PC Minutes 11-20-17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 20, 2017 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mr. Jason Lyon, Mr. Julian Swierczek and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Todd Stonesifer, Ms. Ann Camper, Mr. Mark Strickland, Mr. Gregg Moore and Mr. J.D. Bartlett. Speaking from the public was Mr. Wyatt Waters. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2017 Mr. Holt moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of October 16, 2017, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission which would normally be held in July that would have included the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman will be rescheduled for a future meeting upon completion of the appointment process. We are still waiting for Council’s action he believes. Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 18, 2017 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Hugg stated that the Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop scheduled in November 2017 has been canceled. They do not have a date for another meeting at this time. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on October 23 & 24, 2017 and November 13 & 14, 2017. Mr. Hugg stated that Staff has been extremely busy with all of the projects that you have seen come before the Commission. They participated in the Save the Capital Theater Initiative Charette last week to come up with some plans for the Schwartz Center. They continue to work on various ordinance amendments and hopefully in the next week they will be meeting to examine possible changes and upgrades to the Planning Department’s website. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW BUSINESS 1) C-17-05 Loockerman Coffee Shop at 14 Loockerman Plaza – Public Hearing and Review of Application for Conditional Use to permit conversion of an existing 820 SF 1 1/2-story structure into a restaurant (coffee shop). The subject site consists of two parcels totaling an 15,191.66 S.F. +/- (0.139 +/- acres). The property is zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and is within the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the south side of Loockerman Plaza and east of South State Street. The owner of record is The New Parsonage, LLC and the lessee is Kristin Stonesifer. Location Address: 14 Loockerman Plaza. Property Addresses: 203 and 205 South State Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-05- 01.00-000 and ED-05-077.09-05-01.01-000. Council District 4. Representative: Mr. Todd Stonesifer, representing lessee; Ms. Ann Camper, Becker Morgan Group Mr. Swierczek stated that is an application for a Conditional Use Review to permit conversion of an 820 SF portion of an existing structure into a restaurant/coffee shop. The structure is one and a half stories in height. The project site consists of two parcels and is addressed as 14 Loockerman Plaza. The property is zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and is within the H (Historic District Zone). Access to the site will be for pedestrian traffic from the Loockerman Plaza frontage only. The Planning Office has determined the nature of the application to be similar to a retail use as no permanent sitting or wait staff is planned. In the H (Historic District Zone), this eliminates the requirement for any parking. The applicant; however, has indicated their intention for patrons to utilize nearby on-street parking. Furthermore, in an effort to harmonize with the immediate neighborhood and serve the wider community, the applicant has also communicated their willingness to install a bicycle parking element and their intention to work with the Planning Office to do so. No major exterior alterations are planned except for fresh paint. The applicant has however indicated their desire to add a pervious brick patio along the Loockerman Plaza frontage. That would be in keeping with the already existing brick sidewalk along Loockerman Plaza and furthermore, be in keeping with the historic character of the area. The applicant has further indicated their desire to incorporate a fence to delineate the patio area from the sidewalk and has shown their willingness to work with the Planning Office in this. No major trees or landscaping elements were planned to be added. Code requires a tree density of one tree for every three thousand square feet of lot area. The two sites in question contain four trees but with the size of the site at approximately 15,200 SF, Code would typically require six trees. However, in this regard the Planning Office determined that with Article 5, Section 16.2 there is the possibility for the applicant to define a specific development area with in the overall site for the purpose of tree planting calculations. For that, the applicant is showing their intent to define the purposed development area from a line along the western edge of the coffee shop that would fully encompass the scope of the work within the overall Site Plan. The newly defined site 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 area would be approximately 3,343 SF bringing the current number of trees in that area to two and that would therefore make the site compliant with the landscaping and tree parts of the Code. Other agencies have reviewed the plans and have not voiced any significant objections or concerns beyond that. Mr. Holt questioned what kind of signage that the applicant was planning to have? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Swierczek stated that they have not yet received any specific outlines from the applicant about signage. Mr. Tolbert stated that relative to signage in that area, that is the Historic District. Will the issue of signage come back before this committee? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the applicant, in order to place permanent exterior signage on the property, will have to submit a Sign Permit application. It would not come to the Planning Commission. It is something that Staff can review as part of the permit application process. If there is any question about whether it is in compliance with the Design Standards and Guidelines for the Historic District, the permit could be referred to the Historic District Commission for their consultation. Ms. Ann Camper stated that they would just like to say that the coffee shop, as Mr. Swierczek advised, is an allowed use in the RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and they feel that it’s definitely something that Downtown Dover has been looking forward to. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the applicant was in complete agreement with the overview of their application? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Camper stated yes. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt stated that he thinks that it’s a good fit for the area. He agrees with where it’s going to go and he thinks that it should go well with the business community there. There was a shop years ago for dinner and stuff down that way. It was a similar shop like this and it went very well for a number of years. Ms. Maucher questioned how high the proposed fence will be? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Ms. Camper stated that the fence has not been designed as of yet. It is something that was brought up recently as a desire of the lessee of the space and after speaking with Mrs. Melson-Williams, they would bring that design into the Building Permit process and have the fence reviewed at that time. They would definitely be keeping within the character of the area and doing something with maybe some brick piers or some wrought iron and of course bring that to the Building Permit process. If at that time Staff feels that it needs to be reviewed by the Historic District, then they will move forward at that time. Mr. Tolbert questioned how many people will the facility hold at one time? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Camper stated that Mrs. Stonesifer, who will be the lessee of the space has advised that her business plan is not to be a fast-moving coffee shop. Not like a Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts where you are getting people in and out quickly, but more of a community coffee shop. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 It’s not going to be heavy traffic. As far as square footage wise, they are only looking at about 800 SF or so. The bulk of the square footage is going to be taken up by the coffee service bar so there is not going to be a lot of room for patrons to gather on the inside. She thinks that their occupancy is less than fifty people per the Building Code for occupancy. Mr. Holt moved to approve C-17-05 Loockerman Coffee Shop at 14 Loockerman Plaza, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; he thinks that the addition is great for Downtown and he thinks that it is in harmony with the location and size of other businesses. Mr. Roach voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the fact that the intended use is definitely appropriate for the area and Downtown Dover can certainly use a good coffee shop. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that it is a really good fit for Downtown Dover. He thinks that it will be an asset to the City and the business community. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he thinks that it is a perfect fit for Downtown. Dr. Jones voting yes; she thinks that it is going to be a welcomed addition for those who are Downtown and for those who may be traveling through. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; he doesn’t think that there is another coffee shop close to it and they just might wind up with a crowd in there that they may have difficulty handling. 2) S-17-28 Multiplex at 299 College Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a three (3) unit multiplex residential building (multi-family dwelling) with adjoining parking spaces. The property consists of a 18,244 S.F. +/- parcel (0.42 +/- acres) and is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The property is located on the northwest side of College Road and adjacent to Conwell Street. The owner of record is Stephen E. Lumor (Enyam, LLC). Property Address: 299 College Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-26.00-000. Council District 4. Representative: Mr. Mark Strickland, Century Engineering Mr. Diaz stated that this is an application to develop a three unit multiplex building at 299 College Road. The project is located on the north side of College Road west of Mishoe Street and it’s adjacent to the right-of-way known as Conwell Street. The site is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The purposed design of the site is, on the surface, pretty simple. There is one building with three two story units in it, a six space parking area and they will be using existing trees on the site for landscaping. They have been working with the applicant; however, to get some behind the scene issues resolved. There is some uncertainty over the classification of this building in the Building and Fire Codes because the designation of a multiplex is unique to the Zoning Code. It would have to be defined as either townhouses or apartments in the Building Code. That would affect a number of the site design elements like the provisions of ADA parking and how much fire access would be provided. He believes that the current consensus is that the building would be classified as apartments. Second, there is some uncertainty over the status of Conwell Street as to whether it’s a right-of-way owned by the City or by the Delaware Department of Transportation. They still don’t have an answer to that but regardless, DelDOT is going to let the project take access from College Road as 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 opposed to asking for access from Conwell Street. Third, the cumulative effects of the City and State Code requirements are such that the project is going to be pushed over its lot coverage limit. The applicant has filed an application with the Board of Adjustment seeking relief from the lot coverage maximum and a hearing for that variance is scheduled for December 20, 2017. If they don’t get a variance then they will need to redesign the site so that it comes under the coverage limit. The architecture is currently only architectural templates so it will need to be adjusted from the four units currently shown down to three units. There are two specific items that the Planning Commission needs to act on with this project. One is a waiver request for bicycle parking. The applicant is seeking relief from this requirement on the grounds that if the tenants own bicycles they will simply store them inside the building; however, Staff is recommending denial of this waiver request because there is still a possibility that the tenants would prefer exterior bike parking to interior so they can avoid the difficulties of getting a bike out the door and down the steps. The second item is a waiver request from what they are now calling pathway location requirements due to recent ordinance updates. There are two components to this particular waiver request. The first is with regard to sidewalk along Conwell Street. This would ordinarily be required under the Zoning Ordinance; however, the applicant has requested a waiver from constructing sidewalk there and Staff is recommending approval of that portion of the waiver because Conwell Street is an unimproved right-of-way. If sidewalk were to be constructed now then if that right-of-way were to be improved in the future, the sidewalk would just need to be reconstructed at that point. The second component is the sidewalk along College Road. The Code now requires that even if there is existing sidewalk that it needs to be upgraded to City street standards. That means a five foot wide sidewalk and also a five foot gap between the sidewalk and the curb. Right now, there is only a five foot wide sidewalk that is right up against the curb. The applicant requested a waiver from the requirement to upgrade the sidewalk but Staff is recommending denial of this component of the waiver because they believe that a sidewalk that meets City street standards in this area would be a safer way of having a sidewalk and it would be more appropriate to the residential use. While the rest of the sidewalk is right up against the curb, they would hope to see this redeveloped over time to meet the City streets standards. To summarize the waivers, Staff recommends denial of the bicycle parking waiver and partial approval of the pathway waiver to release the applicant from the requirement to provide sidewalk along Conwell Street. Ms. Edwards questioned if the Board of Adjustment does not grant the waiver for the impervious area, how does that affect the decisions that the Planning Commission has to make this evening? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Tolbert stated that the motion should reflect what your desires are regarding this application. Mr. Strickland stated that this project stems from Mr. Stephen Lumor who is a former professor at Delaware State University. Mr. Lumor is out of town so he is here on his behalf. Mr. Lumor has since retired from teaching and was purchasing this parcel because he saw the need to provide student housing in the area near the university. Mr. Lumor’s desire is to provide affordable off-campus housing for these students. He chose this parcel because of the location and the proximity to the university as well as the proximity to the Route 13 corridor for 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 shopping, restaurants and opportunities that it would offer for any of the residents of the building. The building itself is typical of the area in that it would be a residential structure similar to all of the parcels along College Road there. Across the street from College Road on the south side of College Road, there is a university owned apartment complex and then to the north of our parcel there is also an additional apartment complex and down the road there are the Delaware State University dorms less than a half of a mile away. It’s pretty typical to the area where it’s going to be providing the student housing in an apartment style format but it will have that residential character from the street and will look like a townhouse. To provide some clarification, the building will be classified as a multiplex through the Planning Commission but for the Fire Codes it will be treated as an apartment building. All of the other comments that Mr. Diaz mentioned, they completely agree with and they will be addressing those comments except for the two waiver requests and the variance; they are going to seek approval for those. The first waiver request is for the placement of the bike rack. They are looking to remove that requirement. The primary reason of why we are going to request the removal of that requirement is if you look at the picture of the view of College Road from this parcel and most of College Road has a decent shoulder where you would be able to get a bike down the road. But right in front of their parcel that shoulder goes away. One reason is that they didn’t think that it would be a good idea to encourage bicycle traffic down that corridor where it’s unsafe. If they are to provide the requirement, they expect that the people who would be cycling to the building would be the tenants. They would be able to store the bicycles either inside or more likely, there is a long covered porch there also. They have talked to the owner and he is willing to install some type of locking device along that porch area where it would be covered and would be out of the way of the parking area and they would have a safe place to store their bikes there as well. Personally from his experience with living near a campus, it was never a good idea to leave my bike outside anyway. He had multiple bikes stolen in college while they were locked up and that’s his own personal experience. He thinks that it would be safer to store a bike inside and if he lived there he would do that. The other issue is that the Code mandates one bicycle parking space. There are three buildings there. If they are actually going to go that route, he thinks that each one would need its own bike rack. Having one bike rack there is not really going to help three buildings. They either need to go one way or the other if they are going to go with that route. They feel that the best solution would be to provide some kind of way to lock it up attached to the building instead of providing a bike rack outside on the site. The other waiver request that they are looking for is to remove the requirement to place sidewalk along Conwell Street. They are not going to seek to get a waiver along College Road. They are going to improve that sidewalk there, provide the off-set and bring everything up to ADA requirements. It’s going to come in about four or five feet off of the roadway to meet the City’s requirements. Along Conwell Street, you can see from the pictures how unimproved Conwell Street is and for some of the reasons mentioned by Mr. Diaz, it just doesn’t make sense to put sidewalk there. There is nowhere that it is really leading to so it wouldn’t really be interconnected at all, it would just be heading to the edge of Conwell Street. If that road was ever improved, they would have to demolish the sidewalk and re-construct it so it seems like we are kind of fighting an uphill battle there. Also, the ownership of Conwell Street is still 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 unknown to his knowledge. He has gone back and forth from hearing whether it’s City owned or State owned and nobody seems to know with complete certainty. They would be hesitant to build anything in that right-of-way not knowing who owns it. It doesn’t really make sense in their eyes to place a sidewalk along Conwell Street. They will be seeking a variance to get additional impervious coverage on the site. They had the site designed to be under 35% impervious which is the requirement and they have adjusted the site to meet some of the comments that Mr. Diaz mentioned for some fire lane access requirements and some of DelDOT’s entrance requirements. Because of those revisions, they are a little bit over the 35% coverage so they are going to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment for that item. Mr. Roach questioned if Staff knew who owns Conwell Street? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Diaz stated that they do not know who owns Conwell Street. They believe that the City does not own it but they also have no word that DelDOT does own it. They also do know that it is right-of-way of some sort and that it is not private property. The specific public entity that owns it is not known at this point. Ms. Maucher questioned if the sidewalk along College Road as you go west has that five foot buffer further up? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Strickland stated that for their site, it’s going to take it four to five feet in. All along College Road it is right along the curb there; nowhere does it provide that off-set. They were initially looking to see if they could just wave that so it would be continuous but they are going to adhere to that Code requirement and bring that sidewalk five feet in towards their site to provide a five foot grass strip behind the back of the curb and the sidewalk that will be located on their site. Ms. Maucher questioned if they intend any kind of visual buffer along Conwell Street? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Strickland stated that there will be a couple of large trees towards the rear of the building that are existing trees that will provide a little bit of a landscaping buffer but other than that because it’s not a frontage street, there is no requirement to provide the landscaping along there. It’s something that they could consider if it was required though. Mr. Holt questioned if they were planning to install sprinklers or if not, what other fire protection device would they be using? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Strickland stated that they have had a couple of meetings with the Fire Marshal and they have decided that the building will be sprinklered and they have widened the entrance as well as the drive aisle to enhance Fire Marshal access to it and providing fire access to the rear of the building as well. Mr. Roach stated that he knows that Mr. Strickland spoke earlier in regards to the patio as far as having a locking mechanism. Is that in stone or are you waiting for the result of this evening’s waiver request? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Strickland stated that it was kind of waiting on the result of this to see what way they need to go with it but the owner is willing to do what it takes to make this work in terms of the bicycle parking. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Mr. Tolbert stated that the applicant has some concerns about the pathway and the bicycle requirements. Are you willing to work with Staff on those issues? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Strickland stated yes. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Wyatt Waters – 281 College Road Dover DE 19904 Mr. Waters stated that he has been a resident of College Road for a number of years and this particular parcel has been vacant for a number of years. He thinks that this would be a good fit if they get all of the bugs worked out. He would welcome this multiplex for the college students. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Roach stated that if they do require a sidewalk to be along the frontage of Conwell Street and they find out that it’s owned by somebody else and they don’t want it there. He is just trying to understand how they can require somebody to put something there if we don’t even know who owns the street? Could that become an issue when we do find out who owns it? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Diaz stated that if the Commission did not grant the waiver request for the sidewalk tonight then the word would be that if it’s City owned they would be required to put it in. If it was owned by DelDOT instead, if they told us that they did not want it then at that point that would supersede the City requirement. Mr. Lyon stated that he would like to provide a little more background on Conwell Street. Mr. Hugg did mention that at the Council Meeting in October there was more discussion about it. Historically speaking, this area was originally laid out in 1899; well before it was in City limits. As the City grew, it started grabbing up these parcels around Conwell Street but the formal dedication of those annexations did not include any of the right-of-way. Conwell Street actually has four properties that front it; two of which have never been annexed into the City and two that are. In 1899, DelDOT was known as State Highway Administration. That is where the confusion lies. There are two properties that are County owned and two that are owned in the City. When the annexation happened, it did not incorporate the road. The road is not to City standards of course. Mr. Holden moved to approve S-17-28 Multiplex at 299 College Road, including the elimination of the bicycle parking requirement and the relaxation of pathway relocation requirements specifically along Conwell Street because we are unsure of ownership. He takes the applicant’s statement that they are going to work with Planning to amend the sidewalk along College Road and include that as part of their requirement, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; he believes that additional student housing in that area would be a good fit and it looks like a nice Site Plan. Mr. Roach voting yes; he knows for a fact that additional housing for Delaware State University is welcomed. Also, due to community support for that road and upgrades for that 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 area and also for their willingness to fix the College Road area and because they don’t know who owns Conwell Street. He has had a bike stolen before too so he definitely feels as though the bike parking needs to be inside the building. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that it’s a good fit for the area and the college can certainly use the extra space for residents in the area. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for all reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; she is confident that the owner will work cooperatively with Planning Staff to make sure that all of the requirements and concerns have been addressed appropriately. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks that the housing units will be a welcomed addition in that vacant area. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; he agrees with the statements that have been made so far regarding this application. He is also impressed with the applicant’s willingness to work cooperatively and collaboratively with Staff. 3) S-17-29 Delaware State University Residence Hall at 1200 N. DuPont Highway: Master Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Master Plan to permit phased construction of a new 190,000 S.F. five-story Student Residence Hall. The project phases consist of the following: Phase 1- Relocation of Utilities, Phase 2 - Construction of Residence Hall (600 Beds) and Demolition of Laws Hall, and Phase 3 - Demolition of Tubman Hall. The subject project area consists of 209,088 +/- S.F. (4.80 +/- acres) internal to the Delaware State University Campus of 287.32 +/- acres. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) – Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area. The campus is location west of North DuPont Highway and north of College Road. The owner of record is State of Delaware c/o Delaware State University. Property Address: 1200 North DuPont Highway. Tax Parcels: ED-05-057.00-01-19.00-000, ED-05-057.00-01-20.00-000, and ED-05-057.00-01-21.00- 000. Council District 4. Representatives: Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. J.D. Bartlett, Delaware State University Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Site Development Master Plan application for Delaware State University; it’s a Residence Hall. The Master Plan itself focuses on a specific area that is internal to the university campus. It’s a project area of about 4.8 acres. The image on the screen shows the U-shaped form of the new Residence Hall building that also includes a dining facility. It’s located to the north of College Road. This building project area is just to the north of Warren Franklin Hall. In part of the phases of development, two of the existing dormitories in this area, Laws Hall and Tubman Hall will be demolished as part of the project activities. With a Site Development Master Plan, the overall concept comes to the Planning Commission and then each phase of development is then subject to an Administrative Site Plan review process with Staff and the regulatory agencies. Tonight, we are looking at a proposal that will ultimately be a building of 190,000 SF on the campus. It’s intended to be a five-story building that would have 600 residential beds. Specifically for this project, it is considered to be a three- phase project. The first phase is relocation of utilities within the project area. That’s number of 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 water, sewer, stormwater, gas lines, etc. that need to be relocated in order to have a clean spot for the building. Phase 2 is actually the construction of the Residence Hall and towards the end of that would include the demolition of Laws Hall which is kind of in the center of the U-shape. Phase 3 would be the demolition of the adjacent Harriet Tubman Hall which is located to the left-hand side of the building. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and obviously a university is a permitted use there. Residence Halls and dining facilities are types of expected buildings on a university campus. The university campus is also subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) which sets limitations on the amount of lot coverage and impervious surface coverage for the property. With this project as it will be increasing that level of imperviousness on the campus, they will be looking to make use of infiltration practices for stormwater management in order to construct this building. They will be working with DNREC because this is a State owned property for their stormwater management plan review and approvals. Moving on to the expected things that they normally have with Site Plans. First, is a look at the building. It is a five-story building, basically masonry construction. There is a little bit more glass on the first floor and then a series of windows that you see for the upper floors. Some of the detailing of the building shows other cast pieces at the tops of windows and then the fifth floor is a change in material to more of a panel system rather than the brick masonry of the items below. There is a parking lot of thirty-one spaces that will be displaced by the construction of this building. Parking on the university campus is a little confusing and unique perhaps. Back in 2009, the Board of Adjustment had the authority to set what would be the required number of parking spaces for the university campus and then did so by setting the required number of parking spaces at 1,650 spaces. The university campus has well over 2,000 parking spaces existing on the campus. With this new Residence Hall, dormitories have a parking requirement that’s based on a number of beds. With this building, they are required to provide two hundred parking spaces. Given what their required parking that was established by the Board of Adjustment and what they call excess parking that is available on the campus, they will be in compliance without having to build any additional parking spaces as part of this project. Related to loading spaces, they were required to justify the loading space needs of this building and they provided that in written format that is part of the packet. Planning Staff concurs that the building can be easily served by the two designated loading spaces that are kind of in the service area location of the dining facility and then the university also has a kind of centralized receiving and processing facility to handle all of their buildings as well. Also related to parking are bicycle parking requirements. Based on the parking needs specific to this building, the facility is required to provide ten bicycle parking spaces. Planning Staff has recommended that they not put them all in one place but that they scatter them near the various entrances to this building because of the various fronts that it presents to the remaining portions of the campus. There are new changes to the access points to the university campus. The main entrance off of DuPont Highway remains and the series of entrance points from College Road also remain with no changes with this project. There is a waiver request to be considered this evening related to pathways or sidewalks requirements for the university. There is a segment of College Road that 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 is to the east of this western most entrance of the university that does not currently have the street frontage sidewalk that is required by our Code. They have submitted a request to consider for elimination of the sidewalk in that area. Planning Staff is recommending that the waiver be granted finding that there is physical characteristics of the frontage in that specific area related to drainage swales, existing trees, and grades in general that would make it very difficult to implement sidewalks in that area. It is also not likely to be traveled over by pedestrians. If you are coming east along College Road, the westernmost entrance to the university clearly makes the opportunity to come into the campus and then you can circulate on the interior rather than out along the public street frontage of College Road. The tree planting requirements will be a project that makes use of the ability to identify a development area for the purpose of tree planting calculations. That is a new provision of our Code. With the 4.8 acres, there is the requirement for seventy trees. They have shown tree plantings in concept. That will be something that will be detailed out further during the Administrative Site Plan review process. They are reserving an area for dumpsters but they do have a centralized trash management for the campus overall. For the Commission’s consideration tonight, was the demonstration of their loading space needs and the one waiver for consideration of the partial elimination of sidewalk pathway along the remaining segment of College Road. The DAC Report also includes the comments from the various other agencies, including the City’s Public Works Office, the Fire Marshal’s Office, DelDOT and DNREC. Mr. Moore stated that they are actually tearing down two older dorms and building one new larger one back. The long-term plan is actually to bring students that are not on campus; there are some students that are in hotels and some who are in the former Sheraton Building. It’s the plan to bring those students back so that they are on the campus and it becomes a better walking campus. You can see that they have a lot of walking trails around the building. The overall strategy of Delaware State University is to emphasize an internal walking campus and try to eliminate some of the cars which is why they are building this building. The other reason for the larger building at six hundred units is that there are other dormitories on the campus that need to be renovated and they will need to be shut down. They are actually going to have some moving around to do because one of the current dorms is going to be torn down while they are building this one and that’s going to take some dorm rooms out of use. In the future, they want to eliminate the need to eliminate dorms and actually be able to renovate them by moving students to this dorm to better renovate some of the older dorms on campus. They have no problems with the DAC Report. Their only request is the sidewalk waiver in the back. Mrs. Melson-Williams was correct in saying that there is a swale there that’s steep. There is an embankment on one side of the swale and that area has a very mature growth of pines that surround the President’s House. Delaware State University would like to keep that as is. They don’t think that they can actually meet ADA requirements in that area with a sidewalk. In addition to that, there is a sidewalk down College Road that surrounds and then comes back into the College at the point where the University Villages area is and that gives the students the ability to walk back into the campus internally. They are trying to de-emphasize the back entrance off of College Road because that is becoming more of a service entrance and that is the 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 long term use that Delaware State University would like to see for it. Ms. Maucher questioned why it is one singly connected building? If you are in this building and need to get to get to another side of the campus can you go through or do you have to go around the building? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Moore stated that there is actually a through walk on the area on the right-hand side of the graphic. You can walk through the building and it’s open so you are not walking into the building to get through. That allows you to get back to the rest of the campus. There are also a number of areas on the first floor that aren’t dorms. Some of them are administrative people who are going to be in this building to help service this building and others. The cafeteria is actually connected to the building and it’s at the end on the back side. At one point during their planning stages, they had two buildings and it was brought in to be one building. All of that allows the external use of the sidewalks for kids to walk to and use this building from other dorms. Mr. Holden questioned if the swale along College Road is that one stormwater feature that couldn’t be piped to resolve the conflict of putting a sidewalk along there? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Moore stated that he wouldn’t say that is couldn’t be but it would be a pretty big engineering project to pipe it. He is not sure that the grades would actually work. There was a stormwater plan that was done years ago that has remained and that swale was part of it. He would think that it would be a struggle to change that now. They are actually infiltrating all of their stormwater here because the new regulations of the Excellent Recharge Area so they have significant underground facilities to recharge. Mr. Holden stated that sidewalks are certainly of use to site developments that are occurring. They are also a great use to pedestrians that live or surround the area. Does the college look to route public through the internal of the site or does the college take the stance that there aren’t any public that utilize College Road? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Moore stated that it’s a little bit of both. The public could actually walk through the campus and get around if they wanted to. But there is not a lot of in that section because the grade is not an area where people walk. Most of the students are walking out towards Route 13 to cross the highway and not walking in the back. There is a walkway from the back entrance that allows you to get to the other facilities. In fact, the building that you saw tonight, there is a sidewalk from that entrance so that kids could get back there if they wanted to and Delaware State does own an apartment complex back there. This is that middle ground that no one is really using. It’s also on a curve and there are some safety issues on a curve so it’s not a great spot to be along the edge of the road. Mr. Holden stated that he recognizes the college’s view on placing the sidewalk there and he recognizes that it’s a challenging curve. He would encourage the college to look for an alternative here in the future to allow for pedestrians to travel on College Road. He travels that road a lot and sees mostly students and some parents that walk their kids to North Dover Elementary. He is not sure where they come from but they are walking along this path so he would certainly support them to seek a solution to provide pedestrian access along there but there are some complications and he does understand that. Mr. Tolbert stated that it was said that this facility would eliminate the use of the old Sheraton 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Hotel. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Moore stated that he didn’t say eliminate, he said trying to bring as many students back to the campus. The point that he was trying to make that he didn’t make was, that this is not about a major expansion of Delaware State University. This is about accommodating the students who are already there; many of which aren’t on the campus so they are trying to bring as many of them back to the campus as possible. At some point in time when the other dorms that have been on the campus for a while, need to be upgraded then there is some opportunity to perhaps bring all of those students back. That won’t be happening in the near future because there is a lot of work to do on a number of other dormitories. For their students at other hotels that are not in the Sheraton Hotel (Building) that are actually leasing hotel rooms, they plan to stop that so that those students are accommodated with housing from Delaware State University. Dr. Jones questioned if Mr. Moore could talk just a little bit about the dining facility in this complex? For example, what is the capacity? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Moore stated that the dining facility is actually shown at the top of the page at the very end of the building. It’s used for the entire campus so students in the building will actually use it but other students will be using it as well. They are not trying to be the only facility. They are trying to diversify what product Delaware State University is offering so there is a little bit of variation at different locations because many of the competitors to Delaware State University are doing this and Delaware State University is trying to up its game to provide as good of a food service as it can. The exact number they don’t have yet. They are actually working with that on a vendor from Delaware State University as to exactly how many students are going to be there and that is a cost driven thing. This program is actually budget driven and there is a developer who is actually putting the building up so they are finalizing the details of exactly how many seats. A lot of it is to improve the food offerings at the university. Mr. Bartlett stated that related to the dining facility, they are in the process of going through an exercise to engage the students, interview the students and survey the students to determine what the student’s desires are with dining options. The goal here is to supplement existing on campus dining options. They do have a dining facility that is nearby but the goal here is to provide alternative dining solutions. There have been discussions about retail style dining as opposed to the all you can eat style that they currently have on campus. The intent is to target around two hundred seats but again, that is going to depend upon all of the research that is done and interviews of students to really evaluate what the desires are on campus. Ultimately, they are there to serve the customer and the student. Mr. Roach stated that in regards to the residents of this actual facility, who will it be open? He knows that a lot of times with dormitories, they have certain requirements as far as incoming freshmen can’t live in certain dormitories. Will there be these types of restrictions for this dormitory or will it open as a first come first serve or for just out of state students? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Bartlett stated that they are currently researching what the intent is going to be and he thinks that the goal is to make sure that they are hitting the students that are forced off campus or to other universities. The goal is for Delaware State University to be most competitive and be able to accommodate all of the students that are interested in living on campus without turning some of them away. They are trying to determine what that demographic looks like so they can hit the right class that ends up getting forced off campus. Often times now, it ends up 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 being their sophomore class because freshmen are required to live on campus and then the juniors they have obviously been in a place already with some of the apartment complexes that they have. The sophomore year ends up being their biggest weakness in providing housing. They are very much in the process of evaluating what is going to be best based on what the students’ thoughts are. That’s big on this project, is them engaging the students. Mr. Roach stated that he knows that Laws Hall and Tubman Hall is going to be torn down. Are there going to be any type of wings designated in memory of those various entities on the campus? Will anything be displayed in the halls to commenerate to former dorm rooms that were there for people who may want to come back and see at some point in time. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Bartlett stated that are two pieces to this that he wants to hit on. Obviously, Harriet Tubman has a very big significance for their national history and that is very much important to them. Also, just as much important is Lydia Laws who was way ahead of her time when she was on campus as a professor and administrator. They very much have the intent to have them tied into the building. Their institutional advancement group is in the process of trying to evaluate the naming of the building and what steps they are going to take to make that happen. Obviously, the alumni, current students, faculty, staff and administration are going to work together to identify how the building should be named. But the goal is to really bring Lydia Laws and Harriet Tubman justice with the new facility. The other piece of this is that there are a lot of individuals that spend a lot of time in their college years in these buildings so he has challenged the design team to try to implement any materials that they can pull from the buildings during demolition so that they are tied into the construction and to mimic some of the experience whether it be a lobby, an entrance or those sort of things into the new building. They have been given that directive to make sure that it’s an emphasis. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Holden questioned if Staff could describe the waiver requests for demonstrational loading space? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the loading space needs for a building that exceeds 150,000 SF is not specifically outlined in the Code. It says that it should be sufficient for the use and function of the building. They asked that they demonstrate that in writing to us and Staff accepted their written description as to how loading actually occurs by two new loading spaces specifically for this building and then also the function of loading for the centralized receiving that occurs with the campus in general. Mr. Holden moved to approve S-17-29 Delaware State University Residence Hall at 1200 N DuPont Highway: Master Plan as presented, to include the waiver request for the partial elimination of sidewalk along the segment of College Road, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to compliance with Code and due to the fact that the university has been a great partner in the City of Dover and he looks forward to their expansion. Mr. Roach voting yes; he thinks that bringing the students back on campus is well needed. He also loves the way the building looks aesthetically. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she thinks that it’s very important to bring these students who are off campus, particularly in hotels, back onto the campus. She thinks that is very important and she really like the fact that they are maintaining the integrity and the history of the Lydia Laws and Harriet 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Tubman buildings to bring that history into the new structure. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that it’s going to be a real asset to the college and to bring students to the college campus. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for all of the reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for all of the reasons mentioned. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for all reasons previously stated and she would like to add that she is always impressed at what a professional job Becker Morgan Group does as far as presentation for their projects. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons previously mentioned. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; for all of the reasons previously stated and we can’t overlook the fact that a well-endowed university in this town is an asset to this town for many reasons that he can’t begin to state them all. 4) MI-17-03 Text Amendments: Adult Day Care Facilities – Public Hearing and Review for recommendation to City Council on a series of Text Amendments to the Appendix B: Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, and Article 12 - Definitions. The proposed Ordinance establishes provisions for Adult Day Care facilities allowing them to be permitted in any zoning district provided that state licensing and city code requirements have been met. Other amendments update references and definitions to make the distinction between Child Day Care facilities and Adult Day Care facilities. Ordinance #2017-13.  A copy of the Proposed Ordinance #2017-13 is available on the City’s website www.cityofdover.com under the Government Heading: Ordinances, Resolutions & Tributes. https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions  The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee reviewed the proposed Text Amendments on September 25, 2017 and the First Reading before City Council occurred on October 9, 2017. The Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is set for November 20, 2017 and Public Hearing and Final Reading before City Council is on December 11, 2017. Representatives: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a proposal for a series of text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Just a reminder, the Planning Commission in this case is a recommending body. This will actually have to move on to City Council for their own public hearing and adoption of the Ordinance. This began with an inquiry related to if they allowed adult day care facilities. Staff found that basically the Zoning Ordinance is silent on that type of use. The provisions for child day care facilities are pretty much established in the Code but they are very specific to children in how they are defined. With this set of ordinance provisions, they are establishing provisions for adult day care facilities basically allowing them to be permitted in any zoning district. There are actually some State Regulations related to adult day care facilities. The key provisions of the Code are first to clearly make the distinction between “child” day care facilities and “adult” day care facilities so there are some changes in Article 3 and then in Article 5 Section 14 to make those very clearly related to children. With this Ordinance, there is a proposed new section and that would be Article 5 Section 22 which discusses the adult day care facilities and it defines them. There is the ability to have a small adult day care or a large adult day care. Again, that is predicated on the number of adult participants being served. It outlines the type of review processes for establishing such facilities. There are provisions included related to parking and signage as well as the licensing procedures that would be required. In Article 12, they go in and 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 make sure that they are picking up those specific definitions. The other agencies really had no objection to the proposed text amendments. Just for clarity purposes, in our residential districts, child care facilities are basically allowed. The process is actually defined related to the number of children being served. They have added adult day care facilities as something that would require conditional use approvals in the residential zones but in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone), adult day care facilities would be a permitted use. As mentioned, in Article 5 Section 14 they make the distinction for child care facilities. The other minor change that we have done is for family day care homes and large family day care homes serving children. They have added the provisions that in addition to the full-time care number of children you have, they are allowing the maximum of three additional children for after-school care type facilities. A family day care home is one that serves six or fewer children with the additional allowance of three under after-school care. That brings it in line with some of the provisions that the State Child Care Licensing has for those types of facilities. The main jist of this is the addition of Article 5 Section 22 which is the adult day care facilities where it goes through the definitions. Adult day care facilities are “programs that provide health, social and related support services for four or more functionally impaired adults who require supervision due to cognitive or physical impairment and who cannot independently perform one or more activities of daily living.” These services are intended to be provided to adults for a period of less than twelve hours a day and are provided in a setting other than the participant’s home or the residence of the facility operator. An adult day care facility is very distinctive from an assisted living or nursing home. It’s not a full time residential component. Dividing it into small and large facilities, a small facility is anywhere from four participants up to sixteen. It becomes a large adult day care facility for places that are serving more than sixteen adult participants. The review process is also established. They clearly understand that there may be existing facilities that already are servicing adult participants in some way so if it meets the definition that they are proposing for the Code, then in that instance it would be permitted as an accessory use. In the residential zones, a Conditional Use Site Plan will be required to establish an adult day care facility. In the non-residential zones, if it is the small adult day care facility then it will be a Site Development Plan process. Most of those likely if it’s an existing building, will be able to be reviewed administratively for compliance. If someone is wishing to do the large adult day care facility is a non-residential zone then it is a Conditional Use Site Plan that will be subject to the Planning Commission’s public hearing process. Parking is based on the number of adult attendants and participants to establish that; very similar to what day care facilities have. The definitions section is updated with those provisions as well. Mr. Holt questioned if there were any adult day cares in operation in Dover now? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they believe that there probably is some programming offered at the Modern Maturity Center that would equate to this adult day care facility provision. They have a day break program so there may be something similar to that in some of the other nursing facilities as well. They clearly thought that there probably was something of a similar nature at the Modern Maturity Center. There may also be something of similar nature related to the services that Easter Seals provides at their location in town as well. 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Ms. Maucher questioned if “adult” and “child” were defined elsewhere in the Code? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she does not believe so. She doesn’t believe that there is any distinction between child and adult. In that case, if it is not defined then you go to the common dictionary which would probably lead you to believe that ages eighteen and up would be an adult situation. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt questioned if there have been any requests recently for an adult day care in the City? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they did receive an inquiry back in the summer regarding the ability to utilize an existing building for such a facility which then triggered us to really start to look at our Code and find that there really wasn’t anything that could address that type of facility. They went to the research mode; hence, the Ordinance that is before you tonight. Mr. Roach questioned if it would be smart of them to try to specify the idea of “adult” versus “child” care now or do we just wait until someone submits an application? It seems like if we wait and we don’t specify that parameter in regards to an adult day care facility and a child day care facility then we leave ourselves open for opportunities for wiggle room. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Hugg stated that without knowing exactly what the regulations specify, both child day cares and adult day cares are regulated by the State and in each case, you have to meet the State licensing requirement. If we were to address that question, he thinks that we would probably default to whatever the State requirement is. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-17-03 Text Amendments: Adult Day Care Facilities, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; it seems to be a common sense way to clear up a lack of clarity currently. Mr. Roach voting yes; he appreciates the Planning Staff for their initiative and proactiveness in regards to this situation to take care of it before the Commission had to sit here confused. Ms. Edwards voting yes; it seems like it is a necessity unfortunately in the community. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that it’s going to be needed in the very near future with the way that the City is growing. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes; it’s a great option for family members who are taking care of others who may need care during the day. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; updated regulations regarding the facilities is certainly needed. Meeting adjourned at 8:29 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 17