move forward towards the start of their construction. They had a Pre-Construction meeting with the City earlier this month and a Pre- Construction meeting with the Kent Conservation District; and they are working to get their Entrance Permit from DelDOT so we do expect them to start construction very soon just not before the end of this month. Extensions are usually for one year. They might ask for a different amount of time but the Commission can chose how long to grant the extension for. Once Phase 1 of this project is complete, they will have another year in which to start Phase 2 before the plan faces expiration again. If they want, they can apply for another extension at that time. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve a one year extension for S-16-13 Revise Dunkin Donuts at 1116- 1128 Forrest Avenue, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; his understanding is that sometimes these projects take a little bit of time to come to fruition and due to the conversation, Staff comments and that reality he is in favor. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; it’s been adequately substantiated a need for this delay. 2) Update on Status of Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District (Discussion only – No Application Pending) Representatives: Mr. Leonard Iacono, Investment Property Associates Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an item that Mr. Hugg requested to be placed on the agenda as an update on the status of the Eden Hill Farm TND Residential District. It is for limited discussion only, there is no formal application pending so there is no action that the Planning Commission can take in regards to an application. The packet consisted of a series of letters of correspondence between the City and the applicant. In addition, the Planning Commission was emailed late last week a letter that we received dated November 13, 2018. Included in the packet is a letter dated September 5, 2018. This letter was issued by the Planning Office. It focuses on summarizing the activities to date at that point in time. It summarized the actions or presentations that occurred at the Planning Commission meetings in June and then a report that was given to the Planning Commission in July as a follow up after they again met with the interested parties. The letter very clearly outlines the review processes for the two areas of the development that were in question; the first being the townhouse area concept which is north of Little Eden Way. It was a concept for townhouses that would basically be changing out some of the multi-family large lots and dividing them into townhouse lots. Staff advised that this would be a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Record Plan submission so that qualifies for an Administrative review process and does require submission of materials to the Planning Office for a formal review. The second concept area is the area to the south of Little Eden Way; pretty much the whole southern extent of the project area. Their concept was for a 55+ community with scenarios that would eliminate alleys and reconfigure Clubhouse areas and offerings. This letter reflects that the Planning Office has determined that it requires a Revised Implementation Plan application. That is a formal application that must be made to the Planning Office in order to be heard by the Planning Commission. It is subject to our regular application filing deadlines and would be subject to public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. In response to that letter issued by the City, on September 24, 2018 the interested parties, with a letter coming from Investment Property Associates LLC submitted a letter back that summarized a large portion of the initial letter from the City and then continued to outline some of their concerns and questions about their project concept. Also attached to it was a markup diagram of potential thoughts for their concepts and then it offered a series of concepts from Ryan Homes related to both the townhouse project and the 55+ single family units. The third letter that was in the packet was from October 26, 2018 issued by the Planning Office that reiterated that the two concepts and the process for considering those concepts was again the townhouse area being an Administrative Plan Review process and the 55+ being a Revised Implementation Plan that would be needed. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Mr. Hugg also identified general concerns that the Planning Office was seeing for a number of the concepts that they were putting forth. He notes specifically that we really can’t issue any kind of approval or support in regards to the concepts as they both require specific review procedures and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the form of specific applications. The letter that was forwarded to the Commission members dated November 13, 2018 comes from Ryan Homes and it outlines a number of things that they are offering in regards to the two concepts for this project and outlines some of the details of that. She believes that the intent of Mr. Hugg in requesting that this be placed on the agenda after hearing from the applicant multiple times that they wanted to appear in front of the Planning Commission was really to serve as an update as to where things were. The Planning Staff has clearly stated what the process is to begin any kind of review of changes to the project area. As noted, the applicants or interested parties are here tonight and they have some presentation that they would like to make. Mr. Iacono stated that Eden Hill has a history. He was the original “architect” of the project as it stands approved to this day back in 2005. However, due to changes in the economy, demographics and things of that nature he found it necessary to make a submission before the City of Dover to change some of the concepts within this approved plan. He came before the Commission in June of this year, basically stating the reasons why he wanted to make these changes and why Ryan Homes has suggested the architectural changes for what they call their Simply Ryan product as well at the 55+ Community. When we met in June, the Commission approved a motion that basically suggested that the developer and his team meet with the Planning Staff to try to work out an equitable solution to the process and they did just that. In fact, they actually started that process long before the June meeting. They have been beating this up since a year and a half ago. They are basically at an impasse. The reason that he is here to speak is to basically say that even though he does not have a problem with the actual process, for example the submission of an Implementation Plan for the southern half of the property which is a 55+ and realizing that the townhouse section is an administration change, the fact remains that it is not prudent for himself to spend $100,000+ for a plan submission if we cannot agree on the architectural plans and the concept that Ryan Homes wants to build. The Implementation Plan will simply show the reconfiguration of the infrastructure which is minimal at best. To him, the substance of the matter is not the changes to the road systems or major changes to the open space or any of those kinds of things. The TND says that he has the right within his approval process to make changes to the type of product without increasing the number of lots. In actuality, his submission actually reduces the approved 665 units down to 500+ units. As he exhausted himself to the point of wanting to stand in front of the Commission is to basically say that if he can’t get the Planning Staff to sign off on the architectural submissions and approvals and recommendations by Ryan Homes, then there is no need for him to file an Implementation Plan. He can’t do one without the other. If he gets the approvals for Ryan Homes and we are all on the same page for them accepting the architectural submissions, then he has no problem going through due process. He is basically here to state that if that support is there fine but if that support is not there then it is what is. Ryan Homes has provided packages that show their architectural plans and concepts and through working with the Planning Staff, they have gotten to a point where they have exhausted all of their measures on what they can do and cannot do. We are at a point where it is either going to be accepted or not but once again, it’s critical for the architectural plans to be approved and accepted prior to him going through the formal application process and that’s why he has not done so. 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Mr. Holden stated that there seems to be some disagreement over whether it’s the appropriate sequence that Code requires or the desired sequence. Could Staff please weigh in on how the sequence should occur per City Code? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that currently there is an Implementation Plan that is in place for the Residential District of Eden Hill. It has a plan for development layout of lots, infrastructure and there is an associated Pattern Book (Comprehensive Design Standards Manual) that exists that is in place. If there are substantial changes to either the Plan or in the Pattern Book, that requires a Revised Implementation Plan to be submitted. They recognize that it is a step that is definitely necessary for the southern portion of the project. The issue here with asking Staff and/or the Planning Commission to bless architecture is that right now they have to look to the current Pattern Book that is approved and adopted. The architecture concepts that have been submitted in certain fashions deviate from the Pattern Book. Yes, there is flexibility built into the Pattern Book but some of their proposals are in direct conflict with other portions of the Pattern Book. If they were just looking to bless the architecture, they could certainly file an application of a revised submission for the architecture alone before they did any kind of full redesign of the southern part of the project. It is not the case in a TND or in other types of applications in the City for the City Staff to give any of approval or blessing of an initial concept. Everything has a particular review process through often times the Planning Commission that needs to occur. We do meet with applicants to discuss projects ahead of time and give guidance as to where we may see things that seem to work and things that seem to do work as well. But that is not to be taken as an approval to move forward with a project. In this case, she thinks over the year and a half of discussions, they have identified a number of things that they have concerns about as to whether or not it meets the Pattern Book or the approved plan that is in place. If they wish to change what is approved and in place, there is an application process that must occur. Mr. Tolbert stated that they have already taken a vote on this at a previous hearing so a vote at this point is not necessary. The matter can still rest with the applicant and the Planning Staff as we agreed and voted on at the previous hearing about this application. Mr. Iacono stated that in the Infrastructure Plan, one of the things that they would propose along with the architectural changes from Ryan Homes is that in the 55+ community they would be eliminating the alleyways because all of the houses would be front loaded garages; so therefore, the alleyways would then become part of their lots. In the townhouse section, there are a small number of side by side duplexes, some do have alleys, some do not and some are front loaded. Our plan is to change those few side-by-side duplexes to townhouses as well and if they accommodate alleys they would do so. If they were front loaded, they would maintain front loaded. But the primary change in the infrastructure would be the elimination of the alleyways. Mr. Tolbert stated that he would suggest that the applicant continue to work with the Planning Staff to see if all of the differences can be resolved in the interest of all parties. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would note the handout (at the meeting) that was received from Ryan Homes. It is a series of the building elevations and color renderings. It appears that it is the same series or a comparable series to what was attached to one of the letters of their packet dated September 24, 2018. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 NEW APPLICATIONS 1) Z-18-03 Lands of Faithwork LLC, and Paul & Justine Davis at 971, 975, 983, 987, and 991 Forest Street, 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road, and 20 and 30 Carver Road - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on rezoning of nine parcels of land totaling 2.32 +/- acres located on the north side of Forest Street, between Saulsbury Road to the west, and Carver Road to the east. The properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone), C- 1A (Limited Commercial Zone), and C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owners of record are Faithwork, LLC and Paul Davis & Justine J. Davis (Paul and Justine Davis Rev Trust). Property Addresses: 971, 975, 983, 987, and 991 Forest Street, 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road, and 20 and 30 Carver Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.07-01-62.00-000, ED-05-076.07- 01-37.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-36.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-35.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01- 34.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-38.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-39.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01- 61.00-000, and ED-05-076.07-01-60.00-000. Council District 4. Ordinance #2018-11. The First Reading for this zoning map amendment was completed on October 22, 2018. The Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled before City Council for December 10, 2018 Representatives: Mr. Tolano Anderson, Faithwork LLC; Mr. Paul Davis, property owner Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a request for rezoning. As the Chairman mentioned, it involves a number of properties that are addressed on Forest Street, Saulsbury Road, and Carver Road. In fact, a total of nine parcels are part of this application that totals 2.33 acres. For the present uses on the site, Staff put together a summary chart that is actually part of the Development Advisory Committee Report. They have a mix of uses currently on these parcels including a restaurant, five single family detached residences, and what is termed by our Code as an “emergency shelter” which was a youth group home facility that was occurring in three buildings; and there is also a motor vehicle service and auto detailing building as well. With the mix of current uses, there is also a mix of zoning on the properties. There are properties zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone), some zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and some zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). All of the properties; however, are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning request takes all of the properties to the same zoning classification and that is a request for C-2A which is the Limited Central Commercial Zone with the properties remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This is kind of the southern half of the block that is bounded by Carver Road on the east, Forest Street on the south and then Saulsbury Road on the west. To the north there are a mix of office buildings, a credit union building and some other residences. At this intersection of Route 8 and Saulsbury Road we find two pharmacies and the Gateway West Shopping Center. Two of the corners are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) already and then the shopping center is zoned SC2 which is a Community Shopping Center Zone. To the east of this property set on the east side of Carver Road, you find the school facilities of William Henry Middle School and Booker T. Washington Elementary School. This subject area has been through the rezoning process a couple of times before and has resulted 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 in the mix of zoning that we see today. We have rezonings in this area that date back to 2005 as a result of some of the planning that happened with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. Likewise, after the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the 2009 Comprehensive Rezoning Project acted to rezone a couple of the properties in the Carver Road area. The most recent rezoning application is from 2014 that involved three of the properties taking them to the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and that was in order to establish that group home youth facility in several of the buildings that basically wrap around the Subway parcel. We are dealing with multiple property owners in this case. The owners are Faithwork LLC and Paul & Justine Davis Revocable Trust. With the Comprehensive Plan, when we look at rezoning applications, they have to look at their Land Development Plan Map. In this case, that Map shows the area with a land-use classification of Commercial and there are a series of zoning districts that would meet that classification. C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is one of them. For the request of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), the uses are really a variety of commercial type uses including retail, offices, personal service, restaurants, service establishments, hotels, places of assembly, drive throughs and also some residential components are allowed; that being one family residences, apartments and multi-family. There are some things that would be subject to Conditional Use and that would be if it was a standalone parking lot or parking structure and any kind of fuel pumps accessory to a permitted use. The project area is part of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and that would continue. That is a specialized zone that promotes urban corridor development and there are a series of architecture, parking and landscaping provisions that come into play during the development activity process. The Planning Staff is recommending that the properties be rezoned to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), finding that that zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and that the properties remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). They find that this area is a key gateway leading in from the west and it’s another key intersection in the City. They hope that the consistency in zoning for a much larger block would encourage redevelopment in the long run for the property. In this case, there are comments from the Development Advisory Committee. Most of them are basically no objections to the rezoning; however, they do note some guidance should the properties be redeveloped as infrastructure planning would have to occur accordingly. Any future redevelopment of this area is not being voted on this evening. That would be subject to future application processes be it plan review perhaps with this body or even building permitting processes. The Commissioners are making a recommendation. This project request for rezoning is subject to review and hearing before the City Council. Tonight, they are making a request to zone a series of nine parcels to a zoning classification of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Mr. Anderson stated that he is here to represent and support this application. They have been accumulating these properties for nearly a decade and a half because of the tremendous potential for development in this area. He and the co-applicant realize the potential not only for development but also for economic opportunities for business owners as well as job creation. They are excited about the whole project at this point. It has been a successful project so far; however, this is the first step moving them towards actual development. The DAC Meeting was really positive. As Mrs. Melson-Williams noted, there was no opposition and no recommendations or anything that would adversely affect this application. They think this is a good project and it’s good for the area. They have had two meetings with DelDOT so far because this is a high traffic area and those have been really positive as well. They have had really good 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 interaction with the Planning Department. The Development Advisory Committee meeting went very well so they have no objection. At this point, they are very excited. Mr. Davis stated that he and his wife own the two parcels on the corner. Currently, there is a Subway restaurant located on that corner and he is here tonight in support of this application asking the Commission to grant approval so that they may move forward. They are excited about economic development. He supports those types of issues. What they have put together will certainly create jobs for City of Dover and County residents. They are asking that the Commission support them so they can move forward before the City Council and hopefully they get the permission granted so we can move forward. He just wants to note that they have been negotiating with several parties. They don’t have a contract to date because it wouldn’t be wise to sign a contract if you don’t know what your zoning is going to be. Hopefully once they get approval they will be in a position to take it a step farther and negotiate with people that they have already talked to about the project. It’s going to be a very nice project. It is a heavily traveled area with east and west traffic. The traffic count is extremely high. The surrounding area itself is actually a commercial area within itself. Mr. Holt questioned how they made out with DelDOT regarding traffic? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Anderson has been working with DelDOT. The engineers have been out there and from what they have been told, it’s not going to be an issue. There is going to be some redesign of ingress and egress but DelDOT said that can be worked out with no problem. Up to this point, DelDOT is supporting this but obviously they have to get approval in order to nail this thing down. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-18-03 Lands of Faithwork LLC, and Paul & Justine Davis at 971, 975, 983, 987, and 991 Forest Street, 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road, and 20 and 30 Carver Road to rezone it to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), Mr. Holden questioned if the motion was to make a recommendation to City Council to recommend the approval of the rezoning for the sum of the parcels listed since there are two owners? He just wanted to be clear. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Holt stated yes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Holden. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they (the motion makers) are recommending approval to rezone to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) but does that also continue the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) classification as well? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Holt stated yes. The motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to Staff comments that it is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and that the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) promotes corridor redevelopment and coordination as they would like to see it fit. Mr. Roach voting yes; he is very familiar with the area and he would like to see some nice things come that way so he appreciates them working on the redevelopment of that area. Ms. Edwards voting yes; 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 the economic development in that commercial area would be most welcomed. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks it’s a good mix for the area and it joins in with our Comprehensive Plan very well. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on all of the aforementioned conversation. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon previous comments from Commissioners as well as recommendations from the Staff and DAC. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for all of the reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; the applicant is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and they will remain in the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 2) S-18-11 Lidl Grocery Store & Retail Space at North DuPont Highway and Kings Highway NE – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of two new buildings and accompanying site improvements. The larger 29,089 SF building is proposed to be used as a new Lidl Grocery Store. The second 6,000 SF building has a proposed use as a retail space. The previous structures on the site have been demolished, and the site is now vacant. The property consists of a total 6.73 acres (7.275 acres prior to right-of-way dedication) and is located on a site bounded by North DuPont Highway, Maple Parkway, and Kings Highway. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and IO (Institutional and Office Zone) with all site improvements to occur in the C-4 zone. The owners of record are Davis H. Wood, and Kings Highway Land Partners, LL; and equitable owners are Lidl US Operations LLC. Property Addresses: 122, 136, 140 and 162 North DuPont Highway and 321 Kings Highway NE. Tax Parcels: ED-05-068.18-01-20.00-000, ED-05-068.18-01-21.00-000, ED-05-068.18-01-22.00-000, ED-05-068.18- 01-23.00-000, ED-05-068.18-01-24.00-000 and ED-05-068.18-01-25.00. Council District 2. This Application is to supersede Site Plan S-16-14 Lidl Grocery Store previously granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission in July 2016 and a previous submission S-18-03 Lidl Grocery Store & Retail Space. Representatives: Mr. Chris Mondoro, Bohler Engineering; Mr. Luis Marcelino, Lidl US Mr. Diaz stated that this project is for a 29,089 SF grocery store as well as a 6,000 SF retail building on a site that is bound by North DuPont Highway to the east, Kings Highway to the north and west and Maple Parkway to the south. This project is the Lidl Grocery Store and it’s a revision of the original Lidl project that was approved by the Planning Commission in July 2016. That original project did receive an extension of approval at the July 2018 meeting so as of now that original project is still active; however, if the plan before the Commission tonight is approved it will supersede the old plan. It is considered by the Planning Office to be an entire new plan so any of the approvals it got the last time would need to be gotten again following tonight. If you look at the plan, there are a few differences between it and the original 2016 plan. First, is the new building which is located to the southeast of the grocery store. The grocery store itself is also smaller coming down from 36,000 SF to about 29,000 SF and its architecture has also changed significantly as a result of that. They do not yet have architecture yet for the 6,000 SF retail building. That will come before the Planning Commission at a later date. In addition, some aspects of the Site Plan have changed as well. There is a somewhat different parking configuration and the residual parcel which is carried over from the last application along Kings Highway has a new proposed access south of the grocery store instead of north of it as it was originally proposed. Other minor things are the dumpsters. There is one each for the grocery store and for the retail building. Site entrances have not changed. It is still connected to the existing Wells Fargo Bank to the south. You will see that the row of parking spaces near the bottom of the display was 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 constructed by the bank. That project is almost done if not done yet and the Lidl project will still be connecting to that. There are also a few things that have not changed from the original project that were specifically requested by the Planning Commission or Planning Staff. These include the row of street trees along Kings Highway, a row of evergreen trees along the back of the grocery store building to screen that side of the building and a multi-use path along Kings Highway and DuPont Highway frontages. We do have a number of recommendations for this project tonight even though it is substantially similar to the one that came before. These are just intended to address some differences that have popped up between the original submission and this one here. The first is that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission evaluate the architecture of the grocery store to determine if it acceptably meets the City’s architectural standards. The architecture of this building did change somewhat significantly and they are concerned that the east wall in particular may run afoul of the Zoning Ordinance provisions prohibiting blank walls. If the Planning Commission sees fit to request a change to the architecture that could be achieved through such methods as windows, projecting elements on the façade, material differentiation, landscape screening or a combination of such elements. The second thing that Staff is recommending is that the Commission requires some or all of the parking in front of the building to either be removed or to be moved to another area of the site. They are concerned that having parking directly adjacent to a major intersection of the drive aisles would potentially cause problems for cars moving in that area maybe even collisions. The plan that is shown in this color rendering (on presentation screen) is slightly revised from the original submission for this month and it shows a few spaces removed but the Commission can decide whether they think that is enough. The third thing that Staff is recommending is that Commission require an additional pedestrian entrance from Kings Highway. This is to reduce the distance pedestrians have to walk in order to get onto the site particularly when they are coming south from Kings Highway. Doing so would reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the Kings Highway main site entrance. As you will see on the Revised Plan Rendering, they did include that but Staff still wanted to ask for it. The fourth thing that Staff is recommending is that the Commission require reinstatement of the second cross access location. As he previously mentioned, the first one is to the residual parcel that is south of the grocery store but there is previously one to the corner parcel at the north where is says existing Pay Day Loans. That potential cross access location is important for if that parcel is redeveloped in the future because in such case it would very likely no longer be able to have the access directly from the intersection as it does now. The fifth thing that Staff is recommending is that the Commission renew the requirements for landscaping that they previously asked for in 2016. Again, this is for the screening row of trees behind the grocery store and street trees for Kings Highway. The reason for having those trees hasn’t changed but since this is a new plan those requirements would have to be reinstated for them to be effective. They are also recommending that the Commission ask for a greater variety of tree species in the rear screen. That is to prevent if one of the trees gets sick it would prevent that disease from just propagating down the line of trees because different species are resistant to different diseases. As a final note, he would like to impress upon the Commission the importance of considering these recommendations and making a motion accordingly based on what improvements to the site design or architecture that you agree they need. Mr. Mondoro stated that he would like to thank the Commission for having them here. He knows that they were here a couple of years ago for the old store and he knows that a couple of the 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Commissioners are probably wondering why it wasn’t under construction. At that time, the plan was for an approximately 36,000 SF building. Today they are coming back in with a 29,000 SF building. There has been modified architecture that they will address later as well. Lidl has opened dozens of stores on the East Coast and evaluated what they needed in the U.S. They have lots of experience in Europe but they weren’t sure how that was going to apply to the U.S. market so there has been a reevaluation of the store and what they need internally. Also during that time, they did not stop pursing this site. They have worked extensively with DNREC to enter into the Brownfield’s program to come up with an agreement there for the remediation of that site. A lot of money has been spent on the investigations. As Mr. Diaz mentioned in his report, there was a gas station and a laundry mat onsite which will have contaminates in the soils that they are looking to address as part of this application to make sure that they are incorporated. Mr. Diaz also mentioned that at the time of this application, initially Lidl did not own the property. They have since closed on the parcels and are now owners of the site. As Mr. Diaz mentioned, the location that is being displayed is on the eastern side of the building. What you will see in the rendering is at the point where the access comes into the site from Route 13, that was the area that was discussed during the DAC Meeting as being one of the primary areas of concern. Since that meeting, there were initially four parking spaces located there; they have removed them from that intersection and relocated them elsewhere on site to partially address some of the concerns there. As Mr. Diaz mentioned, there are parking spaces located along that drive aisle which they would like to keep. They would like to keep the ADA spaces close to the building so that they are not crossing a lane of traffic. Also, Lidl has a number of stores in operation today with this very configuration and to his knowledge there have not been significant issues at those locations. They are okay with the internal pedestrian facilities. They think that it’s good recommendation after talking with Staff and reviewing the site after leaving the DAC Meeting. They have proposed a sidewalk and they are okay with that condition on the Site Plan as well as the additional bike spaces for the retail building. The cross access to the north to the Pay Day Loans was an oversight on their part; they will provide that cross access. As that was intended to be there as part of this application. As far landscaping, they do still propose a row of evergreen trees consistent with the previous approval and they are okay with varying the species there. They feel like they have tried to accommodate all of Staff’s comments for the site elements. For the architecture, there is a representative here tonight from Lidl. They have developed a building that they are very proud of. Yes, it is different from what was previously approved but they still think that it is a quality product. There is still varying surfaces on the building. On the right side, the plan is the main entry into the building. There will be some signage there as well. There is a brick façade there as well as white EIFS panels with broken up columns at points along the building as well as a stone watertable there which Lidl has looked to pursue at this location. Mr. Tolbert stated that he is not understanding what the applicant is saying about the architecture. That building is just a flat roof building and very non-descript looking. It’s going to be facing North DuPont Highway and they would always like buildings to have more architecture than just that the flat non-desript rendering that we see today. What did you intend to do about the architecture? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Marcelino stated that they have gone through some minor changes to the building. They have maintained the glass façade to provide some transparency. The materiality of the building remains the same. The large element that has been removed from what was previously seen is the curved roof. They now went to a more standard 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 approach to their roofing. As far as the façade that faces east which is the one in question here, there were some clerestory windows up high there. Considering what’s behind the wall, they really didn’t see the need to maintain those; however, breaking the east façade with pilasters and the wainscot and the change in materials in them, they felt like they were approaching certain projections in the east façade which is pretty standard in our prototype. They would like to maintain the façade. If they have to break it up more, they will certainly entertain those but it’s really hard to tell from a two-dimensional drawing what it would look like. They believe that it is broken up and they stand firm behind their design as they believe that the architect has done a good job of breaking the façade down into panels and then different materials with gray pilasters, the brick wainscot and then EIFS panels setback from those. Dr. Jones stated that she too has some concern about the appearance of the building looking flat. The applicant made a statement that in the original plan there was a curved roof but they decided to go with the standard roof. Is the standard roof the company’s standard? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Marcelino it’s in terms of a parapet and the way it functions that would be standard; it drains to one side because it’s sloped. Dr. Jones stated that as they looked over the designs, did they have an opportunity to drive down Route 13 to make any assessment about the aesthetics of the building that are going to be in close proximity to your facility? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Marcelino stated that they have looked at that; however, the intent is to stand behind their prototype and it is very difficult to try to manipulate a prototype to kind of blend in. What they try with the materiality and the brick and the wainscot and the pilasters, they think that it blends into the materiality that you find in this area. But trying to break their prototype, if there is a prototype in every municipality that they go into it could be a challenge. Mr. Mondoro stated that right now they have a large landscape area in between the building and the sidewalk today. As they are thinking here, they could provide some ornamental trees planted within that area to further break up that façade. It is not something that is currently anticipated out there today but something that they think would fit well within those panels and within those areas, is that something that the Commission would consider? Mrs. Welsh stated that the roof is a TPO roof that is white as well. She has reservations about that because she doesn’t believe that that type of architecture fits in with what our architectural requirements are within the City. The building is going to be block throughout, correct? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Marcelino stated that the west façade is split face block with a brick wainscot. Mrs. Welsh questioned if it was white split face block? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Marcelino stated that it is not. It is gray split face. The only white surfaces on the building aside from the TPO roof from an energy standpoint is the EIFS which is primarily on the east façade. Mrs. Welsh stated that she still feels that we could do some obstructers on there that would probably help it. The applicant did mention that it is difficult to tell what is happening with a two dimensional drawing but she is wondering if there was a possibility that they could have been provided something that was a three dimensional drawing or a rendering of that type that would 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 have shown a little better what the plans are on that. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Marcelino stated that is possible. They can certainly provide a rendering of what their intent of the site is to help visualize what the building will look like. They have done it in the past and they certainly have no issues in providing this. Mrs. Welsh stated that she has a question regarding the parking issue that the DAC had a concern about. If she is looking at the new plot plan, you basically moved the parking away from the intersection of the two drive aisles? She still sees the parking there and that is a safety concern for her as well. She envisions a lot of backing up into two lane traffic there that is a major ingress and egress area and she foresees a lot of issues there. She is not sure that moving it down really solves the issue. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Mondoro stated that they did not eliminate all of those spaces and the spaces that were directly at the intersection, they moved those to the retail parcel. They didn’t shift it down; the other spaces were there so they eliminated four spaces from that drive aisle. As he mentioned earlier, Lidl does have store operational now with this configuration. Mr. Holden stated that he seconds what Mrs. Welsh said about a three-dimensional representation. In his view, he thinks that they have a couple of options that he thinks are good options for the Commission anyway. They would be to bring a three-dimensional rendering back to the Commission or work with Staff and the comments that they have provided, one of which is to provide a façade that is more interesting. What appears in the two-dimensional rendering is kind of a checker board blank face and what they had before from his memory was certainly more appealing. Even if you had clerestory windows or some varying architecture versus what appears to be a plain rectangle from the Route 13 Corridor which is an important corridor for us, he thinks that those are both viable opportunities that he would suspect the Commission would be supportive of. He thinks that they need to certainly be supportive of a path that works for the applicant but he thinks that generally they are hearing that that’s the desire to see something more along the lines of what they had seen before. Mr. Marcelino stated that when they look at what the east façade looks like currently per their new prototype which is currently under question, is the intent to just have the façade broken down, remove some of the whiteness and potentially introduce a new material? Some more clearer direction would really help here. Responding to Mr. Mondoro, Mr. Holden stated that the challenge that they have is that the Commission had their general thoughts and they wait to see what the applicant brings forth. What was brought forth before was approved so he sees two paths personally. You could satisfy Staff by continuing to work with them to satisfy their perspective or you could bring something back to the Commission to get their approval. It’s hard for the Commission to design something in words for the applicant that they know for certainty is going to meet muster. Mr. Marcelino stated that with the initially approved east façade, the only difference between that one and this one is the clerestory windows; all of the whiteness existed. Mr. Mondoro stated that the previous one did have the window up there and he believes that it did have another brick face towards the southern side. Those are some of the major differences here begin the clerestore windows and additional brick panels to break up that façade. Is that the direction that Staff is looking to go; consistent to the previous architecture? Responding to Mr. 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Mondoro, Mr. Diaz stated that the previous version of the architecture did not so strongly trigger our concerns about the blank wall precisely because it had a line of windows on the front façade. Mr. Mondoro stated that if that were something that were to be added in here, being that line of windows and breaking up or providing brick panels on the southern side to what’s on the northern side, is that something that would be approved? Responding to Mr. Mondoro, Mr. Holden stated that from his seat, he so comfortable with the applicant to work with Staff to satisfy Staff’s concerns as they have verbalized them but that has to be an ongoing discussion so it’s hard for them to provide a conclusive and turn your words into a graphic or into an architectural concept. Or you could bring it back to us. Generally, from his own personal point of view, yes but that is going to take some ongoing dialogue with Staff if we move forward with an approval tonight. The Commission can certainly move forward to offer the opportunity for them to bring back a further refined or 3D concept to the Commission. He wants to circle back to a one other issue that’s been raised. The access way off of Kings Highway certainly transitions from entrance to parking lot very quickly and he thinks that there is an opportunity to hold onto the parking spots that you have but to allow for greater depth into the site so that you provide a clear drive aisle that is not driving right as parking spots. He doesn’t know that he sees a space consideration that would preclude you from doing that. The challenge is that you get about a car length in from that radius and you are heading right at parking spots and you could certainly carry that vehicular pathway forward further transitioning where the drive aisles are and where the islands area a little bit differently to allow people that come off of the street with some velocity. People backing up aren’t always aware of that. Mr. Mondoro stated that it seems like there are two spaces and then an island adjacent to the building. If those two spaces were removed providing further separation from that intersection so that the backing up maneuver is further away, would that be something that would address the Commission’s concerns? Responding to Mr. Mondoro, Mr. Holden stated that again he thinks that their challenge is that it is tough to verbalize. He would personally be comfortable with them working with Staff to continue to work at this. he thinks that if you come off of Kings Highway if you are coming into the site you are heading generally towards the southeast direction, you are going right at an island and some spots and whether that vehicle travel way continues forward and you kind of reorganize. You have the parking spots that face Kings Highway you could certainly continue that and have opposing parking spots there and allow that vehicular way that’s a southeast/northwest direction to continue through that island and not be in conflict with it so directly. He thinks Staff is very capable of working with the applicant on that issue if you are comfortable to massage that. He doesn’t think that it necessarily changes the parking count it’s just a movement change. Mrs. Welsh questioned how Staff views the change in parking? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Diaz stated that at the DAC meeting it was the consensus of Staff that where there are existing Lidl’s in Delaware, particularly the Middletown location, and we see this configuration at those existing stores. They do have this issue with cars backing out and it creating a problem. Mrs. Welsh questioned if it’s still considered a little bit hazardous or a safety issue? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Diaz stated yes, a little bit. They do think that moving the parking spaces from in front of the intersection addresses the problem a little bit. Certainly with the intersections to the 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 south where you see it intersecting with the parking in front of the retail building, those would be a little less busy so it’s not necessarily as hazardous but yes, there have been issues still with cars backing out of those spaces into the main drive aisle traffic. Mrs. Welsh stated that she agrees. She sees issues especially with the fact that there are ADA parking spaces. She is not so sure that drivers back up a little bit slower sometimes and they might be in the path of an oncoming car without realizing it until it’s too late. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the applicant is willing to work with Staff regarding some of these issues in a cooperative manner? Mr. Marcelino stated yes, they certainly want this project to happen. He knows that it has taken a little long but it was needed to take that time to finalize some of the things. They certainly want the project to happen; it will bring many jobs to the town and they think that it’s a good thing. They certainly want to work with Staff to get some of these items corrected. His team will continue to reach out and get feedback. They hope to get it right very soon because they definitely want to build this project as soon as possible. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing Ms. Debra May – 284 Kings Highway NE Dover DE 19904 Ms. May stated that she has lived on Kings Highway NE for fifteen years. She literally lives just across from that lower parking lot which is Probation and Parole. At the end of that sidewalk is a bus stop and there is also a bus stop at Luther Towers but way into Luther Towers not at the street. She does know that there is a lot of road traffic between Probation and Parole up to DuPont Highway. She is wondering if there are going to be any additional bus stops perhaps because currently there is a fence around that parking lot at Probation and Parole so there would be no access. Probation and Parole does not want to take down their fence or have a walkway cut through their fence. A concern for this store is to have more traffic coming because people would not want to walk all the way up and then come down to your store to utilize your store. There is a bus stop there already but it would be difficult to utilize it and go to your store. The other concern would be the traffic going along that fence line of the parking lot of Probation and Parole. Ms. Carol Young – 412 Kings Highway NE Dover DE 19904 Ms. Young stated that she lives across from the Lidl and she is right across from the trees. She did not see the new version of the plan until tonight so she was not aware of the changes. She thinks that the changes are very nice and she is very appreciative of where the trash receptacles are, they are not in the back where they were. She thinks that Ms. May’s suggestion for a sidewalk entrance with a bus stop would be convenient for those people that take a bus. It would cut through some of the around that they would have to do. Her concern is the entrance off of Kings Highway and whether it’s a right-in only or if it will accommodate in and out traffic. She worked at Wells Fargo and she knows that the entrance from the highway was a very congested one. There was backup traffic for the MAC machine and it would create problems at times or cause people to back into or stop into the highway because they weren’t able to get in. Mr. Mondoro stated that they have worked with DelDOT. The previous store did have approvals for the Entrance Plan. They are not proposing to change anything that’s part of that. Anything 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 that you see out there was approved by DelDOT. We have had conversations with them since and they are okay with us continuing that plan; just updating the Record Plan, no changes to the Entrance Plan. They have reached out to DART and DelDOT because they are providing a bus stop along Route 13. DelDOT did not request a bus stop on Kings Highway so one has not been provided there. Regarding the access point on Kings Highway, it will be full movement. That is something that they have approval from DelDOT for and something that they are looking to continue here today as well. Ms. Young questioned if that means that people coming from the highway from the north taking a right turn into the road would make a left into the store? Dunkin Donuts is right there and that can be a very congested intersection so if they have access from Kings Highway going west that could back up traffic. Mr. Tolbert stated that he recommends that the two ladies who spoke talk to their neighbors and get together to talk to DelDOT. You also may want to sit down outside of this meeting with the applicant and you may be able to get on one page. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert stated that he thinks the motion should include a requirement to work with Staff on the issues raised in this hearing regarding this application. Mr. Holden stated that a full movement intersection is one that you can turn right or left out of or come right or left into. At the end of the day, he travels that road and knows that there are challenges that really is a DelDOT issue and not one that the Planning Commission gets to weigh in on too much. He does understand it and it’s one that someone could certainly pursue. Mr. Holt questioned if DelDOT has signed off on this latest project? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that from the DAC comments from DelDOT, they do note that the project was previously reviewed and approved through DelDOT’s Subdivision Section. That means that it had Entrance Plan approval and that would be for both the entrance onto Kings Highway and onto Route 13 which is obviously a right-in/right-out. That also includes other improvements in the right-of-way which in this case is a multi-use path network along the roadways. The DAC comments from DelDOT note that the developer should schedule a pre- submittal meeting so basically they will have to go back to DelDOT to kind of make sure that with the revisions to this site they can still maintain their site Entrance Plan approval that they have in hand. Mr. Holt stated that it looks like Maple Parkway is going to be a busy intersection between Maple Parkway and Kings Highway with the bank and the new shopping center and everything going on there. Good business brings in dollars and hopefully everyone will work out the traffic. Mr. Holden moved to approve S-18-11 Lidl Grocery Store & Retail Space at North DuPont Highway and Kings Highway NE that includes the Parcel Consolidation Plan. The motion would include a requirement for the applicant to work with Staff on all Staff recommendations to the satisfaction of Staff to address those issues; he thinks that allows the applicant a path to move 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 forward. He thinks that Staff will be reasonable and he thinks the applicant has got some room to move towards the issues that the Commission has raised tonight. They are excited for this project to come to resolution here in the City and we appreciate you bringing it back to us, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; he thinks it follows Staff comments and Planning Commission items of discussion. He thinks that it is a great project for the City and a footprint of this type of development is needed and he is pleased that the applicant is here to work with the City to make it happen. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the applicant’s willingness to work with Staff to address the concerns. She thinks that it’s going to bring a lot of jobs to the area and she shops at the Lidl store in Middletown so she is pretty excited to have one here. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that it will bring jobs to the area and it’s going to be a plus for the whole City of Dover. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous comments. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon previous statements. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; the motion was thorough and complete. NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities (Project Update October 2018) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the packet, Staff included a three page project update. It kind of gives a status of where things stand. They submitted this update to the City Council at their Council Committee of the Whole last week. It gives an update of where they are taskwise. They continue to have various meetings among Staff and other agency groups. Outreach has begun to their adjacent jurisdictions and meetings have been held with Cheswold as well as discussions with Little Creek and some initial discussions with Kent County and the Town of Camden. At this point, the key thing that they have out there is these preliminary items. Staff continues to work on the writing of the text and what is current out for review and comment and was the Commission’s homework assignment from last month was to look carefully at these Preliminary documents and maps. b. Review of Preliminary Goals & Recommendations Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a series of goals and recommendations and action items for their topic chapters of the Plan. There is everything from Natural Resources through Preservation and Utilities and City Services and Economic Development and Housing. All of them have a series of goals, recommendations and then the bullet points are kind of like action concepts or action items specifically. She has received some comments from Mr. Tolbert but not sure that she has heard anything from other Commission members. c. Review of Preliminary DRAFT Land Development Plan Map Series Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Preliminary DRAFT Land Development Plan Map Series is also out for review. This is the one with a rainbow of colors that identifies land-use classifications for all properties that are in the City. 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 d. Review of Preliminary DRAFT Annexation Plan Map Series Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Annexation Plan Map Series is also in the Preliminary DRAFT phase. It focuses on identifying potential annexation areas for the City. At this point, she would be happy to entertain any questions or comments that the Commission has on these drafts. They have put out this information to get an early reaction to this document. It is available on the City’s website so the public can see it. Like she said, they did present it to Council and their Committee group. They had some minor comments from them but nothing substantial. They would like to hear comments at this point because it allows them if they have totally missed something to make sure we are capturing that before we move into really what would be issuance of a Draft and then the very formal review process when they get into 2019. If the Commissioners would like another hard paper copy of these documents, Staff would be happy to get those to them. It’s okay to take your red pen to it and write comments and mark up and questions. Staff would like to hear from the Commission as part of this process. Ms. Maucher questioned when more text of the documents will be available? She had some concern with the language where it sounded like there was the starting of processes which she thinks are already in place. Rather than work with it would be “continuing” to work with. If she had the backup textual document she could look at the recommendations. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at this point there is no draft full document; there are bits and pieces of it. They anticipate releasing a Draft of the document in January. It is still a work in progress. The chapter pieces that the Commission is not seeing at this point are a lot of background information, facts information and that kind of thing. If you think that there is something that they should have already done and it should be continued with, circle it. Staff may have already flagged it at this point. Staff is looking at all of this as well. Each of these sections of Goals and Recommendations was written by the Staff member who is assigned that chapter so they are doing the markups of everybody else’s stuff as well. This is what they have at this point that they can release. Mr. Diaz stated that at this point they have received written comments from the City Manager and a few City Departments as well. So any comments that the Commission wants to provide to Staff in writing would certainly be welcome because they will put them all together and in the next few weeks they are going to be revising these DRAFT Goals and Recommendations as well as continuing to write the main plan text. Ms. Maucher stated that she started to go through with a red pen and then thought if she has some backup information maybe this wouldn’t be necessary. It just seemed like she has a lot of comments that might not need to be there. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that was okay, they can sort it out. Ms. Edwards stated that she has a question under the Utilities Chapter under Goal 2 Recommendations 5 and 6. They really have no text to them as far as the action plans are concerned. Is there any update on that? Have there been any action plans identified for those two recommendations? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Swierczek stated that it has come to their attention that there could potentially be more added to that. The basis for the Utility Chapter was from the previous 2008 Comprehensive Plan and that has been added to so they are looking to 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 add more specificity to the Action Plan. Mr. Holt questioned if any of the properties in the green (on the Annexation Plan Map) currently receive City services now? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there may be areas in the dark green (enclave areas) where they are almost totally surrounded by the City in one way or another. Some of them very likely may have one type of City service. If they have anything it may be electric because our electric service territory extends outside City boundaries. There are certainly other areas in yellow and even orange that may have City water or sewer but they are not part of the City. In the past, you were able to get City water and sewer without the caveat of annexing into the City; however, that policy has changed. In order for that property to receive City water and sewer unless it’s some very significant public safety health issue, we do require annexation into the City to receive those services now. Ms. Edwards stated that under the Economic Development goal about revitalizing Historic Downtown Dover, they have been attempting to do that for a very long time. She is wondering if there has been a City that has been identified by the City of Dover or Downtown Dover Partnership or whoever would be responsible for that, identifying a City who was in a position that we are in and really trying to revitalize their Downtown and has been successful in doing so, a model City if you will that we could learn from. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that she doesn’t know if there is any one specific city but certainly there are other cities that are participants in the National Main Street Program which Dover is a participant in. Levels of success and whether it’s been achieved or not could vary person to person and what their opinions are. Certainly, we have seen revitalization steps even in the time that she has been here. She thinks that it is ongoing and will continue to be an ongoing effort as cities evolve. From a land development perspective places come and go, building vacancies get filled and become vacant again so change is always happening. She doesn’t know that there is one perfect example because you can look to other capitol cities but then they may not have the same demographics that Dover has. She knows that a lot of times people point to Annapolis but the demographics of what’s in their City boundary is very different than what’s in Dover. Throw in the fact that we are also a military City and a college town, and she doesn’t know that there is another exact replica of Dover out there somewhere. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she was just looking for comments so if the Commission would like another paper hard copy see Staff forwards. If you want to mark up what you have, please drop it by the Planning Office at any time. Ms. Edwards questioned how they register for the 2019 Planning Series? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated to see Planning Staff and they will get it taken care of. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. Sincerely, 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Kristen Mullaney Secretary 20

CITY OF DOVER APPLICATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLANS, SUBDIVISION, & REZONING 12.7.2018 FINAL Schedule of APPLICATION DEADLINES, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE meeting dates, PLANNING COMMISSION meeting dates, and CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING dates for 2019 filing deadlines. A Pre-Application Meeting must be conducted with Planning Staff prior to filing of an Application. Application filing deadline is by 4:00 P.M. on designated dates. January February March April May June July August September October November December Application 1/4/19 2/1/19 3/1/19 4/5/19 5/3/19 6/7/19 7/5/19 8/2/19 9/6/19 10/4/19 11/1/19 12/6/19 Deadline Rezoning 11/22/19 CITY COUNCIL – 1/28/19 2/25/19 3/25/19 4/22/19 5/28/19 6/24/19 7/22/19 8/26/19 9/23/19 10/28/19 11/25/19 12/9/19 Rezoning Ordinance First Reading D.A.C. MEETING 1/30/19 2/27/19 3/27/19 5/1/19 5/29/19 6/26/19 7/31/19 8/28/19 10/2/19 10/30/19 11/27/19 12/31/19 (STAFF ONLY) D.A.C. MEETING 2/6/19 3/6/19 4/3/19 5/8/19 6/5/19 7/3/19 8/7/19 9/4/19 10/9/19 11/6/19 12/4/19 1/8/2020 (APPLICANT) PLANNING 2/19/19 3/18/19 4/15/19 5/20/19 6/17/19 7/15/19 8/19/19 9/16/19 10/21/19 11/18/19 12/16/19 1/21/2020 COMMISSION - Public Hearings, Rezoning Recommendations CITY COUNCIL 3/11/19 4/8/19 5/13/19 6/10/19 7/8/19 8/12/19 9/9/19 10/14/19 11/12/19 12/9/19 1/13/2020 2/10/2020 Action on Rezonings: Consideration of PC Recommendation and Public Hearing/Final Reading – Rezoning Ordinance ***Planning Staff will advise applicant as to the Committee Meetings schedule if applicable to the Application submission. For Information Contact: City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections, City Hall, 15 Loockerman Plaza P.O. Box 475, Dover DE 19903 (302)736-7196 Phone (302)736-4217 Fax www.cityofdover.com

CITY OF DOVER APPLICATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ANNEXATION (with REZONING) 12.7.2018 FINAL Schedule of APPLICATION DEADLINES, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE meeting dates, PLANNING COMMISSION meeting dates, UTILITY COMMITTEE meeting dates, REFERENDUM dates, and CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING dates for 2019 filing deadlines. A Pre-Application Meeting must be conducted with Planning Staff prior to filing of an Annexation Application. Application filing deadline is by 4:00 P.M. on designated dates. FOR ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS (WITH REZONING) NOT REQUIRING A REFERENDUM:* Application Deadline 12/21/18 1/25/19 2/22/19 3/22/19 4/18/19 5/24?19 6/21/19 7/19/19 8/23/19 9/20/19 10/25/19 11/22/19 CITY COUNCIL – Rezoning Ordinance First 1/14/19 2/11/19 3/11/19 4/8/19 5/13/19 6/10/19 7/8/19 8/12/19 9/9/19 10/14/19 11/12/19 12/9/19 Reading Council Committee of the Whole: UTILITY 1/29/19 2/26/19 3/26/19 4/23/19 5/29/19 6/25/19 7/23/19 8/27/19 9/24/19 10/29/19 11/26/19 1/28/20 COMMITTEE – Consideration of Services D.A.C. MEETING (STAFF ONLY) 1/30/19 2/27/19 3/27/19 5/1/19 5/29/19 6/26/19 7/31/19 8/28/19 10/2/19 10/30/19 11/27/19 1/29/20 D.A.C. MEETING (APPLICANT) 2/6/19 3/6/19 4/3/19 5/8/19 6/5/19 7/3/19 8/7/19 9/4/19 10/9/19 11/6/19 12/4/19 2/5/20 PLANNING COMMISSION - Public 2/19/19 3/18/19 4/15/19 5/20/19 6/17/19 7/15/19 8/19/19 9/16/19 10/21/19 11/18/19 12/16/19 2/18/20 Hearings, Rezoning Recommendations CITY COUNCIL - Action: Consideration of Annexation Resolution, Planning Commission Report; 3/11/19 4/8/19 5/13/19 6/10/19 7/8/19 8/12/19 9/9/19 10/14/19 11/12/19 12/9/19 1/13/20 3/9/20 and Public Hearing/Final Reading – Rezoning Ordinance *Meeting dates are subject to change. For Information Contact: City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections, 15 Loockerman Plaza P.O. Box 475, Dover DE 19903 (302)736-7196 Phone (302)736-4217 Fax www.cityofdover.com

FOR ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS (WITH REZONING) REQUIRING A REFERENDUM: * Application Deadline 12/21/18 1/25/19 2/22/19 3/22/19 4/18/19 5/24/19 6/21/19 7/19/19 8/23/19 9/20/19 10/25/19 11/22/19 CITY COUNCIL – Rezoning Ordinance First 1/14/19 2/11/19 3/11/19 4/8/19 5/13/19 6/10/19 7/8/19 8/12/19 9/9/19 10/14/19 11/12/19 12/9/19 Reading Council Committee of the Whole: UTILITY 1/29/19 2/26/19 3/26/19 4/23/19 5/29/19 6/25/19 7/23/19 8/27/19 9/24/19 10/29/19 11/26/19 1/28/20 COMMITTEE – Consideration of Services D.A.C. MEETING (STAFF ONLY) 1/30/19 2/27/19 3/27/19 5/1/19 5/29/19 6/26/19 7/31/19 8/28/19 10/2/19 10/30/19 11/27/19 1/29/20 D.A.C. MEETING 2/6/19 3/6/19 4/3/19 5/8/19 6/5/19 7/3/19 8/7/19 9/4/19 10/9/19 11/6/19 12/4/19 2/5/20 (APPLICANT) CITY COUNCIL – Utility Committee Report 2/11/19 3/11/19 4/8/19 5/13/19 6/10/19 7/8/19 8/12/19 9/9/19 10/14/19 11/12/19 12/9/19 2/10/20 & Consideration of Referendum Resolution PLANNING COMMISSION - Public 2/19/19 3/18/19 4/15/19 5/20/19 6/17/19 7/15/19 8/19/19 9/16/19 10/21/19 11/18/19 12/16/19 2/18/20 Hearings, Rezoning Recommendations ANNEXATION 3/21/19 4/18/19 5/23/19 6/20/19 7/18/19 8/22/19 9/19/19 10/24/19 11/21/19 12/19/19 1/23/20 3/19/20 REFERENDUM CITY COUNCIL Action: Consideration of Referendum Results, Annexation Resolution, 3/25/19 4/22/19 5/28/19 6/24/19 7/22/19 8/26/19 9/23/19 10/28/19 11/25/19 1/13/20 1/27/20 3/23/20 Planning Commission Report; and Public Hearing/Final Reading – Rezoning Ordinance *Meeting dates are subject to change. For Information Contact: City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections, 15 Loockerman Plaza P.O. Box 475, Dover DE 19903 (302)736-7196 Phone (302)736-4217 Fax www.cityofdover.com

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF December 5, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF December 17, 2018 Plan Title: Our Future Christian Childcare Center II C-18-05 Plan Type: Conditional Use Plan Property Location: West side of South DuPont Highway and south of River Road Property Addresses: 614 South DuPont Highway Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.14-01-19.01-000 Owner: Christian Life Center Lessee: Jaqueline Harris Present Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Existing Use: Vacant tenant space in existing building Proposed Use: Child Day Care Center Site Area: 32,670 S.F. +/- (0.69 acre) Building Area: Child Day Care Center Building – 4,300 +/- 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: December 5, 2018 APPLICATION: Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S. DuPont Highway FILE #: C-18-05 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 4,300 +/- S.F. one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 40 children. The property consists of 32,670 +/- S.F. and is located on the west side of South DuPont Highway, south of River Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Christian Life Center and the applicant (lessee) is Jacqueline Harris. Property Address: 614 South DuPont Highway Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.14-01-19.01-000. Council District 4. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The existing site has 4,300 +/- S.F. building and was previously utilized as a Church. The applicant is proposing to occupy the existing building as a Child Day Care Center that will serve 40 children with six (6) attendants. The applicant is not proposing any renovations to the building. The proposed hours of operations are from 6:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. A fence is proposed to surround an outdoor playground area in the rear of the building. III. ZONING REVIEW The property is zoned C-4 (Highway 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: 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

C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S Dupont Highway Final DAC Report for December 5, 2018 Page 2 of 6 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. 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.

C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S Dupont Highway Final DAC Report for December 5, 2018 Page 3 of 6 (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 use of adjacent land and buildings. 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

C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S Dupont Highway Final DAC Report for December 5, 2018 Page 4 of 6 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 (40) and the number of adult attendants (6), a total of ten (10) parking spaces are required. The Site Plan dated October 5, 2018 indicates there are forty-seven (47) existing parking spaces, with two (2) handicap parking spaces located in the rear of the property which is near the front main entrance located on the north side of the building. There are parking spaces located to the north of the building where a fence lies along the property buffering the residential properties on River Road. There is also additional parking to the south, east and west sides of the building. The parking requirement has been met. There is no curbing on the north and south side of the parking lot; however, the north side of the parking lot is aligned with a fence that provides a buffer from residential properties. The parking spaces to the south are aligned with parking bumpers that separates the adjacent property (car wash facility). 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. Two bicycle parking spaces have been identified on the Site Plan in the front of the building facing South DuPont Highway. V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Access The property has access from South DuPont Highway with an existing paved driveway that encircles the building. The existing paved area surrounding the entire building will serve as one- way circulation to and from South DuPont Highway and it accesses 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 dumpster pad location with an enclosure. Sidewalks There is a concrete island located along South DuPont Highway dividing the site entrance and exit. On the front east side of the building, there is another concrete island flanked by parking on both sides. There is not a specific area improved as a sidewalk along the frontage; however, the area is paved. There is a sidewalk in the rear of the building with no access to the building. The front and rear entrance to the building is located on the north and south sides of the building and the areas are paved leading to the building.

C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S Dupont Highway Final DAC Report for December 5, 2018 Page 5 of 6 VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The existing one-story building is clad in a wood siding material (T-III) and has a metal roof. There are not any exterior improvements or additions to the existing building currently identified in the plan. VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The submitted plan includes the Landscaping details. Based on the 32,670 S.F. development area for the Child Day Care Center, a total of eleven (11) trees are required. There are four (4) existing trees on the site, and seven (7) trees need to be planted. 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) Indicate the required parking calculation, One (1) parking space per adult attendant plus one space for every ten (10) children. b) Indicate the calculation of required tree plantings. One (1) tree per 3,000 S. F. of development area. c) Add the existing square footage of the building. d) Add the owner name and address on the Site Plan. e) Add note of the City Planner’s waiver of upright curbing requirement. f) Any changes recommended by the Planning Commission. 2) Provide the following information on the Plan Sheet: a) Revise the number of trees to be planted from 6 to 7 to meet the code requirements. Identify type and size trees to be planted. b) 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. c) Identify the location of the area to be fenced in for the playground and fence details. d) Reverse the tree planting location to the rear of the building, trees cannot be planed along the south side of the building. There is not a grass area on that side of the property. e) Indicate they type of bicycle rack that will be provided on the Pan. f) Provide dimension of drive aisle on each side of the building and size of parking spaces. 3) 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. 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.

C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S Dupont Highway Final DAC Report for December 5, 2018 Page 6 of 6 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 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) Pedestrian Circulation: The path of pedestrian circulation to the outdoor play area from the building should be identified. The implementation of additional crosswalk markings, site elements, and signage may be necessary in areas where the path of travel crosses through parking areas or over a drive aisle. 2) Sidewalk: To further subsection 1.31 related pedestrian traffic not being hazardous or inconvenient to, or incongruous with the neighboring residential district, Staff recommends a pedestrian crosswalk to be striped at the front entrance and exit points of the site from South Dupont Highway. 3) Upright Curbing: Staff accepts the existing conditions of the parking lot and will not require the installation of upright curbing. In the parking space locations, there are existing features (parking bumpers or fencing) that limit vehicle travel. 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 and directly to the other DAC member agencies providing comments. 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. This may require submission of Building Plans signed and sealed by a licensed architect. 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.

C-18-05 Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S Dupont Highway Final DAC Report for December 5, 2018 Page 7 of 6 5) The applicant shall be aware that Conditional Use Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit( to establish new use) Building Permit (for fence) 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. 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: NOVEMBER 28, 2018 APPLICATION: Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 South DuPont Highway FILE #: C-18-05 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 - 302-736-7072 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. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 2. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 3. 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. 4. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 5. 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. 6. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon receipt of final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department. WATER 1. Our office has no objection to the conditional use proposed for the subject property. 2. Due to the fact that this property is changing uses, water usage projections (peak demand or plumbing fixtures) must be submitted to our office to correctly determine the size of the domestic and irrigation (if applicable) water meter for the building. These projections must be submitted prior to approval so the meter size can be placed on the final site plan, if an upgrade is required. WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the conditional use proposed for the subject property. 2. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer laterals (other than for single-family dwellings) showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. All proposed wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information.

Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 South DuPont Highway File #: C-18-05 November 28, 2018 Page 2 of 3 STORMWATER / SANITATION / GROUNDS / STREETS 1. None GENERAL 1. The final site plan must be submitted in a digital format compatible with AutoCAD 2010 (.dwg format) and Adobe Reader (.pdf format). 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/. STREETS 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER 1. If a change in plumbing fixtures, either increase or decrease, is proposed for this project, please provide an existing and proposed fixture count prior to plan approval. Site visits can be scheduled through the Public Works office to obtain an accurate existing plumbing fixture count. STORMWATER / GROUNDS / STREETS / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. City of Dover will need proposed load sheets to validate current electrical equipment is adequate. Load sheets can be found on the at the following location: https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13110.pdf WATER 1. Water impact fees may be associated with this project. 2. This lot shall be served by a single water service line, which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner. In the event a property contains multiple principal structures, the property shall be served by a single water main where a water service line may be provided to each principle structure. Each structure, which is capable of being offered for sale, shall have its own separate water facilities. 3. The existing water main adjacent to the property is a six inch (6”) main, which may require upgrade should the site be redeveloped. The applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service / main to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. WASTEWATER 1. Wastewater impact fees may be associated with this project. 2. This lot shall be served by a single sanitary sewer lateral, which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner. In the event a property contains multiple principal structures, the property shall be served by a single sanitary sewer main where a sanitary sewer lateral may be provided to each principle structure. Each structure, which is capable of being offered for sale, shall have its own separate wastewater facilities. STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None SANITATION 1. The solid waste on this property shall be served by a private contractor. GENERAL

Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 South DuPont Highway File #: C-18-05 November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 3 1. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. 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 C-18-05 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: 11/28/18 & 12/05/18 D S O H V A E L APPLICATION: Our Future Christian Childcare Center II at 614 S DuPont Hwy R FILE #: C-18-05 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. Proposed building is Child Day Care. NFPA 101, A.16.1.1 Staffing in New and Existing Day-Care Occupancies Staff to Client Ratio Age (months) 1:3 0-24 1:4 25-36 1:7 37-60 1:10 61-96 1:12 97 plus 1:3 Clients incapable of self-preservation 2. Building Access shall be no further than 50 feet from a primary entrance Where buildings are provided with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, access shall be no further than 100 feet from the primary entrance. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 3. Parking shall be prohibited in front of the primary entrance for a width of not less than 1.5 times the width of the door(s) or for 10 feet, whichever is greater. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.2) 4. Perimeter access shall be 50%, 25% if sprinklered and clearly shown on the plans. Perimeter Access minimum width shall be 15 feet measured from the face of the building at grade with a maximum slope of ten percent (10%). Plantings and utility services (includes condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall be permitted within the perimeter access, and shall not interfere with emergency services fire ground operations.

If a physical barrier (fence, pond, steep slope, etc) prevents access, that portion of the building perimeter shall not be included in the calculation of Percent of Perimeter Access. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 5. Fire lanes shall cover TBD of the proposed building. Fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and run along the front of the building as determined by the primary entrance(s). In cases where there is more than one primary entrance(s), each shall be served by a fire lane even if this exceeds the percentage as required. The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the exterior wall and the closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 feet from the exterior wall if one or two stories in height; 40 feet if three or four stories in height, or 30 feet if over four stories in height. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5) 6. Where parking is located between the building and the fire lane, parking shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the exterior wall. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.4.1) 7. 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) 8. 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 9. 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) 10. Where overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building or site features must project over any fire lane, an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6” above the fire lane shall be provided and the portion of the building perimeter which contains overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building features shall not apply towards the fire lane accessibility requirements of Section 4.0, Table 5-1 in this chapter. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.8) 11. Any dead end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turnaround or cul-de- sac as outlined in the 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, chapter 5, 2.3. 12. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 13. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in

an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the system. A letter of agreement shall be created, and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created, and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6) 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements. Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code.

Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 17. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 18. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall

be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) 19. A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection. Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings.

Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level 20. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non-slip surface, and leading to and terminating at a public way. 21. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 22. Full building and fire plan review is required. 23. Separate building permits/plans submission will be required for each building and/or tenant fit out. If the permit submission is for a “shell” a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Separate plans and permits submissions will be required for each “tenant fit out” at which time a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued upon compliance/completion of each “tenant fit out”. 24. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 25. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved. 26. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. This is a change of use. Plans will be required by a licensed/authorized design professional. 2. Any renovations will need a building permit. 3. Further description of the kitchen equipment is needed at which time additional comments may apply. 4. State of Delaware Daycare Licensing approval needed 5. See staff to client ratio per NFPA in item # 1 above 6. Fire alarm system required 7. Impact protection required as outlined in item # 17 above 8. Address required to be posted as outlined in item #18 above 9. Knox Box required as outlined in item #19 above 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: October 31, 2018 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Our Future Christian Daycare (614 South DuPont Highway) FILE#: C-18-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== 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: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The Daycare plan will need to be reviewed and approved through DelDOT Subdivisions. The applicant should schedule a pre-submittal meeting with DelDOT.

Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan Update for December 2018 Planning Commission Meeting • Update on Project Activities o Staff will provide updates on project progress. • Continued Review of Preliminary DRAFT Goals & Recommendations • Continued Review of Preliminary DRAFT Land Development Plan Map Series • Continued Review of Preliminary DRAFT Annexation Plan Map Series o These documents and maps were previously provided to the Planning Commission members for review. Contact the Planning Office if you need another copy. o See the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Webpage for project information and the links under “Additional Resources” for documents and maps issued. ▪ https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan The Planning Commission is encouraged to review these Preliminary DRAFT documents and be prepared for discussion with any comments and questions.