Anexo

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, December 16, 2013 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING of November 18, 2013 ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF QUARTERLY WORKSHOP MEETING of November 19, 2013 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for TUESDAY, January 21, 2014 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. 2) Update on City Council Actions 3) Update on Planning activities OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW BUSINESS NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1) US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan application to permit the construction and implementation of an exterior gateway signage system for the Delaware Technical Community College Terry Campus consisting of five freestanding signs at site entrances and gateway property corners. The property is zoned I-O (Institutional and Office Zone). The property is located on the west side of North DuPont Highway between West Denneys Road and Scarborough Road. The owner of record is State of Delaware - Delaware Technical & Community College. Address: 100 Campus Drive. Tax Parcels: ED-05-057.00-01- 01.00-000, ED-05-057.01-01-06.00-000, ED-05-057.01-01-07.00-000, and ED-05-057.00-01- 08.00-000. Council District 3. This Application was postponed from the November meeting due to inadequate Public Notice.

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: December 16, 2013 Page 2 of 2 2) MI-13-21 Request for Street Abandonment: Budd Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a request to abandon the improved street known as Budd Street. It is currently improved as a drive aisle and parking lot between the Weyandt Hall at 5 E. Reed Street and the old Dover Public Library at 45 South State Street. This request consists of Budd Street as it runs east-west from South State Street to Kings Highway. This request was filed by City of Dover. Council District 2. 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 6, 2013 posted 10:30am

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION November 18, 2013 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00 PM with Vice Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Mr. Cregar, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Ms. Still, Mr. Ambruso and Mr. Tolbert. Colonel Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Harvey and Ms. Duca. Also present were Mr. Phil McGinnis, Mr. Bob MacLeish, Mr. David Kuklish, Mr. Greg Scott, Mr. Philipp Utz, Mr. Tom Kramedas and Mr. Dale McCalister Also speaking from the public were Mr. George Kinser, Mr. Lou Colon, Mrs. Debbie Grinstead, Mr. Bart Wilson, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Mr. Tom Frazier, Mr. Joe Brockton and Mr. Bill Neaton. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dr. Jones moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. Mrs. Townshend noted that US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan did not meet the Public Notice requirements and will be moved to next month’s agenda. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2013 Ms. Still moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 21, 2013, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Townshend stated that the next Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at noon in the City Hall Conference Room. If members are unable to attend let Staff know tonight. Mrs. Townshend stated that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, December 16, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Townshend provided an update on the regular City Council and Utility Committee meetings held on October 28, 2013 and November 11, 2013. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Townshend presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW BUSINESS NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 1) AX-13-02 Lands of Raul Juarez at 508 Acorn Lane – Public Hearing and Review of an Annexation and Rezoning Request for two parcels of land totaling 2.45± acres located at 508 Acorn Lane and divided by Acorn Lane. Parcel 1 located on the west side of Acorn Lane contains 1.315 acres ± and Parcel 2 located on the east side of Acorn Lane contains 1.135 acres ±. The property is currently zone RS-1 (Single Family Residential) in Kent County. The proposed zoning for the property is R-8 (One Family Residential Zone). The property is located south of White Oak Road on both the west and east sides of Acorn Lane. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use designation is Residential Low Density. The owner of record is Raul M. Juarez. Address: 508 Acorn Lane. Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.15-01-10.00-000. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend stated that this is a request for annexation and zoning for a property located at 508 Acorn Lane. It is two parcels with one tax parcel number that is split by Acorn Lane just south of White Oak Road. The property is a total of 1.315 acres and there is a residential home on the east side of the property. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan identifies this as Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area with Residential Low Density land use classification. The current zoning in Kent County is RS-1 (Single Family Residential) and the proposed zoning in the City of Dover would be R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The Utility Committee reviewed this application and as previous mentioned, forwarded it to City Council indicating that utilities are available and recommending in favor of the annexation. This is one of the areas that is surrounded by lands that are within the City limits. 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 of AX-13-02 Lands of Raul Juarez at 508 Acorn Lane,(for a zoning of R-8) seconded by Mr. Ambruso carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. 2) AX-13-03 Lands of the City of Dover on Acorn Lane – Public Hearing and Review of an Annexation and Rezoning Request for one parcel of land totaling 0.075 acres (3,264 S.F. ±) located on the west side of Acorn Lane. The property is currently zoned RS-1 (Single Family Residential) in Kent County. The proposed zoning for the property is R-8 (One Family Residential Zone). The annexation category according to the Dover’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use designation is Residential Low Density. The owner of record is the City of Dover. Address: Acorn Lane. Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.15-01-12.00-000. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend stated there is no representative of the applicant; the applicant is the City of Dover. This is a small piece of land (3,264 S.F)., which is adjacent to the property at 508 Acorn Lane that is not in the City. They determined that this land existed outside the City limits when they were researching the 508 Acorn Lane annexation and brought forward the recommendation to annex the City property as well. The City Manager concurred and signed the application. In this case, it’s a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area surrounded by the City with the land use designation as 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Residential Low Density. It is zoned RS-1 (Single Family Residential Zone) in Kent County and has a proposed zoning of R-8 (One Family Residential Zone) in the City of Dover. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. George Kinser – 129 Nixon Lane Dover DE 19901 Mr. Kinser questioned if there was a map of these areas that are being proposed? Responding to Mr. Kinser, Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a map on the screen. Mr. Kinser further questioned if he could come up to look at the map because he has no idea where these properties are located? Responding to Mr. Kinser, Mrs. Townshend showed Mr. Kinser the properties on the display map. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Holden questioned how the City came to own this property and if the City has any proposed use of the property? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is just the adjacent annexation that is prompting this annexation to clean up the City boundary. It’s part of that larger triangular piece that is between 508 Acorn Lane and Manchester Square. That is all one piece of property that is owned by the City. She is not sure how the City came to own the property or what the purpose is. Mr. Holden further questioned if the City boundaries bi-sect this parcel? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Holden questioned if there were remaining parcels on the high and low side of 508 Acorn Lane that are still out of City limits? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Holden moved to recommend approval to City Council of AX-13-03 Lands of the City of Dover on Acorn under the R-8 zoning category, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. 3) C-13-09 Bee Hive Shop at 27 West Loockerman Street – Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Plan to allow for the establishment of a beauty salon within the existing building at 27 West Loockerman Street. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the north of West Loockerman Street west of South State Street. The owner is Forty S. Bradford Street, LLC c/o Chris Raubacher. The lessee is Kathryn Lord. Address: 27 West Loockerman Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-02-37.00-000. Council District 2. This Application was postponed from the September and October meetings due to inadequate Public Notice. Representatives: Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company Mrs. Harvey stated that the Conditional Use Plan is to permit a beauty shop on the first floor of the existing building located at 27 West Loockerman Street. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone) located on the northwest side of West Loockerman Street. The building was built in the late 1800’s and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing resource to the Victorian Dover Historic District. The building 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 consists of three (3) floors. The first floor was most recently utilized as a restaurant and the second and third floors consist of four (4) separate apartments. The Bee Hive Beauty Salon was permitted to open in advance of their Conditional Use Hearing as the tenant space they previously occupied experienced severe water damage and could no longer be occupied. The Planning Staff met with the applicant clarifying that if the Conditional Use Permit is not approved the business would be required to relocate. Opening the business at this location in advance was permitted by the Planning Director following an inspection by the Chief Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal to ensure no harm to their business resulted from a prolonged closure due to the property damage at the previous location. Dr. Jones questioned the recommendations suggested as conditions of approval to meet code objectives on Page 4? Down at the bottom; “install a bicycle parking rack in the rear of the parking lot to serve this facility; this will allow the street side bicycle parking racks to be utilized by customers.” Who is going to use the bicycle racks in the back? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that they could be used by employees or customers. There are entrances both in the front and the rear of the building. Mr. McGinnis stated that this was a pretty simple application. The tenant, Mrs. Lord had a business on West Loockerman Street which was previously approved. For some reason the Downtown Dover district requires that salons get a Conditional Use approval. While they are fighting to re-develop Downtown Dover, you have to get a Conditional Use approval to open a business. Mrs. Lord’s business was ravished by tragedy with a rain storm and they were quickly able to move her down to Chris Raubacher’s building. He thinks Mrs. Lord has a long history of successful and peaceful business operations on Loockerman Street and if anyone deserves to get a Conditional Use approval to stay on Loockerman Street, it’s Mrs. Lord. Mr. Holden questioned if there were a need or any issue with the Staff recommendations to put a bicycle rack at the rear entrance? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. McGinnis asked if the Staff recommended approving this application? Responding to Mr. McGinnis, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. McGinnis stated that they can certainly put a bicycle rack at the back entrance of the business. He is not sure how many people will actually use it but they will happily put a bicycle rack there. Mr. Cregar stated that related to Mr. McGinnis’ comment about Conditional Uses Downtown. His understanding is that because it was a change in use of what was there before, the City requires that there be at least an opportunity to review those changes in use as a Conditional Use. Mrs. Townshend stated that this requirement is for personal service stores that are between State Street and New Street on Loockerman Street on the first floor of the building. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Lou Colon – Downtown Dover Partnership, 101 W. Loockerman Street Dover DE 19904 Mr. Colon stated that he is the Executive Director with the Downtown Dover Partnership. He came to support this application. He is happy to see that another business is going to be staying in Downtown Dover as opposed to vacating the Downtown locale. She had opportunities to locate elsewhere after this rain storm. He is very pleased to see that she stayed Downtown and he welcomes the Planning Commission’s approval. 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Ambruso questioned if there was already a bicycle rack at this location? Responding to Mr. Ambruso, Mrs. Townshend stated that there are bicycle racks on Loockerman Street on the street side. There are several of them along the street on Loockerman Street. Mr. Ambruso stated that it does not seem logical to him that a woman would go to get her hair done and ride a bike. Mr. Tolbert stated that you see more people on bicycles these days than ever. He thinks bicycle racks are appropriate. It just won’t be the hair dressers that use a bicycle rack. Mr. Holden stated that he is pleased that Mrs. Lord had chosen to stay Downtown. He is pleased to see that she is making some improvements to the storefront. It’s great to have viable businesses Downtown and he appreciates her and Mr. McGinnis’ efforts to jump through the hoops that the City requires for them to stay Downtown. Dr. Jones moved to approve to C-13-09 Bee Hive Shop at 27 West Loockerman Street, the request to permit a beauty salon on the first floor of the building and also including Staff comments, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. 4) SB-13-06C The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace – Public Hearing and Conceptual Subdivision Plan Review to create five (5) residential lots from an existing parcel totaling 4.23 acres ± of land. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is located south of but not adjacent to Wyoming Avenue and west of Monroe Terrace. The proposal includes an extension of the street known as Jefferson Terrace. The owner of record is Penntex, LLC. Address: Jefferson Terrace, Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-06-20.01-000. Council District 2. Waivers Requested: Length of Dead End Street and Increased Percentage of Lots on Cul- de-sac. Representatives: Mr. Bob MacLeish, Penntex LLC; Mr. David Kuklish Elements Design Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an application for a Conceptual Subdivision Plan. The subdivision is tentatively titled “The Meadow” subdivision. It’s to be located on Jefferson Terrace; however, in their review report it is noted that the name “The Meadow” will have to be revised as there is an existing residential subdivision in the City of Dover that’s called The Meadows. To avoid any kind of potential conflicts for emergency response, the applicant has been advised that the subdivision name will have to be revised as part of the review process. This is the first step for a major subdivision to come before the Planning Commission. The Commission is basically looking at the street network that is proposed and the lot layout. If the application is successful this evening the next step would be a Preliminary Subdivision Plan which includes a lot greater detail on infrastructure planning and some of the other elements of a Subdivision Plan. This property is located south of Wyoming Avenue and west of Monroe Terrace. It has a little bit of frontage on Monroe Terrace but it is to be established by continuing the street known as Jefferson Terrace to the west. Part of that right-of-way already exists but has not been improved into a paved City street. With this project, they propose terminating that (new segment of) Jefferson Terrace in a cul-de-sac. Fronting on that cul-de-sac are a series of five (5) residential lots and then the southern portion of the site remains undeveloped with this project plan. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 The southern part of the site is partially wooded and has a creek that runs through it which then has associated wetland areas and flood hazard areas known as the one-hundred (100) year flood plain. Both with the wetland areas and the flood plain, those areas are restricted from development activity by the Zoning Ordinance. The property itself is for the most part zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). There is a small piece that is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). Predominantly, they are following the regulations for development in the R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) zoning classification which would allow for single family detached houses on a lot size of a minimum of 10,000 S.F. All of the lots that they are proposing exceed that minimum size requirement. They range from just over 0.5 acres as the largest lot and the smallest lot at just over 11,000 S.F. The street as mentioned does exist as a right-of-way of sixty (60) feet and then the cul-de-sac has dimensions that will have to meet the requirements of the code. The street is currently proposed with a paved width of thirty-six (36) feet for a portion and narrowing down to twenty-four (24) feet and then the cul-de-sac area. The street itself would have limitations as to parking. Parking on the street would not be allowed in the areas where the street is only twenty-four (24) feet wide and also within the cul- de-sac. Each of the residential lots would have to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces on the individual lots. With this project there are two (2) waivers that are related to the Land Subdivision Regulations, specifically related to this cul-de-sac that’s proposed to be established. The first waiver request is for the length of the dead end street. Depending on how the street is measured is whether or not it actually meets the code requirements. So in the applicant’s best interest, Staff is asking that the waiver request be considered. The maximum length of a cul-de-sac or a dead end street is four hundred (400) feet. Depending on how it’s measured the street is three hundred ninety (390) feet in some places or four hundred forty (440) feet in other places. The applicant is seeking relief from that requirement. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on that waiver request and then that waiver then has to go through review with the appropriate City Council Committee and then City Council for final action. The second waiver request deals with the number of lots fronting on cul-de-sac or specifically the turnaround portion of the cul-de-sac. The Code says that only a maximum of 20% of the lots in a development could front on the turnaround section of the cul-de-sac. In this case, basically the entire development ends up fronting on the cul-de-sac because of the configuration of the property. 60% of the lots truly do front on that turnaround area so the applicant is seeking a waiver to increase the number of lots that front on that turnaround area of the cul-de-sac. Again, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation in that regard. Final action of that waiver request will follow with review of a Council Committee and then ultimate action by City Council. Moving forward if this is successful tonight, future subdivision plans will provide greater detail about tree planting and preservation as well as how then intend to approach the recreation requirements for residential subdivisions. The Development Advisory Committee Report includes the comments from the Planning Office in regards to the plan as well as the comments from other reviewing agencies including the City of Dover’s Public Works Department regarding water and sewer services and street development for the property. The City of Dover Fire Marshal’s Office has also provided comments. The Department of Transporation in this case has no comments because this would be a City maintained street. The Kent Conservation District has provided some preliminary comments in regards to stormwater management for the site. 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mr. Holden stated that with regards to the wetlands and the setback if there was specific language that discusses when you can reduce the one hundred (100) foot setback to fifty (50) foot? Is there a riparian buffer that needs to be created or is it one that can be existing? Who is then tasked to maintain the riparian buffer in the future? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that the riparian buffer can be reduced with vegetation and bank stabilization. It is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the riparian buffer. That is something that the City would enforce only if they knew that a buffer had been cleared for instance. It is one of the more difficult provisions to enforce over the long term. Mr. Holden questioned if they keep a fifty (50) foot buffer of the existing woods, would the Planning Office feel that it was satisfactory? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Holt questioned if the applicant had come up with a new name at this time? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. MacLeish stated that they have not come up with a new name at this time. Mr. Holt stated that having another subdivision named The Meadow could be confusing. Mr. MacLeish stated that they have reviewed the comments from DAC and are in the process of making those changes. Mr. Kuklish stated that one name that is being considered is Evergreen Terrace. Mr. Cregar questioned if the applicant planned to run a twenty-four (24) foot paved street the whole way as opposed to trying to divvy up thirty-six (36) feet and twenty-four (24) feet? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that they had talked about was thirty-six (36) feet the entire way but one way or another it would need to be either twenty-four (24) feet the entire length or thirty-six (36) feet, even thirty (30) feet if they did parking on one side. Mr. Duca noted that the Public Works comments specifically address using twenty-four (24) feet the entire way so if something different is wanted it will have to be specifically addressed in the recommendation. Mr. Holden stated that a consistent access width is certainly appropriate. In some of the streets he has seen built at twenty-four (24) feet, when you get guests who want to park on the street it then becomes a one way street. He would be interested in the Fire Marshal’s thoughts on a twenty-four (24) foot wide dead end cul-de-sac. If that was appropriate then he would have some concerns. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that from the discussion at DAC there was some concern. From her recollection, it would be addressed as it goes to preliminary plan. There was concern about if you have no on-street parking and how will it get enforced in a place that is not going to be highly traveled. At the DAC meeting there was discussion among all departments but it was decided that this detail would be hammered out between conceptual and preliminary (plans). Mr. Holden questioned if this was done at an administrative level or is it something that comes back to the Planning Commission? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that it will come back to the Planning Commission as a Preliminary Subdivision Plan. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mr. Holden further questioned if the Commission was acting on the length of the street and the percentage of lots fronting the street? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes and the conceptual layout of the subdivision. Mr. Tolbert stated that he would have a concern with the parking. If there is no on-street parking and parking is restricted to the driveways, how many cars will fit in the driveways? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. MacLeish stated that typically there could be up to four parking spaces because there will be double garages and two vehicles could be parked in the garage itself as well as two cars parked in the driveway. Mr. Tolbert questioned if each house would have a two car garage? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. MacLeish stated yes. Mr. Tolbert stated that his concern was that when there is no on-street parking and the streets are narrow, there would have to be additional places for people to park. That can be a problem for people when they have nowhere to park. For example, if people have guests come over and it’s more than what the parking pad accommodates. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mrs. Debbie Grinstead – 320 Wyoming Avenue Dover DE 19904 Mrs. Grinstead stated that she and her husband own the property that this subdivision will back up to and they have some concerns. Where this property started was originally five (5) acres that was located next to them. They sold the existing older home that was on the property, kept the back of the property so that they could develop it in the future. This is an older established neighborhood where houses aren’t selling very well in the neighborhood as it is and they are literally taking five (5) homes and squeezing them into a small space. This is why 60% of the entire development will be located on a cul- de-sac that is not normally allowed. She and her husband as well as the neighbors are concerned. They don’t understand why in the City of Dover when there are so many properties that aren’t selling, they need to develop new properties in very small areas. What will this do to their neighborhood? It is already older and established. It is a nice quiet neighborhood. They would ask that the Planning Commission take that into consideration. Mr. Bart Wilson – 324 Wyoming Avenue Dover DE 19904 Mr. Wilson stated that he will also abut to the back of the subdivision between Lot 1 and Lot 2 on the display map. They have several concerns, most of what has already been stated. It does seem like a lot of these lots are being shoehorned into a smaller location. The first concern is of light pollution. Already everyone on Wyoming Avenue have a significant amount of light pollution coming from the Nissan dealership located on Route 13. Any reduction to that forest to the south would only intensify that light pollution that gets cast on these areas. Especially in the winter when there is no leaf cover to reduce that light pollution. The Delaware Forestry Service just released their tree canopy index for all of the cities. The City of Dover was at 20.5% tree canopy cover. In this area you have a lot of old growth forest which is kind of rare for these areas. For some reason if this application moved forward, he would like to see a zero removal of any old growth forest in this area. The idea of the buffering, if that buffering is reduced some of the forest is going to be cut off. That stream is highly channelized because of increased impervious surface. On the terminal end of that was a wetland restoration project that was funded by the nonpoint source program of DNREC in conjunction with the City. Increasing 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 the impervious surface in this area and reducing those buffers is going to increase the discharge into that river which is going to highly channelize it, cause significant issues to the flood plain and also cause stress to a lot of those downstream areas. So reducing that buffering and increasing the impervious surface in an area where you are trying to shoehorn these houses would have a pretty detrimental effect on these areas. Again, the St. Jones River watershed has become very industrialized, do we need to further commercialize with houses and increasing impervious surface of an area where you have old growth forest and a nice meadow green area? Another concern is will there be street lights placed in the subdivision? He does not want to have an increased light pollution in his back yard associated with these areas. One of the things that was really nice about the south side of Dover is that it is an established neighborhood. The houses have all been established, there is a nice sense of community. Everything has been kind of laid out and nicely oriented and everyone takes care of everything. Now they are trying to shoehorn this development in an area that already has concerns with parking. Along those lines, if you are having no parking on the street, who will enforce that? Obviously there will be fire truck concerns and plowing of the street concerns. These issues don’t really deal directly with him but he thinks it’s one of those things where if you have a lot of these issues coming up about a neighborhood, is it easier to just try to shoehorn it into the area with all of these different waivers? Mrs. Donna Mitchell – 1120 Monroe Terrace Dover DE 19904 Mrs. Mitchell stated that she doesn’t have a problem with the development or the houses going in. She lives on the dead end of Monroe Terrace and it doesn’t impact her as much as it would impact some people on Wyoming Avenue. Her concern is the Jefferson Terrace roadway. It doesn’t impact her either but she has neighbors that it would impact. Before Mr. MacLeish bought the property the roadway had pretty much been abandoned through there and neighbors use that to park right now. When you expand that thirty-six (36) foot road, she does not know how that is going to impact her neighbors. The houses themselves, she does not have much concern with or the trees. Mr. MacLeish knows that her husband would be happy to get rid of those trees after one of them fell on their camper this year. There are a lot of rotten trees in this area and they do look dangerous when the wind is whipping; they look like they are all going to fall. These trees are right behind their house. She likes the trees because she likes the privacy but her husband would like to see them all gone if it were up to him. She hopes that they will consider the neighbors that live on the Jefferson Terrace end to help them with any needs that they have. Mr. Tom Frazier 1102 Monroe Terrace Dover DE 19904 Mr. Frazier’s concern is that it is kind of a natural drainage way that runs into Puncheon Run. Now if Jefferson Terrace is developed in that area he does not know what will happen. The drainage way can’t be blocked off or it will flood. He also thinks it’s a pretty small area for five (5) houses. Also, when talking about parking on Jefferson Terrace that would be developed, were they meaning the whole street? He doesn’t understand how a portion can be thirty-six (36) feet wide and then twenty-four (24) feet in other areas. Where will the no parking be? Responding to Mr. Frazier, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that their proposal is to extend Jefferson Terrace to the west of Monroe Terrace. A paved width of thirty-six (36) feet allows for on-street parking on both sides. Their proposal actually has the paved width of the street necking down from thirty-six (36) feet to twenty-four (24) feet in width just before it opens back up into the cul-de-sac. Where it turns into the twenty-four (24) feet that is the area where no parking would be allowed on the street. There is also no parking on the street within the cul-de-sac. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mr. Frazier stated that he didn’t think there was enough parking area for five (5) houses. Maybe someone needs to go look at that area because it’s a low land; it must be five to six (5-6) feet lower than Monroe Terrace. It’s not a straight road back there. It’s a very shallow place and it’s a natural waterway. What’s going to happen there? You can’t block that off; something has to happen there. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt stated that it does seem like they are trying to squeeze houses into an area that is going to be detrimental to the other residents to the area. Mr. Cregar stated that he was curious to hear from Mr. MacLeish regarding some of these issues. His concern is with parking on the street and the street width. He is thinking about this time of the year; the holidays. He is thinking about how you travel in a lot of the different subdivisions in Dover and if someone is having a gathering and how much parking that it requires being able to do that on the street. That is something that has to be taken into consideration. He is really curious as to how the applicants feel about some of the comments that have been made tonight about their Conceptual Plan. Mr. Holden stated that he wanted to make some comments responding to some of the local residents’ comments and some clarification that Mrs. Townshend had offered to his question earlier. They are addressing the Conceptual Subdivision Plan and two (2) waivers tonight. This is going to come back in front of the Planning Commission to review a more formal Site Plan in the future. With regard to stormwater; they are over the threshold that they’re going to have to address stormwater permitting with Kent Conservation District and they are going to have to do it in a manner that most of the area grew up in this Monroe Terrace and Wyoming Avenue did not have to. They are going to have to meet a much higher standard in terms of the stormwater. It’s for Kent Conservation District to hold them to that whether they do it under the existing regulations or the regulations that are going to change on January 1, 2014. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity when the application comes back for Site Plan review to discuss that street width further. His personal comments is that he would like to see it remain to keep the residential feel of the area at thirty-six (36) foot width so street parking would be allowed. He thinks that it is supporting of the character of the surrounding area. He thinks developers need to be cognizant of their impact on their neighbors and the cognizant that developers have the right to develop as the City code allows. There needs to be some hand in hand in working together. With regard to tree canopy, there is certainly an issue that we have in the City of Dover and elsewhere with tree canopy and the way to address that is with land use standards within the City. He thinks that it appears to comply and they are going to get another shot to review this Site Plan as they further refine it. He would say that the residents come back and make their opinions known as they see a more developed Site Plan in the future. Dr. Jones stated that she also shares concerns about the parking as well as what might come in terms of the Recreation Area. She knows they haven’t dealt with that but since they are already trying to squeeze in to a small space so this would be a concern for the future that she would have. Mr. Tolbert stated that he had expressed his concerns about parking but this is a Conceptual Subdivision Plan. The application is going to come back to them and they will have another chance to look at this application in a more finalized state. 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mrs. Townshend stated that Mr. Cregar had asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Cregar stated that he was curious about any comments from the applicant at this point regarding the Conceptual Plan. Mr. MacLeish stated that they tried to be very cognizant of their neighbors around them and compliment it and support it and help it grow. One of the things they looked at is they don’t do a lot of big development. When they looked at it, it’s a nice piece of property. They bought it and sold off that front house. When they did that their hope was that they would be able to develop it. The thought process behind it was that it’s a really nice location within the City of Dover and there are a lot of young owners or retirees looking for a nice development thats kind of tucked away. This gave them that opportunity to be able to do that. They looked at lot size; they didn’t try to shoe horn. He thinks they have a good mix of lots from 0.5 acres down to 11,000 S.F. which is in unison with the lots that surround them from a size standpoint. He thinks the type of housing that they do would be very creative; very accommodating. When you look at the new energy codes, they are so many people out there and some of the things they can’t control such as the utility costs in the future. The surroundings around them that have been talked about, they don’t want to add to that. They are under very strict guidelines for stormwater management. They don’t want to cause any additional problems to the neighbors. They want to be a good neighbor and they want a nice development. Mr. Cregar questioned their thoughts on the street width issue, Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. MacLeish stated that they originally had it designed for thirty-six (36) feet. Based on the recommendation from DAC, they can accommodate the thirty-six (36) feet and again, it does help for the parking. Is it a concern? It absolutely is; they will make it a point to see if they can accommodate that. Mr. Tolbert questioned if they have had any contact with the neighbors in the immediate area regarding their project? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. MacLeish stated no. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if they planned on having any contact? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. MacLeish stated that not knowing the process that this is an initial Concept Plan. It is very preliminary from that standpoint. This process is a series of steps; it’s a little bit different since it’s very small. Mr. Tolbert stated that sometimes it’s a good thing to touch base with the immediate neighbors and to find out what their problems and concerns are regarding the project. It may make things a little easier for them as they go along. Mr. Holden moved to approve SB-13-06C The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace, the Conceptual Plan including the two (2) requested waivers, seconded by Ms. Still. Ms. Duca stated that the way the Public Works comments are currently written as a recommendation or condition of approval the paved street width would be required to be twenty-four (24) feet. So unless that is specifically addressed to be removed, it will remain. The previous motion was amended. 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mr. Holden moved to approve SB-13-06C The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace, the Conceptual Plan including the two (2) requested waivers and to require thirty-six (36) foot roadway as the applicant has stated that they can comply with, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. 5) S-13-20 Uzin Utz Manufacturing N.A. at Garrison Oak Technical Park Lot #12 – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Plan to allow for the construction of a dry mortar plant located on Lot 12 in the Garrison Oak Technical Park. The plant facility includes an office building, warehouse, and production building. Review of the Performance Standards Review Application associated with the Site Plan to determine if the proposed use will conform to the Standards. The subject parcel is 10.86 acres ± and is zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center). The Garrison Oak Technical Park is located on the north side of White Oak Road east of State Route 1 and this lot is located on the west side of Garrison Oak Drive. The owner of the property is the City of Dover. The equitable owner is Uzin Utz Manufacturing North America, Inc. Address: 200 Garrison Oak Drive. Tax Parcel: LC-05- 068.00-02-12.00-000. Council District 3. Waivers Requested: Partial Elimination of Curbing and Reduction in the Required Parking. Representatives: Mr. Greg Scott, Scott Engineering; Mr. Philipp Utz Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this was a Site Development Plan Application. The Planning Commission will also be looking at their Performance Standards Review Application which is a second component of that due to the property location. This is a proposal for a development of what is known as Lot 12 in the Garrison Oak Technical Park. The Garrison Oak Technical Park is an area that is zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center). It is a City owned, large tract of land that was previously subdivided into a series of fifteen (15) individual lots for development. This is actually the third parcel within the overall Technical Park that has come to them through the Site Development Plan process. The other two (2) sites, the Dover Sun Park is the solar panel field that is been operational for a couple of years now and the second element that is currently under construction in the Garrison Oak Technical Park is the Calpine project for the Garrison Energy Center. This is located on Lot 7 which is in the far northeast portion of the overall Technical Park. This project on Lot 12 is for the development of a dry mortar plant. It is a plant facility by Uzin Utz Manufacturing N.A. that would encompass a multi-section building. It includes a two story office component, a smaller one story office component, a large warehouse space and a multi-story production building which is where all of the ingredients get mixed together appropriately to make their product. Which is then stored in the warehouse and moves to and from the site. Overall, the property has frontage on what will be Garrison Oak Drive. Garrison Oak Drive will be developed by the City of Dover as part of the infrastructure for the overall Technical Park and Garrison Oak Drive will have sidewalks. This project will have sidewalk along its frontage along with a series of street trees. That is where they will take access to their necessary infrastructure for water and sewer services as well. Their property is also part of the larger stormwater management planning for the Technical Park in that on the far western side of their site there is a drainage swale that then feeds into a much larger stormwater management facility that serves both this property and then the Park on a more regional basis. The applicant did depict the building architecture which is a masonry and concrete constructed building to be clad in a variety of different corrugated metal panel systems. It does have a flat roof 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 system but there is varying heights due to the different uses within the building complex, noting the two story office section, warehouse and then the production area that is the tallest of the various building elements. The production building does meet the height limitations which are prescribed by the distance of that element to the property line. The production building is over one hundred seventy (170) feet from the property line so its estimated height of one hundred ten (110) feet meets the height limitations prescribed by the IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center) Zoning District. On the site itself, the development is concentrated on what is the eastern portion of the site. There is a parking area that is mainly meant to serve the office component of it and then the larger paved area is the shipping and receiving area where the trucks will have access and then an exit point. The truck traffic is segregated from the regular car vehicle traffic coming to the site. The site has a number of loading spaces across the frontage of the warehouse building that are also in compliance with the requirements on the code. They are providing a bicycle rack and it’s located closer to the entrance to the office component to the site. They are meeting the other requirements related to providing a dumpster on-site and as mentioned there is a street frontage sidewalk and they have a connecting sidewalk that comes into their property. There are two (2) waivers that are in regards to this Site Plan to be considered this evening. The first is the partial elimination of curbing. They are looking to eliminate curbing for stormwater management reasons along the southern side of the regular parking lot area and then around the perimeter of the shipping and receiving area. In both cases, to deal with stormwater management practices that they hope to institute on-site. The second waiver request is related to parking for the site. Based on the size of the building, the property would be required to have sixty-eight (68) parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a waiver seeking a reduction in that parking to provide a total of forty (40) spaces on- site with the space available to construct the additional twenty-eight (28) spaces if deemed necessary in the future. This does require a reduction in the required parking on the site of 41% and it is within the Planning Commission’s ability to grant a waiver of up to 50% if deemed necessary for the site. Overall, they are also including the required tree plantings for the project. There is a number of tree plantings and groupings in what is more the building area of the site. The western portion of the site they look to do the bulk of the tree planting for the site as shown on the display map that concentrates a lot of trees where development activity is not anticipated at the present time. Ultimately, they have to provide one hundred fifty-eight (158) trees on-site. The Planning Office has included their comments and there are comments from the various other agencies including the City of Dover’s Electric Department and Public Works Department. There are also comments from the Fire Marshal’s Office which they will be dealing with for fire protection measures for the site. The Kent Conservation District has made comments regarding their stormwater plans. In this case DelDOT has no comments because Garrison Oak Drive will be a City maintained street that they are taking access from. The second component of tonight is their Performance Standards Review Application. This is a specific part of the Zoning Ordinance to be addressed. It is part of the Site Development Plan process and there are standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance that they must address to ensure that they are in compliance with the standards so that there are no dangerous or objectionable elements as the Code refers to it in their project. They have to make statements regarding whether or not their site activities would have any impact in these particular areas that are outlined in Article 5, Section 8.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. What they submitted was a multiple page narrative report that described their 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 manufacturing process and addressed each of these performance standards to be measured. The Planning Staff did review that application as well as the DAC reviewers. They found that it had adequate information for the Planning Commission to make a determination about the projects compliance with the Performance Standards measures that are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Scott stated that he was representing Uzin Utz Manufacturing N.A. tonight. With him is the President of the company, Mr. Philipp Utz. They have received the DAC comments and they do not have any concerns or problems with addressing and meeting all of those comments and the code requirements. The parking requirements will be addressed first. They indicated what they anticipated being the employment at the facilities. As you can see, the largest part of the property is taken up by the warehouse which is mostly for storage facility. There are not a lot of employees in there so there is not a lot of parking required. They estimated a very small number, approximately fifteen (15) people when they first start up and they estimate having twenty-three (23) employees in the year 2021. They have shown forty (40) parking spaces on the site which will be more than ample to accommodate employees and any visitors that would come to the site. They have also shown additional parking that could be added if parking becomes an issue or if expansions occur within the facilities. So they would ask for a waiver from the Planning Commission on the amount of parking required to allow them to go down to forty (40) spaces that they have shown on the site. The second waiver request is for stormwater management purposes. They have met with the Kent Conservation District and the water quantity and water quality is always a concern to them as well as the Kent Conservation District. Dealing with the water quality issues, it’s much simpler to address and get higher percentages of treatment on water if they can run it across grass filter strips and swales and bio filtration measures prior to putting it into the stormwater management measures such as the curbing, catch basins and storm drain pipe. They have also recommended that they keep the curbing off from the perimeters of the storage or shipping areas as well as the southern side of the parking for employees and visitors so that they could accomplish the water quality treatment from the stormwater. The Performance Standards Review Application that was submitted has adequately shown that they did not have any adverse impacts on the Performance Standards that the City required them to address. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the City would get pollution from this production company? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Utz stated that he had a meeting with the Department of Air Quality at DNREC a week ago and the air emission that is allowed exceeds by far what their emission levels will be during production. Since they are using a lot of expensive raw materials, it’s for their own interest of keeping the materials within the processor. For any type of processing, they use dust collectors in order to keep the material in the processor or feed it back in to the processor. Another thing that can be seen on one of the display maps is the entire process area is captured by the shell building. There is almost no emission from the processor. Mr. Tolbert questioned if they would be producing mortar? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Utz stated that was correct. Basically they use minerals and their propriety formulations in order manufacture self-leveling compounds patches, mortars for the construction industry. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if they would be producing a variety of products? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Utz stated yes. It is a variety of products and they have submitted Material Safety Data Sheets because that’s all the products that already exist. What they do at the moment is ship those 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 products in from Europe, sell them here to their existing customer base. In the future they will ship some of the existing product that they currently already sell in the U.S. to the local manufacturers from the plant in Dover. Mr. Holt questioned product transportation? Is their product trucked in? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Utz stated that when they get the raw materials in silo trucks and silo trucks connect to automatic hoses and the material automatically relayed into the production building. That’s how they receive the freight and then all the material that is manufactured in the plant gets bagged, pelletized and then shipped to their customers. Mr. Holt further questioned the weight of the trucks regarding the highway road bed? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Utz stated that they are limited to what the maximum capacity is of a standard truck is and that is between 40,000 and 44,000 pounds. The maximum weight of the truck no matter if it’s a silo truck or a standard truck or a flatbed trailer truck would be 80,000 pounds. Mr. Cregar questioned the hours of operation? It’s not a 24 hour operation? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. Utz stated that they were currently planning for the first three (3) years to run a shift operation of eight (8) hours. Depending on how the business evolves here, they are planning to go to a two shift operation by 2018. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Joe Brockton – 701 McGinnis Dr Dover DE 19901 Mr. Brockton stated that he lived in Wild Meadows which is adjacent to the Garrison Tract. The first question he has was where is Lot 12 relating to his development? If it’s far enough away then he doesn’t have any problems. If it’s close then he has some concerns. Responding to Mr. Brockton, Mrs. Townshend stated that it was south of the Solar Park so it’s closer to White Oak Road. Mr. Brockton questioned how far south of the Solar Park? Responding to Mr. Brockton, Mrs. Townshend stated that there would be a lot between this and the Solar Park. Mr. Brockton further questioned if it was located toward the northern end of the property? Responding to Mr. Brockton, Mrs. Townshend stated no, it’s closer to the southern end of the property. Mr. Brockton questioned if it was closer to White Oak Road? Responding to Mr. Brockton, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Brockton stated that he does not have a problem. Mr. Bill Neaton – Economic Development Director for the City of Dover Mr. Neaton stated that he has had the pleasure of working Uzin Utz for the last 6-7 months developing this project. He would like to strongly endorse their project. They have been very responsive to every one of their questions, quickly responding to all of their needs at the City of Dover. He thinks this is a wonderful project not only for the Garrison Track but also for the City of Dover. He encourages a vote in favor of their variances. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Mr. Tolbert questioned how many people would be employed at this project once it’s in full operation? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Utz stated twenty-three (23). Mr. Ambruso moved to approve S-13-20 Uzin Utz Manufacturing N.A. at Garrison Oak Technical Park Lot #12, to include the Site Development Plan with the two waivers along with the acceptance of the Performance Standards Review, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Colonel Welsh absent. 6) US-13-03 Loockerman Plaza (Loockerman East) Comprehensive Signage Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan application to permit the construction and implementation of signage for the multiple building complex undergoing redevelopment at Loockerman East consisting of two pylon signs, monument sign, and wall signs for the hotel building and building tenants. The subject site is total of 4.29 acres ± and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Development District). The property is located at the southwest corner of South DuPont Highway and Loockerman Street. The owners of record are Hub Associates, LLC and A&G Kramedas Associates. Property Addresses: 514 East Loockerman Street, 516 East Loockerman Street, 554 East Loockerman Street, and 222 South DuPont Highway. Tax Parcels: ED05-077.06-01-62.00-000, ED05-077.06-01-63.00-000, ED05-077.06-01-64.00-000 and ED05-077.06-01-87.00-000. Council District 2. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the associated Site Plan S-11-08 on May 16, 2011, approval of revised architecture on August 19, 2013 and Final Plan approval was granted on July 19, 2013. Representatives: Mr. Tom Kramedas; Mr. Dale McCalister, First State Signs Mr. Holden abstained from voting on the application and participating in the questions. His employer has assisted in this project, but not in the sign plan. Mrs. Townshend stated that this was a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan for the property known as the Hub site. It is the southwest corner of East Loockerman Street and South DuPont Highway; the property at 554 East Loockerman Street and 222 South DuPont Highway. There are four (4) parcels as a part of this project totaling 4.35 acres. The existing signs that are on the site are two (2) pylons, one (1) post and panel sign and four (4) wall signs. Under the Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan there will continue to be two (2) pylon signs, one (1) monument sign and multiple wall signs that will be variable depending upon the number of tenants. If looking at Page 4 of the DAC Report, there is a summary of the proposed signage. There are two (2) proposed pylon signs. You will recall receiving a spiral bound notebook as well as receiving some revised sheets so we are looking at the revised sheets. There is a pylon labeled F1 and a pylon labeled F2. F1 on the Revised sheet includes a total of two hundred ninety-one (291) S.F. and would be at forty-four (44) feet tall. F2 is the existing TGI Friday’s sign which is twenty (20) feet tall and ninety-two (92) S.F. The other free standing sign is on the East Loockerman Street entrance, labeled as F3 and that would be a monument sign for Home2 Suites. The height for this sign is 5’6” and the proposed square footage is thirty-two (32) S.F. which is consistent with what the Sign Regulations would permit in this area that is adjacent to residential. There are also some wall signs proposed. The wall sign on the tower, labeled as H2 is on located on the east elevation of the building and is ninety-six (96) S.F. There would be another wall sign proposed for the hotel on the north elevation of the building that would be forty-three (43) S.F. There will be a retail building between the hotel building at the south end of the site and Loockerman Street. In terms of the wall signage for the Hub building and the proposed retail building, the wall signs would comply for each 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 tenant and the wall signs would comply with the requirements in terms of size that the Zoning Ordinance has. Staff has recommended approval with the reasons stated and several conditions stated as well in the Staff recommendations. They do note that it appears that signs labeled F1 and F2 may not meet the exclusion zone required and that is not something that Planning Commission can waive. That may need Board of Adjustment action once they have gotten beyond Planning Commission. The Commission will be looking at the square footage, the overall sign area and the height. Any free standing signs would have to comply with the setbacks as well. There is no change proposed to the TGI Friday’s sign so under the Sign Plan, that would remain at its current location. Mr. Cregar questioned if the old Rodeway sign is technically legal non-conforming? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Cregar further questioned if what’s being proposed makes it more non-conforming? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that it makes it less non-conforming in terms of height but it would have more sign area. Mr. Cregar questioned if the Planning Commission could do anything with that? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that they could increase the sign area and can allow it under the Unified Comprehensive Sign Plan for the height to change. The guidance given by the Code is that it should not be excessive. It’s somewhat of a subjective standard but in keeping with the sign table, they are limited to one hundred fifty (150) S.F. of sign area and thirty (30) feet in height. This is an increase in that but it’s some of the latitude that is given to the Planning Commission through the Unified Comprehensive Sign Plan. This site will have more tenants under the new development than it did under the prior development scenario. Mr. McCalister stated that he was with First State Signs. They developed the plan for the Kramedas family on this project. He thought Mrs. Townshend hit it pretty well. They worked with the Staff; they’ve redesigned the pylon sign. This is a new hotel property. What they are doing here is re- developing a property that was developed in the 1950’s when it was the old Comfort Inn and it had the eighty (80) foot Quality Inn sign the little starburst on the top. Throughout the years, this has always been a legal non-conforming sign. As the property has changed names, it has always been lowered and it has always been reduced in square footage. This is a very unique property because of the existing old Hub with is now TGI Friday’s. The sign that is on the property now for TGI Friday’s was the original Jonathon’s Hub sign. By lease, they have to keep it for TGI Friday’s. The only real place that they can put a sign because of the nature of this corner for the whole shopping center is in the existing island hence why they are keeping it there. The size of the sign is due to the height of the building next to them. The TGI Friday’s building is approximately twenty (20) feet. That building would not be allowed to be built today; it’s close to the road. At least he doesn’t think it can be built in that location but he is not sure. All of the building signage will meet City Code. Every tenant that comes in will have to obtain a City Sign Permit and meet the City Code for building signage. One recommendation of the Planning Staff was that they change the name from Loockerman Plaza; they agree. Staff also wants a brick base on that sign on Loockerman Street which they also agreed to. They also put a brick planter around the new sign by the road to try keeping the brick theme going. It is all design based and based on colors and the look of the Home2 Suites. The two (2) signs on Home2 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Suites are very small from hotel signs. One of them is less than forty (40) S.F., the other is sixty (60) S.F. and they are 3.5 – 4 stories up in the air. None of the signage on the building is excessive at all. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Ambruso moved to approve US-13-03 Loockerman Plaza (Loockerman East) Comprehensive Signage Plan, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Holden abstaining and Colonel Welsh absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:38 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION QUARTERLY WORKSHOP November 19, 2013 The Regular Quarterly Workshop Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday November 19, 2013 at 12:00 noon with Vice Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Mr. Cregar, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Ms. Still and Mr. Tolbert. Dr. Jones, Mr. Ambruso and Colonel Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend and Mrs. Melson-Williams. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND CONCERNS Mr. Cregar stated that Mr. Tolbert has done a great job the last two months running the meetings. Mr. Tolbert stated that he wished every member of the Planning Commission had an opportunity to sit in the Chairman’s position. Mr. Tolbert stated at one time they were talking about following Robert’s Rules of Order. What happened with that? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that they do follow Robert’s Rules of Order. It’s only if they get something more complicated than normal that we need to prepare. Mrs. Townshend questioned if everyone thought the three minute limit for speakers during the public hearing was working? There have been a few times when we have had to cut people off but she is not sure that they would have added anymore value to the discussion. Mr. Cregar stated that he thought it was great but asked if they had heard from the public that they need more time? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated no, she has only heard issues brought up about Council. Ms. Still stated that in her opinion it’s better to air on the side of a shorter time frame that way you have the leniency to let people go a little bit longer if there is a real necessity. Mr. Holden stated that two meetings ago they had the lobbyist who wanted a zoning change. He does not know what the applicant’s plans are as far as what he is going to pursue. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they have discussed amendments to the RG-1 zone. Mr. John Paradee has sent her a draft and she shared that draft with Ms. Tricia Arndt who she thinks has shared it with a few of her neighbors. She shared with both parties, some of the concerns that she had and some of the things that she thought could tighten it up some. She is actually meeting with Mr. John Paradee and Mr. Rhett Ruggerio this afternoon. Mr. Holden questioned how that zoning change would get effective? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would go to a Council Committee, then it would be referred to the Planning Commission by City Council and there would be a public hearing for the Planning Commission and then in front of City Council. At this point, the draft that was sent to her was actually somewhat restrictive. She had made the suggestion about thinking about limiting it to certain roads. They could look at the road network and while it may make perfect sense on Division Street or State Street; it might not make sense on Delaware Avenue or on Bertrand Drive. If they use the street to kind of hone in the area, it may help. That is the discussion being

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 held at this point. Mr. Cregar stated that he is leaning towards an actual change in zone as opposed to any kind of change in the way a Conditional Use operates. Mrs. Townshend stated that the problem with the change in zone is that is opens it up to a whole lot of other uses. It would be a text amendment that would in RG-1 allow for professional offices as a Conditional Use, limiting the number of people that could work there, creating a minimum of off-street parking but a maximum as well. At some point, there will be something new because there are members of City Council who are interested in sponsoring it so it will end up coming to the Planning Commission probably in the beginning of next year. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS UPDATE Summary of 2013 Applications Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they included the Summary of 2013 Application Chart in today’s packet which provides a back history back to 2002 for each of the types of applications that the Planning Office handles. Some of which come to the Planning Commission, some do not but what they track is by each quarter and then totaling the numbers for the year. Basically for 2013, they are ahead of the last two years. That may somewhat be related to things that have been coded as Miscellaneous where they put a lot of studies that may not actually come to any particular body for action. Everything else seems to be trending about the same as it has in the past few years. Mrs. Townshend stated that they actually have fewer Miscellaneous applications than they did last year. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the increase in Miscellaneous applications has been related to some of the things that can be done administratively or just so Staff is able to find it years from now. Overall the numbers are still nowhere near where they were in 2006 and 2007. There won’t be many more applications that come in before the end of the year. All of the applications for the Planning Commission have been filed for the year and the Board of Adjustment and the Historic District Commission just had their filing deadline this past week. So there is only going to be a few more added to the overall total. They will be less than 100 overall applications for the year. Mrs. Townshend stated that the numbers are up a little from 2011 but not significantly. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the total for Subdivisions looks like it’s up because it’s at six (6), but those aren’t major subdivisions. They were dividing less than ten (10) lots out of something. That is nowhere near the size subdivisions that were previously reviewed. Mr. Tolbert questioned what was happening with the Eden Hill subdivision? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that at this point, the residential section is bank owned; the portion that has not been sold to individual home owners. They are waiting for someone to acquire the property. Mr. Tolbert stated that he has been asked by people who have expressed an interest in the place. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 One person lives in New York; she moved from Delaware and now wants to come back and has heard about Eden Hill. Mr. Cregar questioned if they were starting anything on the commercial section of Eden Hill? He has noticed an entrance way at the front. Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is the circle that the City of Dover and DelDOT are working on. There is no activity on the front. The commercial district has been purchased by Pettinaro. With the West Dover Connector moving forward, hopefully that will help. She has heard, not officially, but from a number of people that the doctors are looking to move forward with the next phase of their piece. Mr. Tolbert questioned if it was still significantly different from what was originally planned for Eden Hill? He thought it was going to be a village also. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes and she thinks ultimately with the new owner, they will have the opportunity to press those issues. With Hill Farm Associates and Ryan Homes, they were constantly coming in and trying to deviate from the Pattern Book and go more toward the conventional type of residential development. Hopefully when the bank sells the property they will get people who will understand what the whole vision was and move forward in that regard. Other Project and Research Activities Bicycle & Pedestrian Sub-Committee Mrs. Townshend stated that back in January 2013, City Council created a Sub-Committee of the Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee to look at bicycle and pedestrian issues. They did obtain the Honorable Mention status from the League of American Bicyclists which is a step in the right direction. Out of that they should be receiving a report at the end of this month from the League of American Bicyclists on where they think the City needs to improve. That Sub- Committee has been very much focused on that. They have also done some exercises where they have given the members of the Sub-Committee and any members of the public who attend the meetings the opportunity to mark up maps to identify areas where the sidewalk network needs work. The intent is to work with the Public Works Department once they hire their new Civil Engineers to help move that into how they prioritize the areas that people who are regular pedestrians are identifying as a problem. This is something that will continue. They are looking in the Planning Office as they have been for a while, when plans come in about how they are accessible if people are not in a car. The Planning Commission have always been into sidewalks; they are not very free with their sidewalk waivers. But she thinks with the bicycle component it’s getting bigger. Update on Commercial Zoning Research for Amendments Mrs. Townshend stated that she has been working since January 2013 with members of the business community and real estate community through the Chamber to take our commercial zones and try to simplify them, make the categories broader and take the bulk standards and make them so they don’t inhibit design. They had made a lot of progress and then Janelle left so she has not been able to get some of the follow-up done on her end. They were hoping by December that they would have a draft to go to the Committee. Obviously now she thinks it will be January or February. If anyone has any pressing interest and wants to see what they have 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 worked on, let her know. One of the examples that she uses is that they have had bowling alleys identified as a permitted use in some of the zones. If someone comes forward and wants to do laser tag, it’s the same type of thing but it’s not a bowling alley. By changing that category to Indoor Recreation and Amusement, they are not so restrictive and specific in their uses that they are cutting out something that may be the next trend. Central Dover Community Plan Mrs. Townshend questioned if anyone had heard anything about the Central Dover Community Plan? (No one had heard about it.) The Cen-Del Foundation started about a year ago when they brought together a group of stakeholders in the Downtown area and started what was informally called the Safety Task Force. The Community Policing Section of the Police Department went door to door surveying of residents in the Downtown area. They started having regular meetings about how to bring stakeholders in and how to get people to address the Downtown neighborhood. All of the efforts they spend on the Loockerman Street area. If they can’t address the neighborhood that is adjacent to it and the housing then there will only be so much success. They found out about a grant through the Wells Fargo Foundation that is two phases. The first phase is a planning grant and after the planning efforts are done, there is money for implementation. NCALL has been the point person leading the effort. They were the primary applicant on the grant but the Cen-Del Foundation, the Downtown Dover Partnership, neighborhood groups and the City of Dover have all been working together on it. They were awarded almost $100,000 through the Wells Fargo Foundation. There is a planning consultant called Interface Studio that is doing the work and there are also community volunteers who are doing the work. For instance, there is a door to door survey that was developed and volunteers who have been trained by the consultant are going door to door administering the survey. They are going to use that information at what they are calling an open house. They will use a storefront and are open for people to come in and have conversations and use sticky dots to mark the map in terms of priority type things. They are doing a detailed Land Use Assessment and a Land Use Survey that includes an assessment of the building stock. It’s a really comprehensive look at the Downtown area. The boundaries of the area are William Street at the north, State Street at the east, Hope Street at the south and the railroad tracks but also Lincoln Park at the west. They are in the process now of implementing the survey. The hope is at the end of January, once they have had the opportunity to crunch the results from the survey, they will go into the open house phase. There should be a very detailed plan for that defined area with implementation strategies and all of these types of things by April or May of 2014. Mr. Holt questioned what types of question were asked on the survey? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that she had a copy of the survey for him to look at. The questions are primarily quality of life questions and preferences of what people would like to see. Mr. Holt stated that how a question is asked can make a difference in the answer given. Mrs. Townshend stated that the consulting firm Interface Studios has done a number of these types of plans throughout a region of the Country. They have won awards through APA. They are a very good planning firm and this is the type of work that they do. Hopefully by next spring they will have some really good information that can be used to make changes to the Zoning Ordinance and it could help non-profits in terms of how they invest their resources in the Downtown. The idea is that it’s a plan that would be implemented across the community not just in the City. She thinks by it not being done by the City, they are able to get different involvement 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 than the City would. She will keep the Planning Commission involved and as events come up, they will let everyone know. Review of 2008 Comprehensive Plan Under State Law, they are required to review their Comprehensive Plan every five (5) years which is now. They should update and re-adopt the Comprehensive Plan at least every ten (10) years. They are currently right at the five (5) year point. There are a number of ongoing Planning activities, the Central Dover Community Plan and also a couple of other things. They want to wait until these ongoing studies are done so that they can really use them in a more comprehensive update of the Comprehensive Plan. She would like to develop an addendum over the next few months. Their Comprehensive Plan has a deadline of December 15th for anyone to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Her thought is using that December 15th deadline to take through an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan to treat it as an amendment so that it can have the teeth that it needs specifically for the Transportation Improvement District. When all of these planning studies are done, Staff would be able to use that information to do a full update of the Comprehensive Plan. She would expect to be able to start at this time next year. Mr. Tolbert stated that two (2) years ago there was a plan for Dover. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes and it is mentioned. In terms of the ongoing Planning activities, there is the Central Dover Community Plan and the Transportation Improvement District. There is also going to be a city wide Parks/Recreation Needs Assessment Plan. She has talked to the State’s Division of Parks and Recreation and they will assist with some of the data. They have a lot of good stuff that the City can use. The idea is that it would help the City prioritize their capital investment but then it also becomes a key component to the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, they have the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and design book. With having all of these very current plans, it will put the City in a good position to do a good job of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The staffing issue needs to be resolved but this is the priority in the December, January and February time frame. EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITES Mrs. Townshend stated that in the packet there is the Institute for Public Administration Planning classes that are offered for local governments. If members have not attended any of the classes, the Planning 101 which starts with the basics of Comprehensive Plan Land-Use Law will be held in January. In February is Planning 102 which is a more detailed review of the Land-Use Law. There will also be more classes offered in the spring. If anyone is interested, the Planning Office is glad to pay for them to attend. In addition, she handed out information today from the Dover Kent County MPO website. In March is the Heels and Wheels Walk/Bike Summit. She has not seen an agenda yet but it may be something of interest. She believes that it is actually free. TRAINING: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Request for Waivers Mrs. Townshend stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams was going to talk about the different types of waivers. She has done a handout to make it clear because it does seem like there are a lot of waivers coming forward these days. Some of them the Planning Commission has the authority to approve and some of them have to go to Council through various Committees. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Mr. Holt stated that there are so many waivers that sometimes they almost seem the same. He has never seen so many waivers on upright curbs. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that they talked about changing the Code to take that out. There are a few things that she thinks could be addressed through Code changes. Mr. Holden wondered if they would see fewer waivers for the upright curbs with the new Stormwater Regulations. With the current Stormwater Regulations, so many people use filter strips for the stormwater. For the new Stormwater Regulations, filter strips don’t do anything for quality storms anymore. It has to infiltrate the water and so you don’t get TSS treatment through filtering, they get TSS treatment by default because they infiltrate the quality storm. Mrs. Townshend stated that there would still be places where you can’t infiltrate. Responding to Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Holden stated yes but a filter strip would not do anything for you at a regulatory standpoint. Why flow water across a filter strip if it doesn’t give any regulatory benefit? If you can’t infiltrate then there will be a fee-in-lieu under the new regulations. He thinks they will see fewer waivers for upright curbs. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the request for waivers happen a number of different places in the City Code. There are some that Planning Commission deals with, there are others that the City Planners are given the authority to deal with and in other cases it takes the Planning Commission, a Council Committee and City Council to make the decision on the waiver. The first page of the chart is the Land Subdivision Regulations and this is actually fairly broad. There are a number of the general requirements for subdivisions and it’s multiple pages of the Code that deal with things like streets, sidewalks, easements, blocks and lots (which is kind of how they are laid out) and grading and improvements. For the most part, the waivers of Subdivision Regulations that the Planning Commission has seen have fallen into one of the requirements for streets. Something about the street doesn’t quite work so they seek a waiver. In the Land Subdivision Regulations, Article 7 is where you find special provisions that establish the process for dealing with a waiver of this particular section of Code, the Land Subdivision Regulations. This is what the Planning Commission saw last night with The Meadow Subdivision. It was two (2) waivers of the Land Subdivision Regulations related to a cul-de-sac street. In this case, it started with the applicant making a written request as part of their application. The Planning Commission as part of their review of the project makes a recommendation on the waiver request which is then forwarded to the appropriate City Council Committee. The questions about the street would go to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. That Committee looks at the waiver request; they see the Staff recommendation, the Planning Commission recommendation and the applicant’s original request and they again make a recommendation. All of that information then goes to City Council and they make the final decision. It is not subject to public hearing at City Council. It is only subject to public hearing because it is part of the plan review process for the Planning Commission. Examples of waivers seen by the Planning Commission would be the length of the cul-de-sac street. That typically comes into play because the Code doesn’t exactly tell someone how to measure the length of a cul-de-sac street; where you start and where you stop. In the instance of last night, if starting from the center line of Monroe Terrace and went to the center of the cul-de-sac it’s one measurement but if taking it all the way to the far side of the curb of the cul-de-sac it’s then over the maximum length of a cul- de-sac street. Would a fix in the Code work? Maybe, but a lot of times it may be very clearly over. The unusual waiver from last night was the percentage of lots that front on the turnaround 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 of a cul-de-sac. Typically, the Planning Commission won’t see that. If it’s a subdivision it’s usually much larger and the overall lot count is much higher so it wouldn’t end up with a percentage issue of the number of lots in the overall development fronting on the cul-de-sac. In this case, the whole subdivision is basically the cul-de-sac. That is why this is established in the Code because it gives the ability to consider something different and it gives reasons if there are unusual circumstances. The second page is a number of the instances from the Zoning Ordinance that trigger waivers. There is a laundry list of instances where there may be the ability for the applicant to seek a waiver. The Planning Commission has seen them typically related to the Arterial Street Buffer which is a buffer from Route 13. They have seen requests to reduce that buffer; it’s required at 30 feet. The opaque barrier which is between non-residential and residential areas, that’s where there has to be a fence, wall, or berm and the landscaping component. The Planning Commission can consider waivers for that fence component. Mr. Tolbert questioned if it spells out who is responsible for the opaque barrier? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the fence is going to be on the property of the development. The landscaping is also on that commercial property. The landscaping has to be on the residential side of the fence but it is still on that commercial property. It doesn’t get imposed on the adjacent residential piece; it is all planted on the commercial property. Mr. Tolbert further questioned the cases where the barrier is trees that are already there, who is responsible for it? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated whoever owns it. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the developer would not always own that land where the trees are a barrier between residents? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that if they are accepting existing landscaping, it’s on that property not on the residential property. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that you have to care for what’s on your land; that’s the simple answer. For the most part, most of the waivers in the Zoning Ordinance have a process where the applicant makes a written request as part of their application and then Planning Commission makes the recommendation and acts on it with their motion. Planning Commission has the final say. The one exception to that is dealing with the emergency rear access requirements for residential development. That is the requirements in the Code that are related to fire protection needs and they come into play for townhouses and multi-story apartment buildings and not a single family detached house. In this case for a waiver of those emergency rear access requirements, Planning Commission makes a recommendation, it goes through a City Council Committee and the City Council makes the final determination. This is a section of Code that Staff thinks is outdated because the fire codes that the City deals with typically take care of any fire protection needs and issues well above this kind of requirement would do. We may ultimately be removing this out of the Code. Mrs. Townshend stated that one of the challenges they have is the City Council Committee reviewing it will say if this is an emergency access requirement why is it being waived? The answer is always because the current regulations are based on an incident that happened in the early 1990’s. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it was in response to a fire situation where apartments were back to back and there was no clear access between the two and fire jumped, so this was a reaction to that to ensure that this would not happen on new construction. Once you get into apartment buildings that are multiple floors, in most cases you end up with units that have to be sprinklered anyway so it’s a very different approach to fire protection. Mr. Holt stated that he normally goes by what the Fire Marshal comments. Mrs. Townshend stated that in discussion with the Fire Marshal, he also agrees that this is a section that’s dated. The only reason they haven’t brought forward anything to take out is because they just want to make sure that they don’t take out something accidentally that is needed. They want to spend a little more time reviewing it. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Page 3 included some other people who have the ability to waive sections of the Code. There are some that are very specifically given to the City Planner. Mr. Holden asked if the wetland buffer was an example of this from last night. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is not called a waiver. It is something that can be reduced (subject to conditions). Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are some things in the Code that don’t call it out as a waiver but there is a procedure to reduce it in the Code. One of the things that they always deal with is dumpsters. It’s not a waiver to only build one when you need two by code. It just says you can build one and you placehold the second. Years ago she thinks they treated them like waivers but it’s not actually spelled out as a full waiver in the Code. There’s a process for an exception; there are a number of things that are exceptions in the Code as well. The City Planner has waiver ability related to lots in the RG-1 zone that were existing lots a number of years ago. They are continually finding that the re-development of lots in the RG-1 zone which is a lot of the northwest section of Downtown Dover had to go to Board of Adjustment to be able to re-build anything on the property. It was happening often enough that the Board of Adjustment asked if Staff could look at a different type of process for dealing with those. In most cases, there was no public opposition to it; it just made sense. They still have to make the request in writing. It has to come to the Planning Director which she looks at them on a case by case basis. For example she would look at things like if it makes sense to reduce the setback. Such as for the lots only twenty-five (25) feet wide and they want to put a fifteen (15) foot wide house on the property and they can’t get ten (10) foot wide side yards on it. The Sign Regulations have a number of things that the Planner is given the ability to deal with. Window signs and temporary signs especially related to grand opening events. There are a number of things that the Planning Commission doesn’t even see that Staff has the ability to deal with. Some of the actions that the Historic District Commission takes could be termed as waivers. As part of their Architectural Review Certification process which in some cases Planning Commission also participates in, allows the ability to reduce things like building setbacks to allow the building to be placed closer to the street in order to fit the character of the district. It’s 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 somewhat like a waiver of the code requirement if it needed to be twenty (20) feet but they are going to let it be five (5) feet. It’s all tied up in that Architectural Review Certification process. The same thing happens for signage in the Historic District. There’s the ability to waive some requirements to make it fit the character of the area that they are dealing with. All of these waivers are different than going to the Board of Adjustment for a variance or an appeal. The applicant could seek a variance from any code requirement. The waivers are specifically spelled out that there is a process here for it if the applicant can’t meet this parking requirement. They would go before the Board of Adjustment if there was a setback of twenty (20) feet for their front yard and they want a porch that goes right up to their property line on the front of the house, if not in the Historic District. Separation distances for certain types of signs would also go to Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Townshend stated that they have an application this month where the lot is well below the minimum lot size for the zone and there is no way they can place a house and meet the setbacks. She met with the applicant and went over different scenarios but they flat out cannot put a house there unless it’s a very small one. So that application is going to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Board of Adjustment has Area Variances and Use Variances. They do not tend to see a lot of Use Variances but there is one pending. Board of Adjustment has filing procedures and criteria where they have to judge each variance and whether or not it’s appropriate for it to be granted. Mr. Tolbert questioned if Mr. K.C. Sheth was still on the Board of Adjustment? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, he was the Chairman. Mrs. Townshend stated that they do want to work on some code issues for stormwater. The curbing waiver only relates to stormwater. There have been other areas where curbing has been asked to be flush not upright. For example, around Wawa and Royal Farms where it’s more for handicap accessibility. She knows these are areas of the Code that they need to look at. Mr. Tolbert questioned if there was the potential for the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission to have the same case and come to different conclusions? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated no. If it’s something that the Planning Commission can decide, it does not go to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is really the last resort if it cannot be dealt with administratively. Mr. Holden questioned what appeals go to the Board of Adjustment, administrative decisions? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes which typically it’s an appeal on interpretation of the Code. If something is very clearly stated in the Code it’s a waste of time to go to the Board of Adjustment for an appeal. When she first started there was one application where someone simply didn’t like the decision and they went on to an appeal. It was whether or not a deck was a structure. It’s right in the Code that it’s a structure. But if it’s something where it’s more of a judgment call then it will go to the Board of Adjustment. They see very few appeals because typically it’s something that would be easier for them to make a case for a variance than get the Board to overturn something. Mr. Tolbert questioned if an applicant could go to court from a Board of Adjustment decision? 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, or for a Planning Commission decision as well. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if City Council could reverse the Board of Adjustment decision? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated no, nor can they reverse anything that the Planning Commission does. If somebody doesn’t like the action taken on a Site Plan, it doesn’t go to Council. That would be an appeal to the Court. Mr. Holden questioned how often that has happened? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated a few times. The Maple Dale PND was appealed to the Court. They made the argument that it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City won that case. It was getting appealed to the Supreme Court from there and she thinks Maple Dale and the Plaintiff settled. The ones prior to that were the Friends of Old Dover cases against Zimmerman’s building which is now State Street Commons. It went to Court twice and was kind of pending in Court when the demolition happened. The Village of Cannon Mill was a Supreme Court case that helped establish the State’s Law on Vested Rights. The Village of Cannon Mill came through as a Subdivision. It had been through the preliminary stage. The land next to it went into an Agricultural Preservation District. The State Law is that for an Agricultural Preservation District you have fifty (50) feet from that where you cannot place a structure. The court case was whether that fifty (50) foot buffer applied to these lots that pre-dated the change. Ultimately the answer was no, it did not apply. Mr. Holt stated that it’s important when they make motions on applications that run against the grain that they state the reasons in the motion why they are doing it. Mrs. Townshend stated for instance, denying a Conditional Use is a really fine line because the Code has already said that it is okay with conditions. Planning Commission members need to be able to be clear of why they can’t apply conditions and why it needs to be denied. Mr. Cregar questioned if the daycare was the most recent Conditional Use that was denied? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, she is only aware of two (2) Conditional Uses that have been denied since she has been with the City of Dover. The day care was one and then the Pregnancy Health Center that was looking to go on South State Street near South Dover Elementary School; this application has been 3-4 years ago. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Mrs. Townshend stated that this was something that they were watching but didn’t think they were going to get involved with. They figured they would let other people try it first. She went to a scoping meeting for a development project at the old Berry Van Lines. That had come through as a Site Plan several years ago but it’s now expired. There is a developer that wants to put a shopping center there. They went to DelDOT for the scoping meeting and because of the change in the DelDOT Subdivision Manual the developer, in order to develop that site, would have to study the intersections as far as north of Scarborough Road and as far south as Division Street. That’s just the scope of the Traffic Impact Study. With the Traffic Impact Study they determine the deficiencies in the intersections and what needs to be done. The question is then how much is the developer on the hook for? She was sitting in the scoping meeting and this was the first time that she had ever been in a meeting where the DelDOT staff starting looking at each other and said this isn’t what they wanted and needed to figure something out. 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 The other thing that was added to the Regulations was the ability to develop a Transportation Improvement District. They determined that this would be an issue that they would figure out how to resolve for this site and then the next site on Route 13 that gets developed, they would be in the same position again. They decided that the best approach was to develop a Transportation Improvement District that would comprise the entirety of Route 13 in the City limits and Bay Road. They have now begun the discussions with DelDOT and this is a presentation that DelDOT gave to City Council last week. City Council’s motion was to authorize she and Mr. Scott Koenig to meet with DelDOT to begin to develop a Transporation Improvement District. First question is what is a TID? It’s a geographic area defined for the purpose of securing improvements to transportation facilities in that area. Second question is why to do it? She thinks to make things better. More equitable is really important because what happens now is if an intersection is kind of teetering near its maximum, you can have a development that comes through and absorbs all of the capacity and then the next developer is responsible for fixing all of the problems that have been there for years. Mr. Holden stated that they have some intersections that are already well out of the level service but the next person who comes in and added one car has to do a thousand cars worth of improvements. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Playtex sites at Maple Parkway and Kings Highway are an example of where every developer ends up walking away because of the transportation issues. It’s predictable because this master Traffic Impact Study will be done and there will be an agreement that lays out how the improvements get split up and what the developers will be responsible for. It links land-use and transportation as part of the study that’s done. They have to go through and model based on land-use assumptions. That’s why this is going to be something that’s going to blend itself right into the Comprehensive Plan because they are going to have to talk about what properties are going to be later. It looks at all aspects. One of the problems with the Traffic Impact Study system is that Traffic Impact Study is looking at intersections and looking at moving vehicles. One of the things that she frequently says especially as it relates to the core area of the City, is every improvement that you make to accommodate vehicles is making it harder for someone on foot or on a bicycle. Under this approach they are looking at all modes of transporation, not just cars and the ability to incorporate smart growth principles. One of the ideas is that areas that have the Transportation Improvement Districts will actually be ranked higher in the Capital Transportation Plan for the State. That is definitely a benefit. Where will they look at doing TID’s? They will do them in Municipal and County growth areas; areas that are colored on the display map which is the State’s Strategies for Policies and Spending. DelDOT, the local government which would be the City of Dover, and the Dover Kent County MPO would all be involved. Three entities would engage in an agreement. There is a monitoring program, a master plan and an infrastructure fee program. There could be a fee per square foot for commercial use or a fee per dwelling unit per residential use. They would figure out what that fee is, the plan is already there so the developer could either make a portion of the improvement or they could pay a fee into a fund. As discussed so far, the City would collect the 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 money. They would hold on to it until it’s time to implement the project. Again, there could be fees or there could be road improvements made by developers. There is also the idea that if they could get projects into the Capital Transportation Plan it would help. The example she used on the Kings Highway property, she uses all of the time because it has been a problem. You don’t really hear people complaining about it other than the people who live on Kings Highway. But you don’t really hear people complain about how long it takes at that light or they don’t like that light but it’s a failing intersection. People aren’t complaining about it; it’s never made it into the Capital Transportation Plan but the fact that it’s failing is preventing anything from re-developing on that corner. The other thing in the agreement is that they can agree on a lower level of service. In certain areas, they might not need level of service D; they might be able to accept failure during certain hours of the day. The League of Local Governments will be discussing this on Thursday night. She and Mr. Koenig are meeting with DelDOT on December 3, 2013 to really start the process but in their case they do need to amend the Comprehensive Plan. She thinks they are going to work with the City and they can do all of the ground work because they know the City will do it but they are going to work to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow it before they can sign the TID Agreement. Mr. Bill Brockenbrough is with the Department of Transportation. His job is County Coordinator but he really is the person who oversees all of the Traffic Impact Studies. He is the person they will be dealing directly with. There is a FAQ that went out in the packet. Mr. Holden questioned if they were thinking of doing a TID at the location on Kings Highway? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they were talking about the entirety of the Route 13 Corridor so it would include that Kings Highway piece. If they came up with a small geographic area they are going to find that somebody is going to come in and they’re going to be right outside of the area and are going to have the same problems. Mr. Holden stated that it allows them to have pieces developed within that corridor which may be the highest priority item but they may not get a developer to come there until the area is improved. So they may need to be able to take the benefits or monies from the others to be able to get action at that location. Mrs. Townshend stated that for a number of years, DelDOT has some type of a regional study where they have allowed developers to contribute toward regional studies in-lieu of doing a TIS and that’s the money that they’ve got for these projects. Mr. Holden stated that the intersection on Kings Highway is such a dangerous one for pedestrians. Mrs. Townshend stated that she goes across that intersection on her bike and it’s not that bad. Mr. Holden stated that as you go east on Division Street, the viewshed going around that curve or if you are going west on Park Drive trying to cross, when there are leaves on trees, the trees on 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 the high side of the St. Jones River on the south side, impede that vision. He would suggest cutting the first fifteen (15) feet of those trees back, adjacent to the bridge so that a pedestrian trying to go from Park Drive into the park and the car that’s going east, getting ready to go around that dropping right hand corner can see each other. Right now if cars are going fast, you have to take off at a sprint to get through that lane before a car would hit you. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Capital City Trail is another thing that’s been ongoing. The Capital City Trail, runs long Public Safety Boulevard and along Route 13 and then up Martin Luther King Boulevard and stops there. The next phase will go behind Public Archives and out to right across from Treadway Towers. Mr. Holden stated that they have put curb ramps at this location. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, they have already done that part. The next phase is Park Drive. Mr. Holden questioned if the issue was building a sidewalk in a flood plain? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that she didn’t think a lot of the flood plain stuff related to infrastructure but now that she has to issue a Building Permit for the West Dover Connector where it crosses the Puncheon Run, she needs to figure out how to deal with it. Part of the thing is that they need to make sure it does not alter conditions in the flood plain. She doesn’t think it will. Mr. Holden stated that a couple feet of sidewalk if anything, reduces the chance for erosion as the river overflows on Park Drive. Mrs. Townshend stated that the flood plain goes all the way up to the houses. Those houses may want to look at doing a map amendment. When we had Hurricane Irene a few years ago, Park Drive was under water. Mr. Holden stated that the intersection at Park Drive is better when the leaves are off of the trees but he thinks fifteen (15) feet of trees makes the intersection much more dangerous than it could be. If it’s in the morning, people coming around that corner would have the sun in their eyes and they are never going to see a pedestrian trying to cross there. The trees in this area are all small. Mrs. Townshend stated that she had a meeting coming up on that trail shortly so she will talk about that issue. Mr. Holt questioned if they were dredging in Mirror Lake? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated no, they were doing activated charcoal, it binds to the sediment. Mr. Holden stated that it’s like a Brita filter but they basically have spread these pellets of activated carbon all across the bottom that gets absorbed into the top layer. It is a sponge that locks up PCB’s, the lead and other stuff that’s in the sediment and takes it out of the food chain. It absorbs it like a sponge and locks it up and doesn’t release it. Mr. Tolbert questioned if it stays there forever? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holden stated that it stays there forever, it captures it and removes it from the food chain. Even as a catfish digs in the dirt those pollutants are inside those activated carbon molecules and they won’t allow it to stay in the food chain. 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Mr. Holt stated that he thought they were going to try to deepen that lake by dredging it to push the limits of the flood plain. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Holden stated that the he would argue that the depth of that doesn’t change how it floods. The issue is the tide and size of the culverts under Court Street. Whether that pond is one hundred (100) feet deep or one (1) foot deep, it’s the surface water elevation in that pond that Mirror Lake is tidal. How deep it is doesn’t affect how it floods. Mr. Tolbert questioned if dredging would remove the pollutants? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holden stated that dredging could remove all of the pollutants but there are a couple problems with that. One, DNREC said they wouldn’t permit it, it doesn’t increase commerce, it’s not for navigation and it doesn’t necessarily affect recreation. There is no grand economic benefit or navigation. They get concerned with dredging because when you dig it up you mix it up and it’s expensive. You have to incinerate the material that you pull out and then you have to put it in a landfill. Basically with Mirror Lake they said they would love to try this new solution and implement and pay for it or you are still going to have to address this problem. So they spread the activated carbon and returned the mud bar. They have kind of added material and feathered that sediment bar that you see at low tide. He is not sure if they have started but they’re going to do plantings along that area and make it like an emergent wetland. Mr. Tolbert questioned if there would be fish in there? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holden stated that there were fish there now but they have issued a fish advisory. They said that they thought it would take seventy-five (75) years naturally for the contaminates to be either washed out or covered up so that you could eat a fish. They have modeled that within a few years they think they will be able to remove the fish advisory. But it’s also new; they have used it on some Department of Defense contaminated sites. Mr. Tolbert questioned what kind of fish were in the lake? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holden stated that when they had the fish kill below Silver Lake Damn last summer, 60,000 fish in the first one-hundred (100) yards of St. Jones River. Those were only the ones that died. If you went down there and looked there was still fish coming to the surface. There were hog chokers, catfish and carp. It was an unreal amount of fish from the foot bridge to the damn. He knows people right below Court Street have caught 36 inch strippers. You don’t realize the amount of wildlife in this area. The owner of Fraizer’s says that there are river otters and beavers that play on the lily pads. There are bald eagles that eat fish there. People fish there constantly because it’s good fishing. But it’s going to improve the water quality and soak up the pollutant. DNREC likes it because it’s working with Mother Nature that is working to turn Mirror Lake into a tidal stream. Mr. Tolbert questioned if fish come in naturally? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holden stated yes he has never heard of it being stocked but it’s tidal. It’s got a 1.5 feet tide change on the typical tides. There is a wood damn if you go to Court Street and look downstream at low tide you see the top of an old wood damn. He was in Silver Lake Park with a bunch of DNREC people and he was swearing to them that the tide never came into Silver Lake Park. He walked back to work and the little concrete low head damn behind Murphey School, the tide was coming in and coming up over that into Silver Lake Park. 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Mr. Tolbert stated that the City has resources that should be utilized. Mr. Holt stated that he always thought that a lot more could be done with the St. Jones River and Silver Lake Park. Mr. Holden stated that the Capital Trail is being done now. There is talk of putting a trail on the other side of St. Jones back into the library, DNREC, the Governor’s Mansion so that they will have a loop like they have in Milford, DE. Mr. Baldwin questioned what happened to Transporation Hub that was supposed to be on Water Street? Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Townshend stated that they actually did an RFP for public private partnership (for a building) and she doesn’t think it really went anywhere. She doesn’t think that the State wants to invest any money into it so it’s kind of on hold. Mr. Baldwin stated that last Saturday he was on South Governors Avenue where the Greyhound bus is. He doesn’t know if the passengers or the driver set the luggage on the roadside of the bus but that’s where it was sitting and there were some kids coming around to pick up the luggage. Traffic was rolling by and it was a dangerous situation especially for those kids. He doesn’t know how often that happens. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Transit Center itself is constructed and she thought that at some point they were talking about moving the Greyhound operation over there but they wanted a ticket area. At this point, there is just no money for a building. The private sector didn’t find it to be advantageous to build it. Meeting adjourned at 1:29 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 15

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR UNIFIED COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF November 6, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF December 16, 2013 Plan Title: Delaware Technical Community College US-13-02 Plan Type: Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan Property Location: West side of North DuPont Highway between West Denneys Road and Scarborough Road Property Addresses: 100 Campus Drive Tax Parcels: ED-05-057.00-01-01.00-000 ED-05-057.01-01-06.00-000 ED-05-057.01-01-07.00-000 ED-05-057.00-01-08.00-000 Owners: State of Delaware Delaware Technical & Community College Project Professional: Moonlight Architecture, Inc. Site Area: 112 acres ± Existing Signs: Two (2) monument signs, one (1) manual changeable copy sign and one (1) small pylon with electronic changeable copy sign Proposed Signs: Five (5) monument signs including one sign with changeable copy (LED Monochromatic) Zoning Classification: IO (Institutional Office Zone) Roadway Classifications: N. DuPont Highway – Urban Principal Arterial West Denneys Road – Urban Local Collector Scarborough Road – Urban Minor Arterial P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

C P I L CITY OF DOVER T A Y N DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE N O I APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY F N G D.A.C. MEETING DATE: November 6, 2013 D O V APPLICATION: Delaware Technical & Community College Comprehensive E Signage Plan R FILE #: US-13-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Tracey Harvey and Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 PLAN SUMMARY: This is an application to the Planning Commission for a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan Review. The plan includes the construction and implementation of signage for the Delaware Technical and Community College consisting of five (5) freestanding signs at entrances and gateway property corners. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The property is located on the west side of North DuPont Highway between West Denneys Road and Scarborough Road. The owner of record is State of Delaware - Delaware Technical & Community College. Addresses: 100 Campus Drive. Tax Parcels: ED-05-057.00-01-01.00-000, ED-05-057.01-01-06.00-000, ED-05-057.01-01-07.00-000, ED-05-057.01-01-08.00-000 The campus consists of seven buildings. The project area qualifies for the Unified Comprehensive Sign Plan because the site is considered an institution which has more than 400 linear feet on a Urban Principal Arterial roadway per Article 5 §4.8A3 of the Zoning Ordinance. North DuPont Highway is the Urban Principal Arterial. This plan includes five (5) freestanding signs totaling 278 square feet +/- of sign area of the main sign panels and additional square footage totaling 48.8 square feet +/- of sign area for individual lettering of campus name and diamond logos. SIGNAGE REGULATIONS The subject site includes frontage on three different types of roads. The Sign Regulations allow for different sign types and sizes for each type of road and as related to the use of adjacent properties. The following information focuses only on the freestanding signs. Wall signs are permitted; however, this plan focuses on the freestanding signage only.  North DuPont Highway (Route 13) classified as an Urban Principal Arterial: The Zoning Ordinance permits one (1) Monument Sign or one (1) Post and Panel Sign per entrance; or one (1) Pylon Sign for the frontage.  Scarborough Road classified as an Urban Minor Arterial: The Zoning Ordinance permits one (1) Monument Sign or one (1) Post and Panel Sign per entrance; or one (1) Post Sign per frontage.

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 2  West Denneys Road classified as an Urban Local Collector: The Zoning Ordinance permits one (1) Monument Sign or one (1) Post and Panel Sign per entrance; or one (1) Post Sign per frontage. In general, institutions that have multiple entrances are permitted to have at least one monument sign at each entrance. The following tables illustrate in greater detail the size and types of signs permitted under the Zoning Ordinance: Road # Max Max % of Total Setback Exclusion Use Sign Type Type Permitted Size Height Wall Area (R.O.W.) Zone No Less than Wall & 2/frontage N/A N/A N/A max 15 % Non- Monument or Residential Non Urban post and 1/entrance 100 SF 10 ft. N/A 10 ft. 20 ft. uses in Residential Principal panel OR non- Uses Arterial Pylon Sign* Residential 1/frontage 100 SF 30 ft. N/A 15 ft. 50 ft. districts or Pylon Sign* 1/frontage 150 SF 30 ft. N/A 31 ft. 50 ft. Non- Non Urban Wall & 2/frontage 64 SF N/A Less than N/A N/A Residential Residential Minor 15 % uses in Uses Arterial Monument or 1/entrance 64 SF 7 ft. N/A 5 ft. 20 ft. non- post and Residential panel OR districts Post** 1/frontage 16 SF 7 ft. N/A 5 ft. 10 ft. Road # Max Max % of Total Setback Exclusion Use Sign Type Type Permitted Size Height Wall Area (R.O.W.) Zone Less than Wall & 2/frontage 32 SF N/A N/A N/A Places of 15 % Worship Monument or Daycare post and 1/entrance 32 SF 7 ft. N/A 5 ft. 20 ft. Centers panel OR Non- Approved Residential Conditional uses Urban Uses Adjacent to Local Educational Residential Collector /Institution Districts or al Post** 1/frontage 16 SF 7 ft. N/A 5 ft. 10 ft. Uses All Other Approved Non- Residential Uses * Denotes that an additional wall sign may be permitted/added in lieu of a freestanding pylon sign. ** Post sign would be in lieu of a monument sign or post and panel sign. The tables above present the traditional sign regulations for the property based on its road frontages. However, the applicant has requested consideration of a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan for the property. Under the provisions for Comprehensive Signage Plans for unified

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 3 campuses and complexes found in Zoning Ordinances, Article 5 §4.8 of the Sign Regulations, an applicant may request the Planning Commission to grant additional signage and sign area than would be permitted under the traditional sign regulations. However, in considering a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan, “the number type and size of sign proposed may not be excessive and must be in proportion to the scale of the building and the uses on the site.” For the Unified Comprehensive Signage Plans, there shall be architectural harmony and unity of signs within a unified campus or complex. Sign type, color scheme, size, and illumination within the site shall be coordinated and shall be compatible with the architecture of the center and the surrounding area. All Comprehensive Signage Plans must comply with the design guidelines found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.4. The design requirements focus on freestanding signs, the material and craftsmanship of signs, wall sign placement, illumination, and changeable signs. DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OBJECTIVES FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLANS In reviewing the overall sign package, each of the sign locations must be reviewed individually and as a whole. The Planning Commission must take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and of the residents, business and property owners of the immediate neighborhood in particular and shall ensure that the Site has adequate, but not excessive signage. The Sign Ordinance specifically spells out the guidelines for the Planning Commission to use to approve or disapprove a Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 § 4.8 B and C). The pertinent design guidelines and objectives are as follows: B. Design guidelines for unified comprehensive signage plans. 1. Unified campuses and complexes applying for a unified comprehensive signage plan may not be held to the height, size, number and area regulations for signs found in other subsections of this section. However, the number, type and size of signs proposed may not be excessive, and must be in proportion to the scale of the buildings and the uses on the site. 2. All unified comprehensive signage plans must comply with all design guidelines found in subsection 4.4-Design requirements of this section, as well as all specific design guidelines found in this section. 3. Building signs shall be in harmony with the overall architectural concept for the site, and be compatible with each other and the building facades. 4. The freestanding signs identifying shopping centers and other unified campuses and complexes shall identify the name of the campus or complex and no more than three separate tenants within the campus or complex unless otherwise approved by the planning commission. 5. There shall be architectural harmony and unity of signs within a unified campus or complex. Sign type, color scheme, size, and illumination within the site shall be coordinated and shall be compatible with the architecture of the center and the surrounding area. C. Planning commission duties. In reviewing and approving comprehensive signage plans, 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, businesses, and property

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 4 owners of the immediate neighborhood in particular, and shall ensure that unified campuses and complexes have adequate, but not excessive, signage. Specifically, the following objectives shall guide the commission when reviewing such plans: 1. That the size and complexity of the campus or complex warrants the need for extra signage under the provisions of this section; 2. That, in respect to the number and type of entrances, the placement of signage at or near those entrances provides superior visibility in order to ensure the safety of the driving public; 3. That the proposed signs are adequate in number to safely direct the public to the use or uses on the site; 4. The proposed signs must not have an adverse impact on the visibility of adjacent signs, and shall be consistent with, or an improvement over, the prevailing type and style of signage in the general area; 5. That the proposed signs will be of a style and color which will complement the architecture of the site, and the area in general. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED SIGNS This project is to establish an exterior gateway signage system for the Delaware Technical Community College – Terry Campus location. A number of existing freestanding signs will be replaced as part of this project. The submission outlines the typeface (letter spacing, format, copy height, line spacing, etc.) for primary and secondary lettering. The paint colors are specified and the signage develops a consistent text and icon formats. Sign area is calculation based on the largest sign face for double-sided and v-shaped signs. The following tables represent a listing of the freestanding signs both existing and proposed for the Delaware Technical Community College campus: Existing Exterior Freestanding Signage Existing Existing Sign Type Location Text Quantity Height Area S.F. Pylon Sign with Delaware Changeable Copy NW Corner of North Technical & as LED DuPont Highway and Community 18 ft. 1 156 SF Monochromatic Scarborough Road College panel Terry Campus Monument with Informational Scarborough Road 41 SF + 11 SF Manual announcements Over 6’4.5” 1 east side entrance Total 52 SF Changeable Copy Terry Campus West Denneys Road 11 SF Monument Terry Campus 1 entrance Unknown Per photo view Delaware SW Corner of North Technical Over 3 ft. 24 SF Monument DuPont Highway and Community 1 Per photo view West Denneys Road College Terry Campus Total 4 234 SF

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 5 Proposed Exterior Freestanding Signage Sign Type Location Text Height Sign Area S.F. A. Primary Monument Sign NW Corner of Delaware Technical 9 feet for 79.5 SF sign Campus with large North DuPont Community College sign panel Gateway curved brick Highway and Terry Campus (2) wall with piers Scarborough Road Diamond Logo (2) 10 feet and 8.83 SF TC 6’10” for Lettering x 2 brick wall piers 3.06 SF logo x2 D.2 Monument Sign East side of the Informational 8 feet for 45 SF Information of LED Scarborough Road Announcements and sign changeable System Monochromatic entrance Terry Campus (2) copy panel Panel (Double- 9’3” for sided) with brick brick pier 2.29 SF TC base and pier Lettering B. Primary Monument Sign West side of Delaware Technical 8 feet for 54.25 SF Entrance with curved Scarborough Road Community College sign sign panel Gateway brick wall with entrance Terry Campus (2) piers Diamond Logo (2) 9’3” and 3.75 SF TC 5’2” for Lettering x 2 brick wall piers 1.36 SF logo x2 D.1Tertiary Monument Sign West Denneys Delaware Technical 8 feet for 45 SF sign Entrance with brick base Road entrance Community College sign panel Gateway and pier Terry Campus (1) 9’3” for 2.29 SF TC brick pier Lettering B. Primary Monument Sign SW Corner of Delaware Technical 8 feet for 54.25 SF Entrance with curved West Denneys Community College sign sign panel Gateway brick wall with Road and North Terry Campus (2) piers DuPont Highway Diamond Logo (2) 9’3” and 3.75 SF TC 5’2” for Lettering x 2 brick wall piers 1.36 SF logo x2 Total 5 Signs 278 SF sign panels (Total) 37.24 SF TC Lettering (Total) 11.56 SF Logos (Total)

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 6 SUMMARY OF SIGNAGE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FREESTANDING SIGNAGE The applicant is requesting five (5) freestanding signs for the Delaware Technical Community College Terry Campus. The signs are Monument Signs and one (1) Monument Sign includes a LED Monochromatic Double-sided Panel as a changeable copy sign. The signs mark the corners of the campus and the campus’s two main entrances from West Denneys Road and Scarborough Road. The Primary Campus Gateway Sign and the Primary Entrance Signs as monument signs are constructed in a brick wall with piers format and incorporate the name of the college as a sign panel and the campus name in individual letters on the brick wall. One monument sign at the West Denneys Road site entrance utilizes the brick for its base and pier with a sign panel (double-sided) of the college name. Another monument sign at the Scarborough Road site entrance utilizes brick for its base and pier with a LED Monochromatic double-sided panel as a changeable copy sign to be used for informational purposes. Staff Recommendations for Delaware Technical Community College Monument Signs Staff recommends approval of the Exterior Gateway Signage System of five (5) monument signs for the Delaware Technical Community College Terry Campus (as listed in the above table) finding that the signage presents a harmonious concept architecturally through the use of brick walls, piers, and bases for the painted aluminum metal sign panels. This concept of a brick wall gateway element continues similar gateway elements marking the City of Dover – Capital of the First State on the southwest corner of the intersection of North DuPont Highway and Scarborough Road and also signage at the Wilmington College campus. Brick is also a building material of choice on Del-Tech Campus as well. The following is also noted.  While the individual number of ‘signs’ within each sign element (DTCC sign panel, Terry campus names, and diamond logo) tallies to more than one sign, the overall concept is not excessive.  Staff recommends approval of the sign height at nine feet and eight feet.  While Staff recommends approval of the use of the brick walls with piers design even through the wall and pier heights exceed the four feet height restriction for walls/fences in the front yard setback. In this case, these wall systems are recognized as part of the overall sign element. The height of the brick walls for the Primary Campus Gateway sign should be similar to the other gateway sign systems on nearby properties.  The freestanding (monument) signs offer the opportunity for additional landscaping areas. However, the signs and any associated landscaping must not impair sight visibility at the intersections and/or entrances. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1) The exact placement of the signs must be shown to ensure compliance with the setback requirements from the property line/right-of-way line and with sight distance triangles at intersections. 2) Clarify if any of the signs will be illuminated (internal or external). Sign illumination must

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 7 comply with established standards (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5§4.D) 3) Clarify the size of the diamond logo to be applied to the brick walls. 4) Sheet A-1: Check the location labels of the Denneys Road Sign and the Denneys Road & Route 13 Sign. From review of the photographs of the existing signs, the labels on the plan drawing appear to be switched. 5) Clarify whether or not the existing signs will be replaced by the proposed signs. 6) Correct the sign labels on Sheet D.2.1 ensuring signs are labeled appropriately. 7) The changeable copy sign (Electronic Message Center) must comply with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5§ 4E as related to timing of the changes and methods of change. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: 1) Refer to Staff Recommendations for the freestanding monument signs found within the text of this Report. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Signage Plan occur in the finalization of the signage plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. Examples include reorientation of signage, relocation of signs, changes in sign area, etc. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 2) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 3) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections and permits are required. 4) Staff requires a final submittal of the Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan, including any revisions and conditions of Planning Commission approval, to be reviewed administratively before applications for Sign Permits will be accepted. 5) The walls constructed as part of these monument signs (Primary Campus Gateway Sign and Primary Entrance Gateway Signs) may be subject to a Building Permit Application. Consult with the Department of Planning & Inspections. 6) The applicant shall be aware that Unified Comprehensive Signage Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit. Any proposed site or building identification sign shall require a

US-13-02 Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Signage Plan DAC Report – November 6, 2013 Page 8 Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign. 7) Signs should be placed in a manner that meets NESC requirements. 8) Be advised that the City of Dover, Public Works Department does not permit signs to be installed within ten (10) feet of existing or proposed water lines. 9) Be advised that the City of Dover, Public Works Department does not permit signs to be installed within ten (10) feet of existing or proposed sanitary sewer lines. 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: OCTOBER 30, 2013 APPLICATION: DELAWARE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN FILE #: US-13-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric 302-736-7070, Public Works 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. Signs should be placed in a manner that meets NESC requirements. WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER 1. No structures, including permanent signage, may be located within ten feet (10’) of underground utility infrastructure. STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. 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 .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: October 29, 2013 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Delaware Technical Community College Comprehensive Plan FILE#: US-13-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== 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: 1. DelDOT has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES:  Please ensure that all criteria are met for safe departure sight triangles per the AASHTO Green Book. The department recommends of placing the intersection sight distance triangles at the entrances to ensure that proper sight distance and the necessary clear-zone are met. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:  No signs shall be erected within the State maintained right-of-ways without the proper permits. To obtain the necessary information and permits for sign erection within the State’s right-of-ways, please contact Mr. Robert Moyer at (302) 760-2443 or by e-mail at Robert.Moyer@state.de.us. 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.

Revised: April 16, 2013 Intersection Sight Distance Project Name: Submission Date: Subdivision Name April 16, 2013 Maintenance Road No. (i.e. KCR356): Road Name: KCRXXX Main Street Intersection Conditions Left Turn from Minor Road (Case B1) Total Number of Travel Lanes 4 From Table 610 ISD = 1.47 x Vmajor x Tg 800.415 Number of Near Travel Lanes Crossed (Left Turn)* 2 Multilane Adjustment for Tg 1.50 Minor Road Approach Adjustment 0.9 Number of Travel Lanes Crossed (Right Turn)** 0 Adjustment Factor 1.10 Time Gap 9.9 Median +/or Turning Lane Width 18'-26' ISD With Adjustments 881 Right Turn from Minor Road (Case B2) Posted Speed Limit 50 From Table 530 ISD = 1.47 x Vmajor x Tg 561.91 Design Speed 55 Multilane Adjustment for Tg 0.00 Minor Road Approach Adjustment 0.45 Highway Grade (Moving Left to Right) 3.1% Adjustment Factor 0.90 Time Gap 7.0 Minor Road Approach Grade 4.5% ISD With Adjustments 506 * Include all travel lanes that are completely crossed Note: See Assumptions tab for notes and intersection sight design **Typically zero for right turning vehicles criteria 506' 881'

Intersection Sight Distance Notes: 1. This worksheet shall be completed and submitted for review for each proposed entrance. The departure sight triangle shall be shown on the Record Plan. 2. Provide a highway profile which includes a profile along the driver's eye at a height of 3.5' above the roadway surface and the object to be seen (at the each end of the eight triangle distance) is 3.5' above the surface of the intersecting roadway. Within the sight triangle, any object at a height above the elevation of the adjacent roadways that would obstruct the driver's view should be removed or lowered. Such objects may include buildings, highway obstructions, roadside hardware, shrubs, bushes, unmowed grass, crops, walls, fences or terrain itself. 3. Include the following note on all Record Plans: Shrubbery, plantings, signs and/or other visual barriers that could obstruct the sight distance of a driver preparing to enter the roadway are prohibited within the defined departure sight triangle area established on this plan. If the established departure sight triangle area is outside the right-of-way or projects onto an adjacent property owner's land, a sight easement shall be established and recorded with all affected property owners to maintain the required sight distance. 4. For additional examples including two lane roadways, refer to Intersection Sight Distance Examples under Subdivisions/Guidance section at http://www.deldot.gov/information/business Assumptions 1. Intersection sight distance length determined using AASHTO Green Book, 6th edition as follows: a. Case B1 and Case B2 as defined in Section 9.5.3, AASHTO Green Book, 6th edition b. Per Eq. 9-1, ISD = 1.47 x Vmajor x Tg ISD = intersection sight distance (length of the leg of sight triangle along the major road) (ft) Vmajor = design speed of major road (mph) which DelDOT defines as posted speed + 5 mph Tg = time gap for minor road vehicle to enter the major road (s) 2. Left Turn from Minor Road (Case B1) a. Lengths shown from Table 9-6. Design Intersection Sight Distance-Case B1, Left Turn from Stop are for a stopped passenger car to turn left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. b. Multilane adjustment for tg: for left turns onto two-way highways w/ more than two lanes, add 0.5 s for each additional lane, from the left, in excess of one, to be crossed by the turning vehicle. Where a median is present and is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure sight triangle should be provided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor road approach. For example, a 24 ft wide median should be considered as two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps. c. Minor road adjustment factor: if the approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent, add 0.2 s for each percent grade for left turns 3. Right Turn from Minor Road (Case B2) a. Lengths shown from Table 9-8. Design Intersection Sight Distance-Case B2, Right Turn from Stop, and Case B3, Crossing Maneuver are for a stopped passenger car to turn right onto or to cross a two- lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. b. Multilane adjustment for tg: in most cases, right turn vehicles will turn onto the nearest travel lane and not cross a travel lane which would not require an adjustment c. Minor road adjustment factor: if the approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent, add 0.1 s for each percent grade

PETITION TO ABANDON AN IMPROVED CITY STREET Public Hearing before the Dover Planning Commission December 16, 2013 Applicant: City of Dover Location: Budd Street between South State Street and Kings Highway Present Use: Drive Aisle /Sidewalk in Parking Lot between Weyandt Hall at 5 E. Reed Street and the old Dover Public Library at 45 South State Street Proposed Use: Same Reason for Request: Clean-up of property lines with adjoining City of Dover owned properties File Number: MI-13-21 Summary of the Request: The applicant has requested abandonment of Budd Street. The existing narrow right-of-way for Budd Street runs east-west between South State Street and Kings Highway, north of East Reed Street. Budd Street is shown on the 1868 Beers Atlas Map of Dover connecting South State Street and King Street (Kings Highway). Budd Street also appears on the W.B. Roe Map of the Town of Dover dated 1887 and is shown ending opposite the Richardson & Robbins Packing House (the building which now houses DNREC). At that time in the mid-to-late 1800s, Reed Street ended at South State Street and a series of residences lined the east side of South State Street. Budd Street continues to appear (without the current format of Reed Street) on historic maps through at least 1929. The history of the development of the Library at 45 South State Street in late 1950s indicates the City’s involvement to acquire and then redevelop several properties in this general area of Budd Street for the Library (dedicated 1961). The current format of Reed Street continuing east to Kings Highway may have been created at that time. Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: The Planning Staff has no objection to the proposed abandonment; however we recommend that appropriate easements be retained for any City utilities that may cross through the area.

MI-13-21 Request for Street Abandonment: Budd Street DAC Report – December 4, 2013 Page 2 Advisory Comments to the Applicant: 1. The Planning Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to City Council on the matter. City Council has ultimate authority on the request for abandonment. 2. Abandonment of public streets and alleys does not constitute approval for physical alteration of such streets and alleys. Any modification or ground-disturbing activity must be reviewed through the appropriate Site Plan process and receive all requisite approvals by regulatory agencies.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2013 APPLICATION: Request for Street Abandonment : Budd Street FILE #: MI-13-21 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed street abandonment. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. WATER 1. A permanent public utility easement shall be provided for the existing six-inch (6”) water main located within this right- of-way. No temporary or permanent structures, including signage or stormwater management areas, shall be placed within the easement areas established. WASTEWATER 1. A permanent public utility easement shall be provided for the existing twenty-four inch (24”) sanitary sewer main located within this right-of-way. No temporary or permanent structures, including signage or stormwater management areas, shall be placed within the easement areas established. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. Once streets are abandoned and turned into a private road, the streetlighting is no longer required & becomes private, Customer has four options: (1) contact Customer Service to set up an account to pay for existing lights monthly, (2) contact Customer Service & set up metering for existing lights, (3) City will disconnect existing lights from City system, abandon lights to customer & they can energize from their system or (4) contact Kent County and inquire about the possibility of setting up a lighting district. . Options 1,2 & 4, City of Dover provides maintenance for lights. Option 3, lights & wiring are the sole responsibility of customer (City will recommend a metering point if necessary) WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None

Request for Street Abandonnent : Budd Street File #: MI-13-21 November 27, 2013 Page 2 of 2 GENERAL 1. The parking that is adjacent to Budd Street is completely on the parcel to the south of the abandonment; therefore, the property to the north will not have any parking associated with its parcel. 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 .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2013 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Request For Street Abandonment: Budd Street FILE#: MI-13-21 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== 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: 1. The Department has no comments on the proposed street abandonment. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 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 December 2013 APPLICATION: Street Abandonment –Budd Street FILE #: MI-13-21 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the above street being abandon. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. 1. If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

Budd Street Proposed Right-of-Way Ò Abandonment ! § 144 ED05-077.05-04-40.00 30 . ! ED05-077.05-04-31.01 29 !Ò§ ED05-077.05-04-31.00 !Ò§ Ò ! § !Ò§ S Am !Ò§ Ò! × § 2 eric ! ! !Ò§ w g ED05-077.05-04-36.00 ve wÒ an A Ò ! § g ! § 33 §Ò ! Ò ! § ED05-077.05-04-32.00Ò !§ Ò ! § !Ò§ w g !Ò§ !Ò§ 45 ED05-077.05-04-33.00 . ! . ! Ò ! § g w 42 ED05-077.05-04-21.00 y Kings H 2 ! ! at e g w× S St g w w St × 46 ED05-077.05-04-20.00 Ò ! 5 § ED05-077.05-04-35.00 Ò ! § 54 ED05-077.05-04-19.00 ed St E Re w g w g !Ò§ 89 2 ! ! ED05-077.05-04-51.00 t 107 ed S W Re ED05-077.05-04-65.00 55 w g ED05-077.05-04-62.00 §Ò × ! !Ò§ Ò ! 0 40 80 160 Feet § Legend ¯ Dover Parcels Ò ! § Overhead Electric Pole w g w Storm Sewer Inlet g Date Printed: November 13, 2013 2 ! Storm Sewer Manhole Underground Electric Lines File: m:\gis_data\projects/tech_mxds ! Overhead Electric Lines Hydrants \st_abandonment_map_budd_st × Storm Sewer Pipe . Sanitary Sewer Manholes ! Department: Public Works GIS Water Main Sanitary Sewer Line City of Dover, Delaware Hydrant Line Budd St