PC Minutes 4-18-22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, and Ms. Samantha Bulkilvish. Also present were Mr. Eric Dowell, Mr. Chris Lazenby, Mr. Brett Jarett, Ms. LeeAnn Gudorp, Mr. Steve Schmidt, Mr. Jonathan Street and Mr. Michael Riemann. Speaking from the public were Mr. William Garfinkel, Mr. David Casto, Mr. Derek Headley, Mr. Mark Reaves, and Mr. Chris Moore. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2022 Mrs. Denney moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2022, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on March 28 & 29, 2022 and April 11 & 12, 2022. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 16, 2022 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. We will continue to provide an opportunity for virtual participation as well. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she currently continues as the Interim City Planner and is busier than ever. Our office is probably going to be a little bit more swamped as she is sad and happy to report at the same time that this is Ms. Bulkilvish’s last Planning Commission meeting this evening as a member of the Planning Staff. She is continuing her career at the Office of State Planning Coordination so you might see her name on some letters in the future. We wish Samantha all the best and the rest of us, until we get her position filled, will be very busy to say the least. This is a great time to be in Dover. We are currently in the middle of Spring Cleanup Week. The Public Works Office gives some opportunity for people to dispose of certain items and if you need more information on that, see the City’s website about how they conduct the pickup of those bulk items during Spring Cleanup Week. NASCAR will be back in town next weekend; it is a fairly early NASCAR Race for Dover. The following weekend, Dover Days is on May 7, 2022. Related to both of those, Staff has various responsibilities but there are good things to be doing here outside in Dover. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Pending Development Application S-22-01 Caliber Car Wash at 280 Cowgill Street – Continued Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the construction of a 3,500 SF Self-Service Car Wash facility and associated site improvements including two (2) pay stations and nineteen (19) vacuum spaces. This redevelopment includes demolition of the existing auto repair shop building. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The property consists of 0.78 acres (33,976.8 SF) and is located on the south side of Cowgill Street and Court Street near the corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and S. DuPont Highway. The owner of record is Neaton’s Tire Service of Delaware. The Equitable Owner (Developer) is MPV Properties c/o John Bradley Murr. Property Address: 280 Cowgill Street. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-077.10-01-17.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Request - Elimination of Sidewalk on Street Frontages for Alternative. This application was heard at the February 22, 2022 Meeting of the Planning Commission where a public hearing was held and the action on the application was deffered. Representatives: Mr. Eric Dowell, MPV Properties; Mr. Chris Lazenby, Timmons Group; Mr. Brett Jarett, MPV Properties; Ms. LeeAnn Gudorp, Timmons Group; Mr. Steve Schmidt, Timmons Group (all participating virtually) Mr. Hartman motioned to lift S-22-01 Caliber Car Wash at 280 Cowgill Street from the table to continue its review, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by voice vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent. Ms. Bulkilvish stated that the application was tabled at our February 22, 2022 meeting due to the concerns regarding traffic in this area. This application is for a 3,500 SF Car Wash facility with nineteen (19) vacuum stations. It has a few entrances. The one directly for the Car Wash itself would take the person driving in through the pay lane and then through the Car Wash where they would exit into the vacuum station area. The other entrance would be pretty strictly for the employees so that they could access employee parking. There is also one additional exit which would be the bailout lane in case someone had gone through the Car Wash lane and maybe forgotten their wallet or something like that. The applicant is also asking for a Waiver for the frontage sidewalk. They are proposing a sidewalk connection from the existing multi-use path along Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard onto the site. Again, returning to the traffic situation, the applicant has invited her to several meetings with DelDOT. First was their Project Coordination Meeting on March 28, 2022. At that meeting, the applicant was made aware by DelDOT that this intersection at Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and United Way, which is where the Wawa is, is a high hazardous intersection and has been identified as so. They had just completed a Conceptual Plan for the intersection, but DelDOT also informed us that the Concept Plan is just a 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 concept. They weren’t willing to share a drawing of the concept because that is how early it is in the planning stage. It hasn’t even gotten on the list for funding and that could be 15-20 years out. DelDOT also expressed to the applicant that there may be some intermediate projects in the area that they could assist with to assist with the flow of traffic in that area and to lessen the hazard. That was further discussed on April 11, 2022 at the Pre-Submittal Meeting and she thinks that the applicant has a better understanding of what is expected from DelDOT from them. She is not going to say that it is completely clear because she is still a little lost even. They are diligently working with DelDOT and they will need DelDOT approval before any Final Plan Approval is accepted. Ms. Gudorp stated that following up with what Ms. Bulkilvish has given in the summary, she is exactly right. They have been meeting with DelDOT and trying to work through their process in understanding the improvements. She introduced Mr. Steve Schmidt from their team, as he is their Traffic Engineer. He is available for any questions or concerns. She asked Mr. Schmidt to give a brief update on the Pre-Submittal Meeting that happened on April 11, 2022. Mr. Schmidt stated that during the meeting, there were a couple things that they were working with DelDOT on and waiting on. One of those is the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. They are going to be a part of an area-wide study which means that they will contribute some funds towards the study of the entire area. This one development alone is not the source of the traffic in this area nor the solution either. So, they will pay into a fund to help with that area-wide study. We do not know the amount of that yet, DelDOT is working behind the scenes to get them that number. As Ms. Bulkilvish mentioned, this intersection is slated for further study and potentially future improvements by DelDOT. But we do not know what those improvements are at this point and they are years out from a funding standpoint. With that said, DelDOT has informed them that they will be expected to contribute some amount of money towards those improvements as well. That is another thing that is forthcoming from DelDOT; they don’t know that number yet. But they are actively working with DelDOT and with Ms. Bulkilvish on these issues; and they will continue to do so. They will not be able to get our access until they have full approval from DelDOT; so, it is a process that they are actively working through. Ms. Gudorp stated that they have Mr. Jarett and Mr. Dowell from MPV Properties present if there is anything else that they want to add. Mr. Hartman stated that in the Memo from the Planning Office from April 8, 2022, it is mentioned that the project can be considered for conditional Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission. Does a conditional Site Plan approval provide any further assurances than the fact that DelDOT approval is needed for the Final Plan Approval? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that using the term “conditional Site Plan approval,” that is typically the type of approval that is granted by this body. You grant approval to a Site Plan conditioned upon the Development Advisory Committee Comments and getting the various agency technical approvals. It is different from a Conditional Use. It is an approval that is granted upon conditions being met. Mrs. Maucher stated that the public hearing for this application was previously held at the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2022. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 Mr. Hartman moved to approve S-22-01 Caliber Car Wash at 280 Cowgill Street acknowledging that the development plan cannot move forward with the Final Plan Approval until DelDOT has given its approval and to also approve the Waiver Request for the elimination of sidewalk on street frontages for an alternative based on the fact that there is multi-modal sidewalk that runs by the facility, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 5-2 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the reasons stated in the motion and the fact that they just need to place their faith in DelDOT to do their job. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; keeping in mind that this is depending on DelDOT’s decision on approval of the traffic study. Mrs. Malone voting no; for her its the same concerns of when it was brought to the Commission previously and she apologizes to Staff because she does see where they are satisfied but that intersection area is extremely dangerous, and she is still concerned with cars being parked down the road waiting to get in the Car Wash. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Roach voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. He also has concerns but trusts Staff and would like to see the DelDOT Report on this application. Mrs. Denney voting no; she feels very strongly in agreeance with what Mrs. Malone just said with the same identical comments that were made at the last meeting. This is such a highly dangerous intersection and anybody who comes and goes from Wawa would realize that. It is not just the cars around them; it is also a lot of pedestrian traffic there and somebody swerves and somebody dies. She feels very strongly that there needs to be something different done before anything goes in there that is going to have traffic coming and going so closely or directly across from the entrance of that Wawa. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; she thinks that the applicant has worked diligently with DelDOT, and it sounds as if there will be some interim measures to somewhat improve the safety of the area until DelDOT comes through with its final plan. NEW APPLICATIONS SB-22-03 Lands of Bayroadcap, LLC at 600 Bay Road: Minor Subdivision Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan for the two (2) existing Lots of the overall 12.9366 +/- acre Landing Square Commercial Development on Bay Road. The Plan proposes to subdivide the larger of the Lots (with direct frontage on Bay Road) into two (2) new Lots identified as Lots 2 and 3. The Plan also notes a Minor Lot Line Adjustment between Lot 1 and the proposed Lot 2. Lot 1 is proposed to be 4.8365+/- acres and is to the rear (west) of the overall site. Lot 2 is proposed to be 4.7580+/- acres fronting on Bay Road in the northern portion of the site. Lot 3 is proposed to be 3.3421+/- acres fronting Bay Road in the southeastern portion of the Site. The subject site is located on the west side of Bay Road near its intersection with Blue Hen Boulevard and the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owners of record are Bayroadcap Phase 1, LLC and Bayroadcap, LLC. Property Address (both Lots): 600 Bay Road. Tax Parcel Numbers: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000, ED-05-077.00-01-09.01-000. Council District 2. This site was most recently subject to Minor Subdivision Plan SB-21-01 which subdivided the Lot into two (2) parcels as approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2021. Application S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building Update at Bay Road Commercial approved by the Planning Commission in September 2019 received Final Plan Approval on March 6, 2020, regarding the development of the Lot 1 (Phase 1) area superseding Application S-17-20. Application C-20-02 Landing Square: Revised Phase 2 Area approved by the Planning Commission in August 2020 received Final Plan Approval on February 25, 2021, for the 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 commercial development of the Lot 2 area. Representatives: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Minor Subdivision Plan for a property at 600 Bay Road. The property has been before us multiple times over the years with various development applications. The most recent was a Minor Subdivision that divided the tract of land into two lots, being Lot 1 and then Lot 2 as the residual in the eastern portion of the property. Tonight, we are looking to ultimately come up with a plan that consists of three lots. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) so the lots are required to be in compliance with the provisions of the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). With this project, the Lot 1 area is the westernmost portion of the property shown at the bottom of the screen. That area was developed with the Phase I Plan for an existing office building as Plan S-19-20. The Delaware State Police and associated agencies occupy that space. Lot 2 with the new plan, would consist of kindof the northern portion of the property shown on the screen to the left. There is an office building that is currently under construction that was approved most recently under C-20-02 Revised Plan. The balance of Lot 3 would be the southern corner of the property. There are proposals for development in that Phase III area on Lot 3 that were previously approved for a restaurant and parking areas there. Lot 2 additionally has a restaurant site closer to Bay Road. This evening, this is all about what she calls the “invisible lines.” It basically creates lots that are in the case of Lot 1 at about 4.8 acres, Lot 2 at about 4.7 acres, and Lot 3 at about 3.13 acres. The Plan Review involves checking the placement of the property lines for compliance of the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) setbacks. They need a little bit more information that the applicant can provide to confirm that the setbacks are met for that Building that is currently proposed under construction. The Lot 1 Building appears to comply. Overall for this site being divided up into multiple lots, there certainly will need to be a series of easements; some of which already exist but will need to be augmented to reflect that all three lots are a party to them. Those include cross access, drainage and other utility easements that will be necessary to ensure that all three properties work together because in some cases they share entrances to get onto the site and stormwater management areas for example. Any development activities are going to be subject to the approved Site Plans or Conditional Use Site Plans that are in place for the project unless a Revised Plan comes forward in the future. Planning Staff notes that this does qualify for a Minor Subdivision Application process which means one trip to the Planning Commission and subject to public hearing tonight. They have noted a number of corrections to the Plan just to clarify some things. Likewise from the other agencies, their comments are very similar to ours in that there are some corrections that need to be made to ensure that appropriate easements are documented on the Plan for the collection of the three properties. There are no changes to their proposed entrance locations. This is really to divide the tract into three parcels. There are no special waivers to consider this evening. She will note that Lot 1 previously received a Waiver to allow for creation of a Lot with no frontage on a public street. It does have by easement, access to a public street by use of the Bay Court entrance drive and other cross access easements crossing what are the proposed Lot 2 and Lot 3 areas. Mr. Street stated that this one is like one of his children; it seems to follow him for the past couple years. Similar to what was previously subdivided into two lots; this is the same scenario. For those of you who were here previously, they are doing it for financial reasons so that the financing of the buildings currently under construction can be kind of closed out and converted to the long term 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 financing that they have for the project. They did the same thing for the State Police Building and we are back here now with the Government Services Building which is the building that is currently under construction. That third lot will be held. Like Mrs. Melson-Williams stated, there is a parcel kind of in the front of Bay Road that has a planned restaurant that has yet to materialize but that third parcel can then be free to go back to financing for construction as well. We don’t have any concern or problems with Staff’s Report. In fact, the previous easements that were recorded with the previous Subdivision frankly cover majority, if not all of the concerns or requests coming out of KCD or Staff. He thinks that they are going to have to modify the cross access easement that is currently shown on the plan but other than that, they don’t have any comments or concerns. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Denney moved to approve SB-22-03 Lands of Bayroadcap, LLC at 600 Bay Road: Minor Subdivision Plan. In reviewing this, she thinks that it meets the criteria and works well with the Comprehensive Plan as well as just generally what needs to happen to develop this piece of property, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mrs. Denney voting yes; based on her motion. She thinks that this fits nicely into the plan. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the proposal not impede the development of the site and the access easements seem to be addressed. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for the aforementioned statements. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for all of the reasons stated during the motion. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. S-21-11 McKee Road Apartments at 1385 McKee Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Application for the construction of sixteen (16) 10,000 SF garden style apartment buildings each containing twenty-four (24) units for a total of 384 apartment units. Also proposed are sixteen (16) garage buildings, a Club House with Pool, walking paths, picnic areas, a dog park, playing field, parking, and other site improvements. The property is zoned RG- 2 (General Residence Zone) and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This development application is only for the residential zoned portion of the property. The commercial portion will be developed under separate application. The property is located on the east side of McKee Road near the intersection of McKee Road and Scarborough Road. The owner of record is McKee Cap, LLC. Property Address: 1385 McKee Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-57.00-000. Council District 4. Review of Active Recreation Area Plan with Consideration of Fee-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing, Reduction of Required Parking, and the Elimination of Sidewalk along the Public Street Frontage. Representatives: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Michael Rieman, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that this application originally came to the Commission in November 2021 and was pulled prior to the meeting for some concerns regarding the rear access which at the time, the applicant was asking for a waiver from. In the meantime, they have provided the 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 rear access for the apartment buildings and have updated the Parks & Recreation Plan. They are now proposing the same number of apartment units; 384 apartment units including sixteen (16) apartment buildings and sixteen (16) garages which will house five (5) cars each, a Clubhouse with a pool and separate parking area, a dog park, a 28,000 SF turf field, walking trails that amount to 20,275 SF of Active Recreation Area and seven (7) picnic areas each 1,900 SF which would contain approximately two (2) picnic tables. As Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned earlier in the meeting, this Parks & Recreation Plan had gone to the Parks & Recreation Committee earlier this month and they were agreeable to plan and the Cash-in-Lieu which was calculated to be $15,561. That is just for the deficit of Active Recreation Area that has not been provided. When a residential development is proposed, the recreation area equates to 275 SF per dwelling unit. They asked for the applicant to provide an appraisal of the land to equate the value of the Parks & Recreation Area needed and then that is how we calculate the deficit and then the Cash- in-Lieu amount. This could possibly change depending on the applicant’s application and if any changes were to be made through this process. So that Cash-in-Lieu amount is the minimum for what could be. They are also asking for several waivers. Again, they are providing rear access now so that is not one of the waivers. They are asking of a partial elimination of upright curbing. There are a lot of wetlands in the area and they are proposing some grassy areas, especially between the parking areas and the backs of the apartment buildings themselves to allow for some sheet flow. They are asking for a reduction in the parking requirement. They want to provide 768 spaces and by our calculations, they would have to provide 864 spaces. The last waiver is a partial elimination of sidewalk along frontage. They are providing sidewalk along the entrance drive to the property which will be in the commercial area in front of the property and she believes that they are agreeable to expanding with that some along the frontage. They will not be providing sidewalk along the entire frontage of McKee Road as a lot of it is ditch and they have to do a lot of building up of the land there to accommodate that. There is; however, an existing multi-use path on the opposite side of McKee Road that they are looking to provide pedestrian connection to. Mr. Street stated to orient those who weren’t here previously; the tract of land is on the east side of McKee Road, essentially right across the street from the Emerald Pointe subdivision on the south side. The north side would be the intersection of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and the overpass on Scarborough Road. With that entire tract of land, if you are traveling north on Scarborough Road, the property would be off to your right. As Ms. Bulkilvish discussed, this came back starting the spring of 2020 with the Annexation and the Rezoning of the tract of land. This has been surrounded by City property and it was a targeted piece of property that we annexed into the City in June 2020. It is a split-zoned parcel. The residential portion is RG-2 (General Residence Zone) with a commercial component to the land itself that is not part of this application as of right now. Back in November 2020, a Traffic Impact Study was completed and approved with DelDOT which then they were going to come in for Planning Commission approval. They then held a community meeting in September 2021 just to kind of update the community and to hear some of their concerns and to discuss the plan itself. The Plan also went before PLUS Review in September 2021. It was slated to come to Planning Commission in October 2021 but the Fire Marshal had some concerns about rear access. To really bring the Plan together, they decided to pull it and put it on hold while they worked through the issues with the Fire Marshal. Like Ms. Bulkilvish said, last week they went before the Parks and Recreation Committee. The presented their plan and got a favorable recommendation from them as well and 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 now we are here for conditional plan approval. The Plan on the screen shows that there are sixteen apartment buildings and the interconnection of the parking and the access and the Clubhouse located in the front along McKee Road. This is the same Plan that was presented in June with just some minor tweaks here and there. The next plan shows some of the intersection improvements. The results of the TIS from DelDOT call for the signalization of this intersection, the design of the designated left turns into both our community and Emerald Pointe across the street, designated right hand turns into the apartment complex as well as a bike lane and a shoulder improvements on the east side of the road itself. It should be noted that with the approval of the TIS, that the developer is required to enter into signal agreements and provide a financial contributions to at least two other intersections. The first one is going to be the intersection just south of us which is McKee Road and College Road. There is an active project there or there will be an active project there where they are going to be contributing money for an additional right hand turn at that intersection. There will be some intersection improvements there as well as all the way down closer into town at the intersection of Forrest Street and McKee Road. He believes that DelDOT has a project going on at that intersection and they will be making some contributions to that project as well. The next couple of slides are going to be examples of some of the architecture. These are current projects that the developer has under construction right now in Middletown. They will be similar colors and similar architecture. They have some stone with some vertical board and batten style siding with some metal roofs on portions of it along with some asphalt shingles. The next slide shows a building that is slightly larger than the previous building, but the same style of architecture: stone siding, board and batten siding, and standing seam roofs. These are examples of the interiors with high-end finishes in the sitting rooms and kitchens. This builder prides itself in retention of the leasees. They would rather have a leasee stay then turn this over; so, they like to provide nice high-end finishes for them to keep them. The next slide shows an example of the garages. There is a garage for each building with five parking spaces. Again, the architecture of the garages is meant to compliment the buildings themselves and this is the same style architecture that they are building in Middletown, DE. The next slide shows the Clubhouse at the Reserve of Weston in Middletown, DE. The Staff Report mentioned that they did not provide architecturals for the Clubhouse itself. This is essentially the Clubhouse that they will be building with a standing seam type roof mixed with some asphalt shingles, board and batten style siding and a normal horizontal style siding to break up that building so that it is not just one monolific side. Some of the amenities in the Clubhouse will be a leasing office, fitness center, multimedia rooms, lounge areas, coffee bar, fireside lounge, pool table and a library. The next slide is an example of the rear of the building, the part with the pool deck that they will be providing. The next slide shows the opposite view of the deck with some lounge chairs, picnic tables and umbrellas. The next slide shows some examples of the interior and the amenities of that Clubhouse has with couches and chairs for people to gather. The next slide is the Staff Report and they don’t have any real concerns with the Staff Report itself but he will take one exception to that. The Staff Report does mention the Parks & Rec Report. Parks & Rec Committee gave us a favorable recommendation and in that meeting, they 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 were talking about suggestions that Staff had made in that Report. He knows that Staff sometimes puts things in reports that allow flexibility within that report and he just wants to confirm that they had talked about three specific things: a shade structure for the playing fields, playground equipment and exercise equipment along the multi-modal paths that are throughout the site itself. They had discussed with the Parks & Recreation Committee that the clientele or the leasees that the developers is marketing towards is a young and professional age group. They are not marketing towards a family structure and for them to provide a playground wouldn’t be feasible. An official and a large proportion of the leasees would need to be family oriented which they are not marketing that. They are about 90% in agreement with the Report and they are going to be providing mostly everything that they have mentioned in the Report. For the shade structure, again, and as long as these are recommendations and not requirements of the plan. They really intend on providing more shade for that large turf field in the upper northern quadrant of the site. It is a large empty field for them to do what they need to do. They really want to hit that more with trees and more natural shading. The last one was the exercise equipment along the path. Those just become more maintenance and a liability issue for the owner and the grounds. Again, as long as these are just suggestions and not necessarily requirements of the plan, then they are okay with working with Staff. Lastly, the application in front of you is for 384 market rate apartments and it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. They have garages at each building. One of the things that Staff did mention was the electric vehicle charging stations and he is happy to report that they will be providing at minimum, a pair of charging stations for a pair of buildings or a charging station per building with the ability to expand if needed. Bicycle and multi-modal connections and paths throughout the development will be provided as well as entrance signal and pedestrian improvements across the front. He would be remiss to not mention the waivers that we have requested. Ms. Bulkilvish talked about partial elimination of upright curbing that is more for stormwater management. The parking reduction is mentioned in the Report as more of an overall parking number. This is really parking per building. He thinks that Code requires 54 spaces per building and they are requesting a reduction to 45 spaces per building which gets us to that overall number. Industry standard is about two spaces per unit and the City’s Code requires 2.25 spaces per unit. So that is the reason for the reduction itself. The last waiver request is for the elimination of the frontage sidewalk or more to a partial elimination of the frontage sidewalk. This is an Investment Level 1 in State Strategies in the area for DelDOT. He can’t think of an instance where he has been part of a project where they will waive a sidewalk across a frontage. In the DAC Meetings and his communications with Staff previously, they have talked about providing multi-modal frontage sidewalk from essentially our entrance to what they believe is the most logical connection which is a traffic light at the intersection of McKee Road. They believe that DelDOT will still require that anyway. What they are requesting is partial elimination of that sidewalk frontage with the extension from that light to the bridge. There are no pedestrian facilities across that bridge on that side of the road and to do a mid-block crossing in that area would be more of a safety concern. They are still asking for partial elimination of that sidewalk but it’s really from that traffic light to the bridge. Mr. Hartman stated that after his initial review of the packet, he was pretty much against the waivers for parking, sidewalk and the recreation area. He has many concerns and this may take more than five minutes to get through this. He does want to start off with a concern not related to 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 the waivers. It is mentioned in the Fire Marshal’s review that there was an agreement and for public record, could you talk about the agreement for rear access? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated that with the City’s Ordinance regarding rear access for multi-story buildings, there are two sides to every story. We say it’s a little unclear as to its complete definition of the percentage of coverage. The Fire Marshal was basically invoking 100% coverage which they wanted either a fire lane or a paved road to run along the backs of the buildings or the Code allows for an 8-inch section of stone covered with soil. It is demarked by signs and landscaping and such. We went back and forth talking to the Fire Marshal about what they would like to do and what the Fire Marshal will agree to. Essentially the Code is kind of ambiguous as to how much coverage is actually required. They are going to 50% of the building; essentially, the whole half of the rear of the building will be covered by an 18 foot wide secondary type what he calls a “fire lane” but it is a turf trail. It will be an 8 inch section of stone which can support fire apparatus covered with 4 inches of top soil. That access will be provided and that was the follow- up discussions that they were having. Mr. Hartman stated that he would like to start with the fee in lieu for the Active Recreation Area. The determination in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5Section 10.17 determines for suitability of a cash donation if the Commission determines that the construction of the recreation is not practical due to close proximity to existing available recreation facilities or are infeasible due to natural characteristics of the land that will not benefit the residents of the development, then a cash-in-lieu is considered. He couldn’t find anywhere where those concerns were addressed in your application. Is there a proximity to an existing recreation facility or is it infeasible due to the natural characteristics of the land? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated that he lives about a mile from this site and travels Scarborough Road and McKee Road two or three times a day. There is a multi-modal trail on McKee Road and then Scarborough Road on the west side and that carries up into Del-Tech. They have a large track around Del-Tech and that is frequently used. So, that is proximity to some existing features. When you talk about impingement on the land and the land is not available. This is a huge site of 70 some acres and if you look at the plan that is up right now, that shaded area is all wetlands. So this site is encumbered by wetlands and trees. What they have tried to do with this development is really not impact that at all or as little as we possibly can. They have provided about as much as we can in the open space areas that are available to us so that we are not further impacting buffers or trees. We are leaving a large band of trees right in the center of everything. Again, it is more of a visual buffer than anything else and the areas that you don’t see is that they have to provide stormwater for this whole facility. So instead of providing a large stormwater pond which you see all the time, they are trying to go the route of breaking it up into smaller pieces with less impact. They will have more outfalls to minimize the impact to the wetland areas which are essentially draining across those railroad tracks. The fee-in-lieu just seemed to make sense because we are going to start impacting on natural wetlands, the trees and the like; so, they just decided to apply for the fee-in-lieu. Mr. Hartman stated that eliminating two or three buildings themselves would allow you to provide active recreation space. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated to counter that, one of the biggest concerns of this area from the neighbors has been traffic and the signal. Again, they went through a TIS back in November and it has been approved through DelDOT. The signalization of this intersection actually can’t happen until the full buildout of all of the apartments are done. The site wouldn’t generate enough traffic to then warrant a signal and that 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 is controlled by DelDOT. So sure, we can take out half of this and provide all of the active recreation area but then we would be left with an intersection and an entrance. They are frankly forbidden to provide an entrance along any other piece of this property but across from Emerald Pointe. It would then negate the warrants for the signal itself. So then you are combating with providing 100% of the active recreation area but then he thinks that they are addressing bigger concerns which is traffic and the signalization of that intersection. Mr. Hartman stated that that makes some sense to him. Also in the Report, there is mention of like three levels of recreational land that is provided. He sees that the biggest level was mentioned by the Planner this evening and the other levels are like in your letter; are those now off the board? It states that you are providing roughly 41,400 SF of recreation. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated that is combined with the walking trail square footage, the turf field square footage, and the seven picnic areas. We are still providing all of that and he doesn’t know the square footage of it all. Mr. Hartman stated that he thinks that it could have been a little clearer. It says it leaves a balance of 64,200 SF. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated that he thinks that number is incorrect because they are not 64,200 SF shy. Ms. Bulkilvish asked Mr. Hartman which Report he was looking at. Responding to Ms. Bulkilvish, Mr. Hartman stated that on the drawing provided to the Commission, Sheet C-001 and it was a completely different number at the bottom. When he was reviewing this package, he didn’t know which number to accept. Mr. Street stated that is something that Staff Report is alluding to as well. As this Plan gets further developed, if those areas change slightly, that number may change slightly as well. They could actually increase the amount of sidewalks and that number would then further reduce. Mr. Hartman stated that it might be clearer for future applications for cash-in-lieu of recreational area if you actually address what is required, what’s required in the Ordinance, and when it comes to why it’s needed rather than actually providing recreational area. Otherwise, builders are going to continue to fill the sites with as many apartment buildings as possible and just think that the Commission is going to approve that. He wants to draw their attention to the last thing in the Ordinance which mentions that it will not benefit the residents of the development. He thinks that the Commission is appointed through our Districts and are here to speak for the people who aren’t here. He thinks that it is up to us to make a decision without anybody else speaking about it; is this going to benefit the residents or not? That was his main concern with these reductions in the recreation space. He does urge them in future applications to provide your reasonings based on the Ordinance. As long as he is here, he will be questioning those reasons. Mr. Hartman stated that parking is being reduced by nearly 100 spaces. Each building has 48 parking spaces. You mentioned 45 by he read 48 and that includes the five garages. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated yes. Mr. Hartman questioned if the parking spaces will be marked for each apartment. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated that he does not believe that is part of the plan at this point. He 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 doesn’t think that they do that. All of the parking spaces that we provide and there is a great amount of detail that goes into providing parking for these buildings; so, they aren’t necessarily marked for each building. They like to hold the parking as close to the buildings as they can and they try and keep those designated parking spaces for each building directly in front of the building. Mr. Riemann stated that he wanted to add a little bit onto the parking discussion. This particular developer operates thousands of apartment units and has for multiple generations. Parking is a critical element to that and to the design process. Their goal is to maintain tenants. It is in their best interest to make sure that the units are full, to make sure that they don’t turn over, and to make sure that they have tenants that stay there. That is ultimately their goal. Having parking that is easy to get in that is close to your unit that you can get to quickly is the design objective. We actually spend a great deal of time through that process ensuring that they meet those requirements. What they tend to see with all of these projects is about 1.75 to 1.9 parking spaces per unit is sufficient to meet those design objectives. We are at about 2 spaces per unit and the Code is 2.25 spaces per unit. The Code is a little more than what we see as necessary. We could add the additional 100 spots but that is just less active recreation space that they can provide. That means more stormwater management and more runoff, etc. It is not their objective to necessarily cut parking out to save costs because they want to make sure it functions for the longevity of the project. This particular developer keeps these facilities and owns them and they manage them. So, it is in our best interest to make sure that the parking is adequate and what we have designed is just that. Mr. Hartman stated that he did read a lot of that in both the DAC Report and the application. He is still trying to understand it from a tenant’s point of view. Twenty-four apartments, forty-eight parking spaces and five of them in the garage. How will these garages get allotted? Is that something that you pay extra for? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Riemann stated typically yes. Mr. Hartman stated that if somebody buys a garage space and has two cars, they can put one car in the garage and have the other car parked. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Riemann stated that could be but you have to keep in mind that the apartments are a mixture of 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, and 3 bedrooms. So a lot of 1 bedroom apartments will have one person in the apartment. It is an average so you are looking across the entire 24 unit building assuming all 24 units have two cars. Like he said, over the thousands of apartments that we have studied, 1.75 to 1.9 is sufficient and we are at about 2. Mr. Hartman stated that mentioned in the Staff Report, there could be a condition placed that would require open space maintained for the missing 96 spots in the event that parking is inadequate. Is that something that Planning Staff thinks should be considered? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Zoning Ordinance does allow for the Planning Commission to require that kind of place holder space where parking could be constructed for a portion or the amount being reduced. In this case, Planning Staff did not make that as a recommendation in our review of that waiver request feeling that they are providing a significant amount of parking on site but this is also a site that is served in other fashions with public transit in the area. So that likely could reduce some of the parking needs in this day and age. 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 Mr. Hartman stated that his final concern for the waivers is the sidewalk. The Planning Office had recommended a multi-modal sidewalk on the east side of McKee Road and the commercial buildings. What is your reply to that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Street stated that is what he was trying to describe. Across from the Clubhouse itself and then up to the intersection itself, that is what they are proposing. The sidewalk which is what Staff was asking them to provide on the frontage from our entrance up through the pool deck and amenity space and then it would have to dive down into the road itself. They were saying that DelDOT was more than likely going to require us to build it all the way to the intersection so we are fine with that. Mrs. Denney stated that her issue is with the parking as well. She feels very strongly that unless these are all one-bedroom apartments where no guests are allowed, you don’t have enough parking. The other two issues that she doesn’t love but she can live with them She typically believes that our Code is exactly that; it is the Code. It is the law and it is not a book of suggestions. When it comes to certain areas, she can be reasonable as long as we are not setting precedence that someone can come and say well you let this person have it. She is always very afraid of doing something that would set precedence but parking issues are parking issues. Setting aside land in case tends to be a good idea except who manages that. It’s not like there is a homeowners association that is going to come to you and say parking is horrible. So, she really thinks that these things need to begin with absolute adequate parking, not just for the residents but for the guests as well. And while we would hope that more people were going to buy that can walk and take public transportation. We are leaning towards that a little but on the same token, people still drive and that is a huge concern for her. The other two things, she can live with but she doesn’t love them. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Riemann stated that we are actually seeing a lot of jurisdictions reduce the requirement. He doesn’t know why the City’s is 2.25 or what the history was to get to that number. New Castle County just reduced their requirement from 2.25 to 2. So, 2 is a common requirement in other jurisdictions and he thinks that is the function of what you are seeing in the industry over time as projects evolve. They do think that the parking is adequate and they need it to be adequate. They need this to be a place where people can come home and park in their parking space and go enjoy dinner. It doesn’t do us or our client any good if that is not the case. We do think it is adequate and that is based on dozens and dozens of projects that meet this exact same requirement. They do not have those issues there. Mrs. Denney asked how many of those projects are in Dover, DE? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Riemann stated from this particular client, he doesn’t think any but there is one in Camden and Middletown, up north and downstate. Mrs. Denney stated that one of the issues for her tends to be that Dover is different than New Castle County and it’s extremely different than Sussex County. Many years ago she wrote something for Delaware Today Magazine and she sometimes feel like Dover was the moat between the palaces and the playground and we were treated as such in many ways. Again, she really feels as though for Dover, DE, if they changed the rules and regulations in two other counties so be it, wonderful for them. She has been doing this for a long time, from town management to different boards such as this and that. In her opinion, and it’s not just a thought in her head as she has a lot of experience, she feels as this is absolutely not adequate. She realizes 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 also that 96 parking spots takes up a lot of room. She is not necessarily suggesting that it be all 96 but honestly she just doesn’t feel that it is adequate. The average apartment, if you have two bedrooms at least one of those should be two; so to her, there should be three. But you have to come up with a mean and not make them all three. Again, you have guests. The garages are nice but sometimes you come home and you don’t want to walk across. You just pull up and you have two other spaces taken. Again, she just feels that there is not adequate parking. Mr. Cooper stated that of the 24 units in each building, how many of those are going to be one bedroom, two bedrooms, or three bedrooms? Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Street stated that he believes that the singles are 30%, doubles are 60% and triples are 10% typically. Mr. Cooper stated that he tends to understand the parking concern. He doesn’t necessarily have it when you talk about 2.25 spaces to 2 spaces because that doesn’t seem like a huge drop, but when you add all of the quarter spaces up, it’s 96 spaces. He also knows that the cooperate world is looking at the number of desks in their buildings and the number of people that are working there so he is trying to use the same logic. If you have 100 employees, you don’t need 100 desks because the number of people who are taking vacation or calling out sick or whatever the case may be, you can get by with a building that only has 75 desks. So he is kind of trying to run the same logic between the parking spaces and the desks at the corporate building just to draw a correlation. He does get it from the developers standpoint, if you don’t have enough parking spaces, you are not going to keep your tenants and you are not going to get more. There is a part of him that is hung up on that. It makes logical sense that if two spaces works everywhere else why wouldn’t two spaces work here. He kind of gets stuck on that but at the same time, he doesn’t know that Dover has the public transportation that New Castle has or Sussex has. He certainly doesn’t see the same number of people riding the bus in Dover that he does in New Castle County. He feels like they are more likely to have two cars per apartment here than you are in other places but he is also not married to that fact. It is just the fact that he is hung up on it. He is not sure if there is a compromise between the 2.0 to maybe a 2.1 and that would bring us up to a larger number of spaces which might help with some of the concerns but it also doesn’t get too crazy on your side for the economic standpoint because he totally understands that as well. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Riemann stated that he thinks that is doable. They can look at some areas along that main road coming in, not up by the entrance but as you get further in to the site for maybe some possible street parking. He thinks that they would be open to the option of holding some areas as well. Mrs. Denney stated that she just wants to say again, she feels like it doesn’t have to be all 96 but if you could meet us somewhere in between; she thinks that is helpful. Mrs. Maucher stated that the Clubhouse has additional parking. Is that in addition to the current two spaces per apartment? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Street stated that the Clubhouse parking is separate based on the amenity spaces. Mrs. Maucher stated that it could count as some of the parking needed. One would think that if I lived there I would walk to the Clubhouse, I would not drive there. Mrs. Denney stated that she thinks that is reasonable if you have extra parking at the Clubhouse. 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 Let’s say that somebody is having entertainment or something, guests can park there and walk. That is better yet. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. William Garfinkel – 9 Freedom Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Garfinkel stated that he saw on the graphic that these are three story apartments. But it is also Overlay Zone 1. He thought that zone only allowed two story buildings. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the property is not fully encumbered by the Corridor Overlay Zone. There is only a portion of the frontage that is and that is basically the L entrance drive and then it ends kind of just past the Clubhouse. So the Clubhouse is subject to the height limitations of the Corridor Overlay Zone, the balance of the property is not. Mr. Garfinkel stated that the other observation is that if the builders are going to be required to enhance that road, his suggestion is to have them put in stadium lights to light up that intersection. McKee Road is incredibly dark and if you don’t light up that intersection with all of the traffic that is going to come, you are going to have collisions and somebody is going to get hurt. You have to be able to see to navigate that and if they are going to build it anyway, why not just put a couple stadium lights up there. Mr. David Casto – 8 Gregory Court Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Casto stated that his main concern is and you have heard it time and time again is the traffic. Traffic during peak hours in the morning and the afternoon is really bad. He goes through it all the time and it takes like three cycles of lights for him to get from The Hamlet to College Road and it’s like that every day. With the addition of 1,000 more apartments and cars and everything else that goes into that plus that commercial building as well, is just going to contribute more to the problem. He has called DelDOT and asked them to look at the timing of the light because the traffic is on Scarborough Road, not so much on College Road but the light is not in sync to relieve all of that congestion that backs up to The Hamlet. He hasn’t gotten any response from DelDOT at all as far as that is concerned. He would hope that something is relieved as far as that intersection now because it is bad and it is going to get worse. It has gotten worse over all of the years that he has lived here. He would like to see some improvement by DelDOT at that intersection and to the lighting before the construction starts because you are not going to have another light until all of the construction is done. Emerald Pointe is not that far from College Road and you see the line of traffic from The Hamlet to College Road. You are going to have it stopped again at Emerald Pointe and it is going to be backed up. You are going to have people like you see in a lot of places, blocking the intersection trying to get through. It really is a mess if you have ever traveled that way and he would just like the Commission to look into that. Mr. Derek Headley – 3 Gemstone Boulevard Dover DE, 19904 Mr. Headley stated that he is probably the one single person who is going to be impacted the most because he lives right on the corner of Gemstone Boulevard. We have been speaking with these gentlemen as they mentioned, from 2020 and he doesn’t believe that their concerns have been totally addressed or heard. As the two gentlemen mentioned, the traffic is horrendous. Between 8:30AM-9:00AM you can’t even get out of the development. From 3:00PM-4:30PM coming from Rite Aid all the way down to Emerald Pointe to try to make that left hand turn into 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 the development, you can be waiting there multiple times. There have been multiple accidents at that corner from people being so impatient trying to turn into that development. This gentleman here mentioned that he lives maybe 5-10 minutes away and he passes this development all of the time. If that is true, he doesn’t see how he can say with a straight face that those extra potential people moving into that area will not have a negative impact not only on the community and especially his community, Emerald Pointe. How are we going to allow this to continue? We have 110 homes in Emerald Pointe with the average person paying $5,000-$6,000 in property taxes. There is going to be 384 apartment units built across the street from us. What is the impact that that is going to have on our property values? What is the source of revenue that the City of Dover is going to be getting from those 384 apartment units? What is the benefit that it is going to bring to our community? Has this discussion been made already because we are already talking about parking and how many parking spaces should be allotted? So is this a done deal and we are supposed to just be here to give a statement? Have minds already been made up or is this a serious discussion and conversation on what the community is feeling? He would ask that the Commission please take these things seriously and understand the impact that it is going to have on the Emerald Pointe community as well as Dover as a whole. Mr. Mark Reaves – 10 Tanzanite Court Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Reaves stated that he is the Emerald Pointe HOA President and he would like to speak for a few of our homeowners and also the community. When this plan was put together, we had a comprehensive conversation with the developers and builders of this project. Coming to this meeting tonight, it is clear to him that we don’t have that communication. We don’t have the information that we should have in order to make some decisions or comments on what is going on. He didn’t know anything, personally, about the Fire Marshal issue and he didn’t know anything about the Parks & Recreation issue. We are completely uninformed. We have a management company and we explained through our management company for our attorney’s office to be included in everything that is going on in the process of this development and build. So, he is not really sure why they are not being included but in order for this process to move forward, he would strongly recommend that the Planning Commission and the City enforce communication to our community so that we can have something to say in regards to that. With over 100 houses, this is definitely going to impact all of our homeowners. One thing that is extremely concerning, the Code is the Code and there is a reason for the Code. If parking is going to impact people that can’t even be present for this hearing at this time. He completely agrees with the City enforcing that requirement for parking because it is completely necessary. And to have an alternative to substitute the parking for holding some space or making adjustments is going to set a precedence for a number of builders just would potentially just roll past those requirements. He thinks that the City should stand firm on the parking requirements. There was mention of the traffic light being placed into effect after the development. That would significantly deteriorate the traffic in our area. The traffic light should be the primary focus before you start building. If anyone is familiar with the intersection where we have had three fatalities happen just by us, having a lane to turn into our development from College Road. There is a go-around lane that a lot of times people who that may not live in that area aren’t even aware of that lane. So each time that he pulls up to turn in, he has to look in his rearview mirror for a substantial amount of time just for the fact that someone may be driving behind me and not see the other cars that have went around. It could potentially hit the back of his car at speeds of 50- 60 MPH. Who knows what would happen if he gets pushed into the traffic or pushed straight 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 ahead or whatever it is; it is extremely dangerous. If you don’t have that traffic light prior to starting construction, that is going to significantly deteriorate that intersection because there is no other opportunity for anyone headed north on that road to move around that traffic. The traffic light has to be first priority. As far as the recreational space, he understands that they may accept a fee-in-lieu and he is really not even sure what that is. His experience with Blenheim Homes that built our neighborhood, either the Parks & Recreation rules are new or they must have paid to circumvent that particular aspect of the Parks & Recreation requirement because the numbers that he hears tonight in this conversation do not match how many units we have or how much active recreation space that we have. It is great that they speak to providing some parks and recreation space to their development; however, when you mention a fee-in-lieu, it seems to betray that they can possibly just pay a fee and then eliminate the parks & rec space which could have a negative impact on the community or whatever they are proposing to build. Everything sounds nice, a dog park, walks and trails and shade but then it really comes out you are going to be out there walking around but you are not really going to have shade to stop and do your exercise if it is summertime. It is just very confusing because the paperwork says one thing and then one day there could be something else that is different. Which are they really considering? Is it the true documentation or is it something that was mistakenly added or taken away? It just goes back to them trying to understand what is really being presented to the Planning Commission. His suggestion is to have some type of consideration to the true presentation of what is planned to be proposed here and have that communicated to the individuals that are going to be sincerely impacted by this build. He is not in opposition to the build; however, he thinks that there needs to be some clear communication so that the Board can make a clear decision on what is truly being presented and how that is going to affect the community. One primary thing that he could definitely say to the Planning Board, if you have influence over it, is to require that that intersection is managed prior to the beginning of any type of development for that particular area. Because he doesn’t want to present himself as the President of the HOA and have to communicate to his fellow homeowners that someone has involved in a tragic accident or their kids have been involved in a tragic accident because there was a decision made by a Board to forego a traffic regulating device until after the completion which could theoretically take a year or more to get that done. Mr. Chris Moore – 219 Meadow Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Moore typed in the chat “I have nothing more to add at this point, thank you.” Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that he would ask the applicant if they could address the concerns of the HOA President for Emerald Pointe concerning communications with the neighbors. Mr. Riemann stated that there were a couple of questions that were asked as well about lighting, and he will be happy to answer those as well as it relates to the communication. He is a little disappointed to hear that frankly. They have been at this project since June 2020. They have presented that this would be an apartment project back then when it was annexed and zoned and he thinks that they even showed plans that showed the number of units. They have been very clear about that this whole time and the plan hasn’t really changed. They then held a community meeting separate from this process and not required by this process so that we could engage 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 feedback. The biggest concern that we got from Emerald Pointe was traffic. They can’t get out of their development, and we can’t turn left in and can’t turn left out. The solution is a signal; and whether our project happens or not, a signal there is the solution for them to be able to turn left in and turn left out of their development. This project allows that to happen and it won’t happen without this project or some development on this property is what is going to drive that signal. Mr. Street talked about the timing of that signal. What he was referring to was the fact that we can’t put the signal in in the beginning; in the first day. Signals go in when DelDOT determines that they are warranted. They have very strict requirements for when signals are warranted and they have to meet those warrants. Typically, the project will start construction and then once DelDOT feels that the signal is warranted, then they will require the installation. They have to sign an agreement with DelDOT that bines us to do it when they tell us to do it. They have total control over that. We don’t have a problem putting it in on day one, but they just don’t have the control. They have to let them tell us when that happens and that is up to them. They are happy to do it whenever DelDOT says to do it. They have agreed to do that. That signal is going to help the people of Emerald Pointe get in and out of their development. It’s going to provide a stop and it’s going to provide safe turning in and out. Lighting will be provided. They have designed many signals for DelDOT over the years and there is lighting provided at intersections so it will be lit and it won’t be an issue at all. They do feel that they have engaged the community. He does think that they spoke at the annexation and that they participated in the community meeting and again here tonight. He thinks that there has been a lot of communication. The number one concern that they have gotten is being able to get in and out of Emerald Pointe which is a fair concern. They think that their project is going to help with that because it is going to cause the installation of a signal which DelDOT has already agreed to. The other intersection that was brought up was at McKee and College and there are improvements planned there. They are part of another project that is already happening. There are improvements planned there and there are turn lanes. This project is contributing financially to these improvements. There are improvements happening at Route 8 and Saulsbury Road with this project contributing to those improvements. So, there are lots of improvements happening along this corridor. As tends to happen, DelDOT plans these projects out and other projects come along and have to contribute to those projects financially and help support these projects. This project is certainly contributing and paying its fair share in helping to mitigate the traffic concerns in the area. Mr. Hartman stated that in DelDOT’s Report it says the developer should schedule a pre- submittal meeting to discuss the development with DelDOT Subdivisions. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Riemann stated that was very normal. They way the process works with DelDOT in any land development application, the first step is the Traffic Impact Study. You have what is called a Scoping Meeting, DelDOT tells you what the scope of the Traffic Study is. We do the study which is an 8 month process, which is what they have been going through already for some time and it is now wrapped up. Once that piece is done and the next piece for the actual design of the physical entrance is what they call a Pre-Submittal Meeting. That is where you get into the details of the geometry of the entrance and that is because you are getting ready to file a construction plan for the entrance itself. That is a very normal comment that he is guessing Mrs. Melson-Williams has probably seen on every single DAC Report that she has ever read. Mr. Hartman asked if that is an opportunity for them to go before DelDOT and implore them to install a light prior to construction commencement. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Riemann 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 stated not really at that meeting because the people that are reviewing that really aren’t the decision makers for that particular conversation; it is based on DelDOT’s traffic section. They can certainly make that request and he is happy to do it formally if the Commission requires that to be a condition. They would do that and say that they would like to do that. They just can’t agree to do it because they have zero say over it. They went through this when they did the hospital in Milford, DE. The hospital wanted it in the very beginning, and it was a challenge and it wasn’t until the hospital was constructed that the signal went it. They are happy to try but DelDOT is in charge. Mr. Hartman asked if he heard the HOA President of Emerald Pointe say that they have been fatalities at that intersection. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Riemann stated that he does not know that he was aware of it. He is sure that DelDOT is aware of that. When the Traffic Studies are being completed, he is sure that with DelDOT’s recommendation to install a signal there, that probably played into DelDOT’s decision making for adding the signal which will certainly make that movement there safer. Mr. Hartman asked if the HOA President of Emerald Pointe will have an opportunity to address DelDOT about his concerns. Is there a public meeting requirement that he could attend? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Riemann stated no, there is not a public meeting but his experience with DelDOT is that anytime somebody from the public gives them a call, they talk to them. He has definitely had situations where he has gotten feedback as the designer and engineer in charge of a project that has gotten feedback from constituents and citizens. He has not heard DelDOT turn them down but there is no public meeting like this; so, he will have to give them a call. Mrs. Denney moved to approve re-opening the public hearing to allow the public to speak again, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was carried 7-0 by voice vote. Mr. Mark Reaves – 10 Tanzanite Court Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Reaves stated that yes, they did have a conversation with the builder or developers’ representative, and they did explain some things to us. What he is looking for is something a little bit more substantial. As you know, homeowner associations are purely volunteer and with COVID, they have been very restricted. So to have an opportunity to have the paperwork that they submitted to this Board so that they can review and do their own review in order to have comprehensive questions or have some comprehensive comments. Yes, you have included us in a Zoom call and we have talked about things but these are significant actions: this Fire Department Report, the Parks & Recreation Report, the parking issue, the traffic light and the dealings with DelDOT, and the Traffic Impact Study. All of those are significant things that they are asking just to be included in. If you send us a link, they can review it, they can read it, they can understand and digest it amongst their homeowners and just have some significant questions. He is coming here tonight and listening and finding out things that they had no knowledge of. We have a management company that is fully staffed and they have an attorney that is working with them and has had some communication with him. They are just asking to be fully included in the documentation that they present to the Commission so that they may be able to also untangle some of the confusion that surrounds these particular documents and have some communication amongst our Board members. They don’t have that. They asked for that in the 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 beginning when they first started this process two years ago and they continue to ask for that. They want what gets submitted to the Commission as a representation of what they are actually going to do. In good faith, if their desire is to truly serve the community and also get your project done, then make a recommendation to DelDOT to have this signal expedited or put in place first because he guarantees the minute that a construction vehicle starts down that road and tries to turn in, someone is going to run into the back of a person trying to turn into the development. It is just an unnecessary tragedy and if you just request it, that could go a long way to at least having the community feel like you guys actually really care. Ask the City to back you up and those voices would probably go a long way to get that done ahead of time rather than to just sit back and say they don’t do that. They are just asking for the opportunity to have the things that are going to benefit the community and your project. He wanted to make a follow-up comment because he doesn’t want it to seem as if they are trying to subvert the project. They just want to be considered and have the true information that the Commission receives because they are in the dark with a lot of information and that is not fair to them. Mr. Hartman stated that as far as the submittals to the Planning Commission, he will ask the Planning Office to provide that to you but everything that the City has is online. That includes the DAC Report, the applicant’s submittal, their drawings and their justification for parking. It is on the City of Dover website and it is called a “Packet” and it would be under the April 18, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Reaves stated that there were some suggestions that were made to say that they may adjust particular things. He just wants to know from this Commission, is there a timeframe that you are requiring that the proposals that the said they would maybe add to their plan would be added or updated to that plan. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to address two concerns. First the concern about communication, the Zoning Ordinance requires for a Site Development Plan such as this that there is public notice of tonight’s hearing. That public notice happens in three ways: the bright yellow sign that is posted on the property that includes information on the project name and how to reach out to the Planning Office. There is also a legal ad that has to be published in a local newspaper, again, including information about this meeting tonight and how to contact the Planning Office. The third is a mailing that goes to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. So that likely picked up some of the direct residents of the Emerald Pointe subdivision and she is thinking that maybe some of the buffer area that is out front that is owned by the HOA through your management company. Again, that is a notice that there has been an application filed and there is a hearing tonight. Ms. Bulkilvish has brought up (on the screen) the City’s website which is www.cityofdover.com . From that main page, there is a link that says Meetings & Agendas and that takes you to all the meeting agendas and their associated packets for the various Boards and Commissions and City Council. You can find the meeting agenda as well as what Mr. Hartman referred to as the Packet. The Paperless Packet is published basically ten days prior to the Planning Commission Meeting and posted on online for viewing. It includes the DAC Reports and the initial agency comments. That same packet goes to the Planning Commission members ahead of the meeting. We do try to include at least a couple of the plan sheets in the Paperless Packet realizing that most projects have a significant number of plan pages and it would just bog down anybody trying to download the entire thing. In any case, all of this information can be viewed by the public by contacting the Planning Office. We can accommodate in person visits to our office or work with an individual 20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 in other ways if they truly need to see the application that was filed or review the plans. So we are trying to make things available electronically. It is not in our Code to specifically contact specific interest groups with individual applications. The notice elements that she talked about (the mailing, the ad and the physical posting of the sign) are required to be completed a minimum of fifteen days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That is established for all applications that are required to come before this Board. There is the ability to get some of that information ahead of time. It is a little bit about understanding how the process works so she hopes that this has been at least an information session for you as well. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Reaves stated that Mr. Headley is within that 200 foot zone. Fortunately, his house is that; however, the Emerald Pointe HOA is a corporation which they are represented by a management company so he would respectfully ask that the Planning Commission include our management company as a minimum just to get the same notification that Mr. Headley gets so that they can be aware of any coming information. Our main entrance which is part of our corporation is within that distance and the notification for anything like that would have to go to our management company or the corporation itself. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the mailing list is generated by property ownership records. So what the City has on file as the owner and their contact information for the property is what is utilized. If it is held by the HOA then they probably need to look into where that mailing is going. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Reaves stated that they do get electric services at the front entrance also so that is on the mailing list also. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that sometimes the electric billing may go to a different entity than the property ownership so that is why we don’t use the customer utility information and we use the property tax information. The other question is about how you would find out updates to the plan, once the Planning Commission takes action on an application. The applicant has a period of up to two years to make the corrections to the plan and finalize the plan. By getting the various agency approvals of DelDOT, the Planning Office, the Water & Sewer Plan and that process to finalize the plan is an administrative process that the Planning Office handles on behalf of the Planning Commission. The only reason it would reappear before the Planning Commission would be if there were significant changes to the project such as they decided to not build apartments and do something else or totally reconfigured everything. Then it would have to go back through this public hearing process. This site, because it has an area that is zoned C2-A (Limited Central Commercial) for commercial development, that will be subject to a separate Site Plan review process that will have to come back through this review body. As they fix things on the plan, we are not obligated to send out notice but you are certainly welcome to reach out to the Planning Office. We can advise you to kind of where there are with getting these various agency approvals and once that happens. Mr. Cooper stated that just so everybody is aware, he has had a similar discussion with the Department of Transportation as you guys are having about the traffic signal. It was very frustrating until he totally understood and wrapped his head around DelDOT’s position on the subject which is if the traffic doesn’t warrant a traffic device such as a stop light or a stop sign, which he thinks is what Mr. Street was talking about. He was saying that the development will create the amount of traffic then that intersection would then need a device. So DelDOT is not going to give them the permission to do what we are asking them to do and what you are asking 21

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 them to do until the number of cars are coming through there because of the apartments that create that. When he had the discussion with DelDOT, it was because his dog got hit by a car that was going at least twice the posted speed limit on a four block section that has no stop signs. His hands were tied and DelDOT’s hands were tied because of Federal Regulations that tie everybody’s hands up. It sounds like Becker Morgan Group is going to make their request but from somebody who has had a very similar argument all be it about a pet as opposed to a human life, he just wants you to understand that if they don’t get the results that you want them to, it very well may not be for the lack of trying. If those cars aren’t going through there, DelDOT is not going to authorize it.It is frustrating but if it is there and it is not warranted then it actually becomes more dangerous because people end up running stop light or stop sign as opposed to stopping for it. You have created more problems than you solve by putting a device there. Mr. Derek Headley – 3 Gemstone Boulevard Dover DE, 19904 Mr. Headley stated that he just wanted to ask the developers how far the proposed apartments are going to be from the entrance. Responding to Mr. Street stated that the last time he recalls, he thinks they were more than 1,000 feet from the entrance itself. Mr. Headley asked if that will be visible from the corner of Gemstone Boulevard. Responding to Mr. Headley, Mr. Street stated that what you are going to see from the entrance of Gemstone Boulevard would be street trees lining that whole entrance. Part of the City’s Code is the Corridor Overlay Zone and that requires one tree every 50 feet along McKee Road across that frontage. So right now on McKee Road if you were to look at the site, you would have to look between those two pockets of trees to get to what you are looking at now. Once the project is developed, what you are going to have is not only those pockets of trees that you can barely see through now, you are going to have trees lining those streets and trees across that frontage. There is going to be landscaping that fills that frontage on McKee Road. The only thing that you are going to be able to really see from McKee Road would be the Clubhouse. Mr. Headley stated that when you are looking at the view from a homeowner, as soon as you come out of the house you don’t want to see the Clubhouse or a bunch of parking areas. That’s what it seems like he is going to be looking at. Responding to Mr. Headley, Mr. Street stated that the parking is behind the Clubhouse. It is the gray block that is shown on the map behind the Clubhouse itself and you’ve also got trees really buffering up the building itself. If you were to look from the entrance of Gemstone Boulevard up to where that Clubhouse is going to be situated, you’ve got buffering of trees, landscaping and the like. Mr. Headley asked what the average price of the apartments are going to be. He is trying to understand the clientele to expect. Responding to Mr. Headley, Mr. Street stated that these are market rate apartments that range in price from $1,495 to $2,100. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff would remind the Commission about what they have to make a decision on. It is a Site Development Plan. They have three Waivers that they have requested. The partial elimination of upright curbing is actually a Waiver that the City Planner as the authority to issue and they have recommended approval of that. The two Waiver Requests for 22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 Planning Commission are a reduction of the parking requirements and the Code does allow for the Planning Commission to require a placeholding for future construction of parking areas if you feel that is necessary. The other Waiver Request is the partial elimination of sidewalk along the property frontage. Then there is the consideration of the Active Recreation Plan and the Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area construction that are part of the process as well. It can be done in one motion or multiple motions if you feel that you need to split it up to make it make sense for you. Mrs. Maucher asked how long the placeholding area for parking would have to be set aside. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 Section 3.9 notes that the Planning Commission can require development plans to have an area of open space designated where parking could be constructed less than or equal to the number that is being reduced. They have to put a note on the plan and in accepting that reduction, they agree to construct such additional parking if the Planning Commission after a hearing, determines that the reasons for granting the reduction no longer exist. If you determine on that rehearing that the reasons for granting the reduction no longer exist, the owner of record must construct the parking to meet the regulations during the next construction season just to give some allowances for time of year. It gives the Planning Commission the ability to require the placeholding of that parking that they are seeking relief from. Then if it comes to a situation where it is potentially needed, then there is a hearing on that need to construct the parking before this body. There is not a specific timeframe but she thinks that if we were experiencing it from a Code Enforcement matter, people parking on grass surfaces which tends to be a problem or finding other creative ways to park in the apartment complex, we could certainly bring the application back to the Commission to consider requiring them to go ahead and build that parking. Her guess is that if they were experiencing something along those lines and they had placeheld areas for parking, then they would probably do it on their own accord as they want to keep their tenants. Mrs. Maucher stated that that placeholding would not come from any designated building space already; it would be space other than what has already been designated. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Active Recreation Areas are kind of already designated and if the Commission said they would like them to retain an area where twenty-five parking spaces could be constructed in the future, then she thinks that their design of the overall development then would have to figure out where to place those in mass or in several areas to satisfy that. Mrs. Denney stated that she is not prepared to make a motion but she feels very strongly that for her to entertain a motion she would prefer that it include reserved space for parking later. If she had her rather, it would be that they have to have the parking initially. So, to her, her preference would be that that space definitely be set aside for the future. Mr. Hartman asked that if the Commission were to approve this and not approve the Waiver Request for the parking at all, what kind of problem would that create? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they could grant approval to the Plan and deny the request to reduce the parking. In that instance, they would have to revise the design of the Plan in order to accommodate the full parking requirement which is about 96 parking spaces. That could 23

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 probably be achieved in a number of ways by adding parking spaces or reducing the requirement to start with. That could mean that a building goes away so then there is less of a parking requirement. That would be up to the developer to satisfy the design requirement meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Hartman asked if they could come forward with a Waiver Request for partial parking rather than the full 96. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they could or he could as part of your action on the Waiver that is before you this evening. You could waive a certain number of parking spaces or set a parking rate at something like 2.1 for them to achieve on their site. Mr. Cooper stated that he pulled that 2.1 number straight out of the air. He has no mathematical baring on that, it was just between 2.0 and 2.25. Mr. Hartman stated that it is all out of the air accept what’s in the Code. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Cooper stated that he totally agrees. He doesn’t have any heartburn with the partial curb elimination or the frontage sidewalk as it goes up and then cuts across to the additional walk on the west side of the street. He is still kind of hung up on the parking. He recognizes the traffic issue which is a whole separate issue and you can’t address it without making it worse, as bad as that sounds. That is just the nitch that you are in. He would like to go through the steps to make up a motion to grant the application with the partial curb elimination waiver and the sidewalk waiver and then he would like to include the reserved space for future need. He doesn’t remember what the wording was that Mrs. Melson-Williams used but he forgot it all. He also doesn’t know the number of spaces that he would want to put in the motion either. It is reserved space and he thinks that if you split the difference between 96 and 0 and call it 50 as reserved spaces but it’s not actually parking unless it’s needed. So if you are right, it never happens and if we’re right it does happen but no harm no foul. Mrs. Denney stated that she has another suggestion and she doesn’t know how this would work but in the past, she did see a situation like this handled where instead of totally changing the parking plan that they limited the amount of the sizes of apartments. There were more one bedroom apartments instead of three bedroom apartments so that it would fit within a reasonable amount of parking. She does believe what Mr. Cooper has offered is probably the easiest way and it saves a lot of math. She does think that right now there is just not adequate parking and we all know that parking is almost always an issue somewhere. Mr. Hartman stated that with any set-aside, he would not want to see the loss of any Active Recreation space that has already been diminished Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Maucher stated that’s what she indicated, that there would be no reduction in active space. Mr. Cooper stated that you are going to have to have a reduction in something so it would be a reduction in open space as opposed to the active space but you are going to have to have a reduction in something to provide more blacktop. Which is why he thinks going with the recommendation with requesting the set-aside for the future is the best environmental and economical compromised way. He can see where an additional 96 spots is probably too many but he can see where 96 few is too little. He thinks that if they create the set-aside for the future, we 24

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 are doing it economically and environmentally which is the best of both worlds. Mrs. Maucher stated that analytically, you could add two spaces per building so if there are sixteen buildings, that would be thirty-two extra spaces and then the rest would be other spaces. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Cooper stated that you could put the rest of them up at the pool house as long as you have the space and so that you are not cutting into that active space and you are not cutting into the open space any more than you have to. Mr. Hartman asked if we can add a condition to require that the formal contact be made with DelDOT requesting that a light be placed prior to construction? That might be feudal but if it’s in writing the politicians will have to act if there are any accidents there and DelDOT didn’t act. Can we require that as a condition? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would say yes because it goes to some of the public health, safety, and general welfare objectives that you need to consider with a Site Development Plan. She would caution you that that doesn’t mean that it will happen. If the wording would be that it would encourage the applicant to seek an earlier timeframe for installation of that signal at the intersection. It is all going to come down to the DelDOT review and their Entrance Plan and their Entrance Permit process. In order for them to start any kind of construction, they have to have an access point to that State maintained road. What the character of that access point is is what she thinks you are hoping includes a signal sooner rather than later. Mr. Hartman moved to approve S-21-11 McKee Road Apartments at 1385 McKee Road and the development application for the construction of sixteen apartment buildings each containing twenty-four units and to include the condition for a setaside of 50 parking spaces as a condition of this approval so that if parking spaces are required or needed in the future, that those parking spaces can be activated and built. Also, with the condition that the applicant formally submit a request to DelDOT and a courtesy copy to the Emerald Pointe HOA to request a traffic light or traffic device be installed prior to construction beginning at the site. And to approve the Waiver for the elimination of the sidewalk and the Waiver for the Cash-in-Lieu of Active Recreation Area as long as the Active Recreation Area does not diminish below what was represented at this hearing tonight. Mr. Cooper asked if he also approved the partial elimination of the curb. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that technically the partial elimination of curbing is granted by the City Planner. We always include it so the Commission knows. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Denney and approved 5-2 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the motion. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; with all of the things that were previously said. Mrs. Malone voting no; the City got in big trouble many years ago regarding this Cash-in-Lieu of land thing. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for all reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting no; he definitely agrees with Mrs. Malone in regards to Cash-in-Lieu. He is also very concerned about the concerns of the constituents in that area. He feels as though we can give it a little bit more time to get well versed in regards to construction. He definitely loves the plan; it looks beautiful. Mrs. Denney voting yes; with due respect to Mrs. Malone’s comment about the Cash-in-Lieu of and she does recall that there was some issues some time ago. She does believe that this project is one of many of the things that 25

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2022 could have happened there, she thinks that this is a good use for this particular property in this area. She definitely feels that DelDOT will have to do something but those of us who do this all the time, we realize that you don’t tell DelDOT, DelDOT tells us. To her, the best that can happen with the DelDOT situation is that letters with copies to the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation are the best avenue of helping to make that happen sooner than later. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; it is a Level 1 Investment Area so there is infills predicted and expected. She thinks this is a good infill project for the area. She has concerns about the traffic as she travels that road on a regular basis and she thinks this is desperately needed there. NEW BUSINESS Meeting adjourned at 9:48 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 26