PC Minutes 6-17-19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mr. Nick Adams and Dr. Bobby Jones were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon, Mrs. Tracey Harvey and Mr. Eddie Diaz. Also present was Mr. Troy Adams, Mr. Howard Joseph, Mr. Kevin Minnich, Mr. Zahir Kasmani, and Ms. Sylvia Davis. Speaking from the public were Mr. Ciriaco Bongalos, Ms. Donna Hutchins, Mr. Osman Sammander, and Ms. Marie Hudson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Holt moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Adams and Dr. Jones absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2019 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of May 20, 2019, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Adams and Dr. Jones absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the first item is past. It was a reminder about Ethics Training which was held on June 11, 2019. Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on May 28, 2019 and June 10 and 11, 2019. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that on the Commissioner’s desks this evening there is a flyer about a workshop event that the Planning Staff is hosting later this week on Thursday afternoon, June 20, 2019 from 4-6PM in the Council Chambers. It’s specifically regarding the Historic District and is part of some grant monies that the Historic District Commission and the City received. This is part of that public outreach effort. It is an opportunity to learn more about the Historic District, the types of review processes involved as well as a number of incentives for properties in that area. It is an opportunity for people to learn a little bit more about the Comprehensive Plan. There is a Historic Preservation Chapter as well. It is one of our educational opportunities meant for the public, but the Commission is certainly welcome to attend. It will be our typical kind of open house format, meaning that they will have a lot of display boards and information that you can take your time and look at. We will do a brief presentation at 5PM and take questions. Staff will be available for ongoing conversations in that 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 two-hour period. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS 1) C-19-02 Duplex at 106 Willis Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan and Conditional Use Site Plan Application to permit the subdivision of a 7,500 SF parcel of land into two lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) of 3,750 SF each. The Conditional Use Site Plan application is to permit construction of one-story duplex to provide one dwelling unit on each of the newly subdivided parcels for 2 total dwelling units, as well as associated site improvements. The site is currently vacant. The subject area is 7,500 SF (0.17 +/- acres) located on the west side of Willis Road, north of East Division Street. The property is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). The owner of record is 1944 Builder, LLC. Property Address: 106 Willis Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.19-01-23.00-000. Council District 2. Two variances were approved by the Board of Adjustment at their March 2019 meeting. The variances are from Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3 pertaining to the bulk standards of the RG-2 zone: to reduce the minimum lot size from 5,000 SF to 3,500 SF: and to reduce the minimum side yard requirement from 10 feet to 5 feet. (V-19-03) Representatives: Mr. Troy Adams, Mountain Consulting; Mr. Howard Joseph, 1944 Builder, LLC Mrs. Harvey stated that this is a review of a Conditional Use application to construct one duplex building for a total of two one-story units. The project includes a Minor Subdivision Plan to permit the subdivision of a 7,500 SF parcel into two lots of 3,750 SF each and is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). The property is located on the west side of Willis Road, north of East Division Street. The owner of record is 1944 Builder LLC and the address is 106 Willis Road. Two variances were approved by the Board of Adjustment at their March 2019 meeting. The variances pertain to the Bulk Standards of the RG-2 (General Residence Zone) to reduce the minimum lot size from 5,000 SF to 3,500 SF and to reduce the minimum side yard requirement from ten feet to five feet. The applicant has provided example floor plans for the units: Model A at 788 SF and Model B at 909 SF each. The front of the dwelling units will face Willis Road with sidewalks and a front porch leading to the entrance of the dwelling unit. Each lot will have access off of the alley for one paved off-street parking space. Trash and recycling collection will be serviced by the City of Dover likely at the rear of the building along the alley. All developments requiring approval of the Planning Commission are required to submit a Tree Preservation and Planting Plan. The submitted plan includes the required landscaping details. Based on the lot sizes and the proposed Minor Subdivision of 3,750 SF for each lot, two trees per lot are required and are identified on the plan. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use for the duplex unit of one dwelling unit per lot. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 Mr. Troy Adams stated that as Mrs. Harvey stated, this is a Conditional Use Plan to construct a duplex building. This project came forth through the Board of Adjustment process to seek two variances for us to fit these units on these lots. They were able to reduce the minimum lot size from 5,000 SF to 3,500 SF for each lot and reduce the minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. Part of the Conditional Use will be a Minor Subdivision Plan at the same time. They were able to comply with all of the regulations. For landscaping, they show two trees per lot. As far as water and sewer, that is located along the front of each lot on Willis Road. They were also able to provide the ample parking that is required from the back alleyway. As far as the unit, Mrs. Harvey stated that there is a Unit A and Unit B. Shortly, a decision will be made on which type will go. Both of them will fit; it’s just a decision that needs to be made about which style. Style A and B both have lovely porches on the front and that will be a nice added touch to the area. The lot that is there is a vacant lot that has been vacant for some time. This is an opportunity to infill and place a nice unit there. In reference to the overall comments that were in the DAC Report from all of the agencies and departments, they do agree and will comply. Mr. Tolbert questioned if there is parking for one vehicle for each unit? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Adams stated that space should hold two vehicles. Mr. Tolbert further questioned that if they have company, will parking be a problem? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Adams stated that additional parking would be on the street. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Maucher questioned if they needed to recommend approval of the variance V-19-03 in addition to C-19-02? There are a couple of variances requested and it looks like it is a different application. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Harvey stated that the variances were approved in March 2019. Ms. Maucher moved to approve C-19-02 Duplex at 106 Willis Road, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Nick Adams and Dr. Jones absent. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on DAC comments and recommendations from Staff. Mr. Roach voting yes; anytime that we can add housing in this area is a good thing and it is also taking up an empty lot in an area that needs it. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she agrees that it is a good thing to fill that empty lot and the unit is very attractive and she thinks that it will enhance the area. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks the units are very attractive and they can use the extra housing in the area. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; we do need additional housing in this area and also based on the DAC Report. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for all of the reasons previously stated and she thinks that it is a very nice- looking facility. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; he is particularly pleased with the attractiveness of the building and what it will do for the area. 2) S-19-10 Parking Area of Dover Community Pharmacy at 1035 South Governors Avenue – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application for an additional 5,700 SF of pavement in the existing parking lot area at the rear of the building containing Dover Community Pharmacy. The project creates a total of seventeen (17) total parking spaces for the site. The subject property is 0.35 +/- acres located on the east side of South Governors Avenue, south of Wyoming Avenue. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 Zone). The owner of record is AK Investments, LLC. Property Address: 1035 South Governors Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-07-09.00-000. Council District 2. It is noted that construction commenced prior to authorization or permits. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Curbing, Elimination of Fence Component of Opaque Barrier Requirement Representatives: Kevin Minnich, Minnich Engineering; Mr. Zahir Kasmani, Dover Community Pharmacy Mr. Diaz stated that this is a project to allow the paving of the rear parking lot at Dover Community Pharmacy which is located at 1035 South Governors Avenue. The project is in the C- 1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and there are no proposed changes to the building on the property or the current use which is a pharmacy. The rear of the property was paved in May 2018, having been a mixture of grass and gravel before that. It was only after the property owner paved it that he realized that he needed to obtain a permit for the work that he did. When Staff reviewed his permit application, they found that the project added enough impervious coverage that it needed Planning Commission review. Their intent in reviewing the Planning Commission application that was made was to ensure that the work that had already been done was compliant with the Zoning Ordinance or if it wasn’t compliant with the Zoning Ordinance, the necessary changes were made to bring it into compliance. The immediate changes that they identified during the review were the need for bicycle parking, the need for additional landscaping and the need for an opaque barrier. They also considered sidewalk improvements and installing curbing around the edges of the parking lot; however, they determined that asking for the sidewalk improvements was not feasible because Governors Avenue is a State road. They also granted an administrative waiver for the curbing because installing that curbing would have meant also installing unnecessary stormwater management improvements to handle the water differently since it couldn’t just flow off of the edges of the parking lot. There is a second non-administrative waiver request that goes along with this application to waive the fence component of the opaque barrier that would be required along the eastern side of the southern property line because the property adjacent to the south is a residential use property. The waiver is requested because there is already a fence along that property line that is owned by the neighboring property owner. The waiver would be for the fence component only because the landscape component of the opaque barrier cannot be waived. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request. Mr. Tolbert asked if it is in clear on the paving permit issue. Was it resolved or is it still an issue? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Diaz stated that in order to resolve the permit issue, the applicants will need to get their permit application for the paving approved but in order to get their permit approved, they need Planning Commission approval first. It’s because of the amount of paving that they want to add; that it can’t be approved administratively. Ms. Maucher stated that the fence belongs to the other property owner so if it goes into disrepair or is taken down and there is no fence there, is there an obligation later on where they might have to come back and install the fence? Right now, we are substituting their obligation with somebody else’s property. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that if the neighboring property owner ever took down their fence, this applicant would not be required to put in a fence later. If you read the Zoning Ordinance, it says that the Planning Commission may waive the fence component of the opaque barrier when it’s determined that the landscaping alone would be a 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 desirable aesthetic alternative. The thing about not waiving the fence component is that the present people will end up with two fences right up against each other which in the opinion of Staff at least is not a desirable aesthetic alternative. Mr. Roach questioned if the parking lot is already done? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Diaz stated yes. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that yes, the parking lot is done but in order to comply there will have to be some improvements and changes done to what is existing there today. The applicant may expand on that because the plan review discovered the landscaping components. There are some changes that have to be implemented. Mr. Minnich stated that when he was first approached by Mr. Kasmani, he felt like he was kind of led astray. He knows that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but he was kind of led astray by his contractor. He shot himself in the foot when he came to City Hall to ask if he needed a permit once the work was already done. They are here to bring the plan into compliance and make the necessary changes that they need to add like the components such as landscaping. The total that was added back there was about 5,700 SF so they are reducing that back to 5,000 SF which will get them an exemption from the Kent Conservation District. They are making some changes. They are here to ask for approval of what was already put down with these changes and also approval of the partial elimination of the opaque barrier which would be the fencing. He thinks that if you put two fences up it becomes a maintenance issue between the fences because they are probably going to have a one-foot fence between the fences. He thinks that if they landscape that corner back there, he thinks it will achieve the intent of the Ordinance. He knows that Kent Conservation District said that if they keep it below 5,000 S.F., they will be exempt from the stormwater regulations. He did send the information over to DelDOT. They looked at the plan and their comment was to remove one of the three spaces on the right-hand side as you come into the Pharmacy. If you were to park in one of those spaces, you would actually be hanging out into the right of way. They are proposing to remove all three of the parking spaces out of safety concerns. DelDOT is on board with getting it into compliance. They didn’t have a whole lot of heartburn with the way it sits now. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Ciriaco Bongalos Jr – 722 Green Winged Trail Camden Wyoming, DE 19934 Mr. Bongalos stated that he is the property owner of record on the northern side of this property. The parking lot was actually constructed in September 2017 not 2018. At the time, there was a boundary marker in the front and rear of the property. He was there when they were prepping the ground. The ground level is equal with his lot. He noticed that when they did the blacktop, they added like eight or ten inches higher. There is an existing metal fence that he installed in 1986. The fence is about eight inches into his property but when they did the blacktop, they encroached about four to six inches into his property. It was okay to him if its dirt or gravel because he told Mr. Kasmani that he could shovel it off but then when he came back the next day the blacktop was already done. This is a difficult thing because it requires a contractor. It is actually eight inches into his property at a length of 140 feet. His problem is that since its blacktop he cannot remove it by himself; it will require a contractor to remove it. Last year he waited for Mr. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 Kasmani to ask the contractor to remove it and it never happened so last year he started putting cinder blocks down himself for 140 feet because he has to show them the accurate boundary because the property is now for sale. He has owned the property since 1983. He is a retired physician who practiced there for thirty years and he is selling it. The property is vacant now and is for sale by Keller Williams Realty. He is asking for the contractor to remove that encroachment. Ms. Donna Hutchins – 1041 South Governors Avenue Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Hutchins stated that she is the property with the fence going down it. She thinks what Mr. Kasmani did enhance the property. It really does look nice. The consideration that she would like is that it is much higher than her property is and if something could be done because when it rains it comes down to her property and washes out the soil and mulch. She doesn’t know if it has a tilt to it, but it seems kind of flat in that area. She is very much a gardener and she would invite Mr. Kasmani to come on her side of the fence to look at the landscaping that is along the inside of her fence. She has lots of mature trees and bushes that she has had for a long time in that area. When she hears about them where the holly trees start, he is going to have to take out a good bit of that. She doesn’t know if she has roots underneath all of it that will get damaged. Her other concern is that the corner part will fit in very nicely. The Arborvities and the other bushes that they are putting in will fit very nicely. She has Arborvities along the whole back of her fence. The holly trees are a little scary to her because they get very big and she is wondering how maintenance for those will be. They are very vigorous growers so she is just wondering if there might be an alternative to those. She also didn’t understand the verbiage of the elimination of the fence component but that has been answered tonight. She didn’t know if they would cause any damage to the fence by removing some of the blacktop. She is asking for consideration for the landscaping that is already on her side and maybe some attention to the drainage that is washing down into her side. The parking lot itself was a nice improvement to the area. She would welcome the applicant to come on her side to see what is there if that would help the landscapers. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert questioned if they have been in contact with the neighbors regarding these issues that have been brought up? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Kasmani stated that like Mr. Minnich stated, unfortunately he got a contractor and he didn’t mention that a permit was needed. The whole idea for paving the back lot was mostly for staff to use. The back lot is not for public parking. Previously when he got the property, there was nothing but gravel there. In the winter when it would snow and rain it would become hazardous for the employees. When there was enough snow for them to call in snow removal, they would actually refuse to remove the snow in the back because their equipment would get stuck. They could not bring in the bigger plows because there isn’t enough space in that area. Their only option was to pave it so that it became safer for their employees. When he got the contractor, he was told that a permit was not needed. He should have come to the City himself but now he knows better. At the time of the paving, Dr. Bongalos did approach him about his issue and he told Mr. Bongalos that they would remove the five or six inches of blacktop that was there but he told him that he was going to do it the following year once the weather improved. By that time, he was already involved with the City, so it didn’t make sense for him to have a contractor come out just to remove a six-inch strip on one side and then have to wait to see what happened with the application. The whole idea was to 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 wait until they get the permit completed and they will remove whatever blacktop needed to be removed which is 700 SF and then remove the six-inch strip also. That is not an issue and will be removed. As soon as they get the permit approval and he has the contractor come in to remove 700 SF of blacktop it will be taken care of. Ms. Edwards stated that she would like a response to the other neighbor’s concerns regarding landscaping. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Kasmani stated that the trees and the landscaping were provided by a landscaper and he was the one who suggested the type of trees that need to be installed. He can go back to the landscaper to see if they can be substituted. Ms. Edwards stated that there was a water drainage issue as well. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Minnich stated that part of what is going on in that corner is also the removal of the blacktop and the planting of those plantings. They can talk to their landscaper and maybe get him together with the neighbor to figure out what species to plant. There is also a proposed precast curb that would go along those areas to keep the landscape in. He thinks that some of that might alleviate some of the issue. He knows that most of that drainage sheet flows towards the back towards the recycling area. Anything that goes towards that corner should get caught on that curbing and not go into the neighbor’s yard. He would think that if it’s a reputable contractor, anything that is done should be put back in kind as far as fencing goes. He thinks that the precast curbing should help the drainage that the neighbor is concerned about. Mrs. Welsh stated that if she heard the applicant correctly, they are going to put in some kind of edging material around the perimeter of that new area of the trees in order to keep the moisture inside that area so that it won’t flow into the neighbor’s yard. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Minnich stated yes. Ms. Edwards questioned if the applicant would be willing to meet with the property owner behind them to discuss if there are further issues other than just in the corner? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Minnich stated that they would definitely have to do that. Mrs. Welsh questioned if there was a survey done at all to address the elevations? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Minnich stated there was a typographic survey and a boundary survey done. They know where those pieces of paving are going across the property line. It’s actually on both sides. It’s not by a lot but it’s a foot here and six inches here. Mrs. Welsh stated that their intent is to rectify all of that at the time that they do the landscaping and adjust the parking lot. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Minnich stated yes. Mrs. Welsh move to defer application S-19-10 Parking Area of Dover Community Pharmacy at 1035 South Governors Avenue until the next meeting so that the issues can be worked out so that it’s a little bit more clear to everyone exactly what is going to be happening there, seconded by Ms. Edwards. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked the Commission to define what the issues are so that the applicant has some direction specifically for what needs to be addressed before the next meeting. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 Ms. Edwards stated that she would like to see conversation with the neighbor behind him to come up with a solution that is suitable for all. We already know that he is working with Dr. Bongalos to take care of that six inch strip of asphalt in the back when he does the other removal so she thinks that has already been resolved but she would like to see some conversation with the neighbor behind him to make sure that it is satisfactory for everyone. Mrs. Welsh stated that she would like to add to the motion that a Revised Site Plan to show all of that will be help so that the Commission can actually see where exactly the six inches of asphalt is being removed. That would be less parking area then now which would redefine the parking area as well as on the other side where the partial fence is right now. Mrs. Welsh move to defer application S-19-10 Parking Area of Dover Community Pharmacy at 1035 South Governors Avenue until the next meeting so that the issues can be worked out so that it’s a little bit more clear to everyone exactly what is going to be happening there and to include a Revised Site Plan to show where the asphalt is being removed and where the partial fence is right now, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Nick Adams and Dr. Jones absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for the reasons stated in the motion. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she believes that a new Site Plan will provide clarity for all and for the applicant’s willingness to work with his neighbors. Mr. Holt voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; further clarification is needed for this item. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; clarification is needed. 3) S-19-11 Lion of Judah Ministry Church at 951 White Oak Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of one-story 5,000 SF place of public assembly (church) building and associated site improvements. The subject property is 1.14 +/- acres. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The property is located on the north side of White Oak Road and east of Halsey Road. The owner of record is L & S Davis Properties, Inc. Property Address: 951 White Oak Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 068.14-05-85.00-000. Council District 3. This property was rezoned from CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) by City Council at their November 13, 2018 meeting (Z-18-02; Ordinance #2018-08). Waiver Requests: Elimination of Fence Component of Opaque Barrier, Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. Representatives: Ms. Sylvia Davis, Lion of Judah Ministry Church; Mr. Troy Adams, Mountain Consulting Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a review of a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a one-story 5,000 SF place of public assembly (or church building) and associated site improvements. The site is currently vacant. The subject property is 1.14 acres and is located on the north side of White Oak Road, east of Halsey Road. As a reminder to the Planning Commission, an application came before the Commission in 2018 under file Z-18-02. The Rezoning application proposed changing the zoning of the property from then designation of CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to a new designation of IO (Institutional and Office Zone) to allow a place of public assembly to be built. The Planning Commission held a public hearing of the Rezoning on October 15, 2018 and recommended denial of the Rezoning; however, 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 it went to City Council in November 2018 and was approved under Ordinance #2018-10. The applicant has included two waiver requests with their application submission for tonight. The first is a waiver request from Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Section 7.21 for the fencing component of the opaque barrier requirements asking that they be permitted to only install a six foot evergreen hedge along the north, east and west property lines that will be approximately eight feet in width. The second waiver request which was reviewed by the City Planner and approved, asks for the requirements of Article 6, Section 3.6b to be waived which require permanent parking areas to be enclosed with upright concrete curbing of at least six inches in height. This was approved as the applicant had stated that the waiver was needed to better facilitate stormwater management and that they will be providing parking bumpers. On the Commissioner’s desks this evening there was a more current set of color renderings showing all four of the proposed elevations. The site entrance for the facility is proposed off of White Oak Road only and for the parking, it is proposed to be forty-four spaces. It should be noted that Article 6, Section 3 requires parking spaces for a place of worship to be provided at a rate of 1 per 200 SF of floor area but not less than 1 per each 4 seats where provided. The applicant has stated that the plan to accommodate a maximum of 148 persons at the facility which would have a requirement of 37 parking spaces. Seating capacity is subject to compliance with the Fire Code and Building Code provisions. With regards to the waiver request from the requirements of Article 5, Section 7.2 pertaining to the fence component of the opaque barrier requirements, Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the fencing component for the north, east and west property lines as the applicant has shown that they will provide the landscaping which should adequately shield the parking lot area from neighboring residential areas. The applicant has also noted the planned stormwater management facility on the eastern portion of the site which should further help in shielding the parking lot area from neighboring residential properties. To the west is a private drive aisle, North Halsey Road, which is part of the parcel to the north containing the apartment dwelling units as there are no residential units specifically located to the west of this proposed site project. The applicant notes the desire to maintain some visibility of this frontage from White Oak Road. Finally, to further Subsection 2.28 related to architectural characteristics of proposed buildings, Staff had recommended that more horizontal elements be included into the proposed architecture of the building. As you can see, the applicants had included that in their updated renderings with the inclusion of that horizontal banding feature on the facades. Ms. Edwards questioned if they were voting on the waiver request only this evening? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Swierczek stated that the motion tonight is for the Site Development Plan application which includes the waiver request for the opaque barrier of the fencing. Mr. Troy Adams stated that this is a relatively exciting project on the corner of North Halsey Road and White Oak Road. The Lion of Judah Ministry is currently located at 2364 Pearsons Corner Road in the County. They had the opportunity to acquire this property for the growing organization of approximately 38 members at this time. This is an opportunity for them to grow and have more visibility and infill again, another vacant lot. Everything that Mr. Swierczek explained was accurate in regards to the DAC comments and the regulations. This property is 1.41 acres and they have basically done their best to make it as attractive as they can. They think this is a very logical layout for this particular use. You will be entering the site off of White Oak Road via a DelDOT entrance. There will be no connection at all to the private road to the west of the site which is named North Halsey Road. That will not be in any kind of way associated with this project. They 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 are proposing 44 parking spaces which is beyond the 37 parking spaces that are required and they will form a circular pattern around the site. The trash enclosures will be in the rear to basically not be visible. The stormwater approach here is going to be an infiltration type facility. Basically water will sheet flow over into that basin area that you see on the east side and then infiltrate back into the existing ground so it is a green component that they are proposing with this project. In reference to the landscaping, they are requesting a waiver from the fence component of the opaque barrier regulation which is in this case, very logical for them to remove the fencing. The fencing could only go logically on the north side and the east side. They don’t like putting it on the west side because it would block the view of this brand new building. The exposure would be impacted. That is why they had that little caveat of being able to place hedges along North Halsey Road; something that is 30-36 inches in height that allows vehicles that are approaching from the west to visibly see the structure. There will be signage on the west face of the building and also on the south face of the building so that you can see it from White Oak Road. For people that are coming out of North Halsey Road, it gives them visibility as well. In reference to the curbing, they are asking for partial elimination of curbing. Curbing will be placed along the right-of-way of White Oak Road and there is curbing in the rear. Basically, that curb will serve as directing stormwater into the catch basins and so forth. The way that things are graded right now, the sidewalk is not upright; it’s flush so you will be able to walk right in from the pavement onto the sidewalk and right into building. So for handicapped accessibility it is easy. As far as utilities like sewer and water, water is readily available right under the existing sidewalk. Sewer is available right at the dead center of White Oak Road and North Halsey Road. Right at the intersection there is a manhole. They will have to tap into the existing public sewer at that location. In reference to the aesthetics of the building, the Commissioners have a rendering that was passed out in the original application. There were some upgrades made since the DAC Meeting happened. The stone was added on the front and west sides and they added some windows on the right side of the building just to break it up and make it more attractive. The congregation is very excited. This is a major undertaking and commitment that they are making within the City limits; and it’s one more lot that they are putting to good use. Mr. Tolbert questioned the seating capacity of the church? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Adams stated that right now it is at 148 per plan. As Mr. Swierczek stated, there is a life safety code that needs to be considered as this building is further developed. Mr. Tolbert stated that they are proposing 44 parking spaces. Will parking be a problem for the facility? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Adams stated that you know how it goes at churches. Given the site and it’s given size and adhering to the regulations of at least one space per four people; that calculates out to 37 spaces. They took that into account and maxed it out the best that they could at 44 spaces. Mr. Tolbert stated that they are having problems at his church with parking. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Adams stated he thinks that all churches have some sort of problem with parking but they understand that Halsey Road is a private road and it is owned by their neighbors. They do understand that parking is off limits on North Halsey Road. Just like any other organization; you do your best. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 Mr. Osman Sammander – White Oak Condo Association Mr. Sammander stated that he is the President of White Oak Condo Association. As the gentleman mentioned, they already have a problem with parking. Now the church is there and they are asking for a waiver to not have a fence on the west side of the church. The problem is that there is already a fence there and he doesn’t know why they want to take the fence down and have trees planted. They already have a problem with homeless people coming from the shopping areas and sleeping in their laundry room areas and breaking windows. They don’t want to have just trees there because they will have to be maintained by the association or the church. They would rather keep the fence that is there or if they want to replace it, they would rather have whatever kind of fence that they want to have installed instead of the existing fence that is there. If there are just trees and they don’t have enough parking, people can drive through the trees and park in their parking lot. The only problem that they had at the beginning is the parking problem and now they don’t want to have a fence between the White Oak Condos and the church so we are going to have a problem. They can sit down and discuss it with the applicant. He thinks that this would be the best solution. He knows that the church is there now and they can’t do anything about it but he thinks that they have to consider the condo association’s problems too because of the people driving through and causing headaches for them. They would appreciate if the Commission agrees for the applicant to not remove the fence. They would rather have a solid fence because all of the people who live in the White Oak Road might not go to this church. Some of them might be a problem for them and a problem for us. Mr. Tolbert questioned whose property the existing fence is on? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Sammander stated that they are not sure. They are in the process of surveying their lot now. Mr. Tolbert stated that it would be important to find out whose property that fence is situated on. Ms. Marie Hudson – 566 Gobbler Lane Milford, DE 19963 Ms. Hudson stated that she is one of the owners of White Oak Condominiums. Her concern is also the fence. From their survey where the stake was, it looks like the fence is on them. When you get to the other end of the fence, the cement marker is right at the fence line. It kind of looks like that fence is on both of them. Her other question is about the elimination of curbing. She was talking with Mrs. Melson-Williams today and she said that the elimination of curbing is up by the church; they are not talking about eliminating the curbing on the back of the parking lot on the north end. Where the church’s property is, it goes down into a berm and up into a hill. Her concern is that if there is no curbing there, the condominiums are going to get all of the water. They are looking at putting fences up at a lot of places on their property right now and that is why they are getting another survey because they have problems with people running through there. Police chasing people from the shopping center and then they get lost in the apartments. She is the Treasurer of the Association and she also owns 13 properties. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Ms. Edwards questioned if Mr. Adams was able to explain the fence that Ms. Hudson was just referring to? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Adams stated that the fence that they are talking about is an existing chain link fence and it is on the property of Lion Judah Ministry. The young 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 lady referred to fence possibly being on both properties. He is glad that they are getting the property is getting surveyed but there is some monumentation that he doesn’t necessarily agree with. The one stake that she was referring to that was there for only a couple of days; there is a pipe there, but he doesn’t agree with its location. It is about five feet too far in. Based on their information, they think that the property line runs more along the top of the berm that’s there. It’s great that they are getting a survey done so that they can both agree where that back line is located. In reference to the gentleman’s reference to maintaining the fence for the purpose of someone driving from Lion of Judah Ministry property to their property, that will not happen because someone will be seriously injured if that occurred. They will have curbing there and there is an existing berm that goes up and then comes back down. There is eight-foot width of trees being the opaque barrier as well. The one reason that they are considering taking the fencing down that’s in the back is simply because they have to plant these trees that are going to be the opaque barrier. The fencing would kind of be all entangled in the midst of it. Mr. Tolbert stated that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. It seems like the property on which the fence stands is in question. Until such time when they know where that fence stands, the property owner will have responsibility to deal with the fence and we don’t know who the property owner is at this point. He thinks that is a major concern. The motion should consider those factors and the waiver requests. Mr. Holt stated that maybe they should table this application until they get a little bit more information on the property and whose property the chain-link fence belongs to. There are some unknowns going on here that we should really know. Mr. Adams stated that this is really only an issue because they think it’s an issue. They did survey the property based on DelDOT right-of-way information and everything. When this property was originally broken out from the condominium property under prior ownership, this lot was taken out of the bigger piece. They have what’s left. The deed records show that the depth of the lot from White Oak Road in was two hundred feet in depth. Right now, it is one hundred ninety-five feet in depth because DelDOT took five feet. That leaves them with one hundred ninety-five feet at this point. The pipe that they saw or where the stake was, was further than that. If anything, this is working in their favor because they are picking up more property. He disagrees with the location of that pipe. Mr. Tolbert stated that currently it is an issue now. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Adams stated not for him. The fencing belongs to Lion of Judah Ministry. Mr. Tolbert stated that it seems that it is an issue from what they are hearing from the residents. Mr. Holt moved to table application S-19-11 Lion of Judah Ministry Church at 951 White Oak Road until the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; until there is a little bit more clarity so that both parties involved are a little clearer on the placement of the fence. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2019 NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Planning Staff continues to work on the Comprehensive Plan project. They have made pretty good progress on writing a text of chapters and they have started to do some of the map clean up. The information is posted on the website. She would still encourage them to look at what they have issued as the Preliminary Draft #2A: Goals and Recommendations and the Map Series that is there. They continue to take comments on them, and they hope to have a Staff Draft of the Comprehensive Plan in the next couple of weeks to do some staff level review of that. Just a reminder that it will have to go through a very public review process including PLUS Review which is a Preliminary Land Use Services review process with the State and then ultimately public hearings with both the Planning Commission and City Council. If you continue to have thoughts that is certainly helpful. Hopefully, they will be moving into a review process for that. Mr. Hugg stated that he was curious to see how many weeks Mrs. Melson-Williams was going to say to get a Staff Draft. A reminder to attend the Historic Preservation Workshop on Thursday evening. It is also important to our Comprehensive Plan efforts. If there are any concerns or issues, Staff would certainly like to hear from you. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to remind the Commissioners of the July meeting that will be held on Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7PM. with the deferment of two items this evening, they are currently processing eight applications that will be appearing before the Commission that evening. Be prepared for a very long evening. They have not seen that kind of volume in quite some time. Meeting adjourned at 8:34 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 13