PC Minutes 1-22-19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert. Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Jason Lyon, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Eddie Diaz and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Edwards moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2018 Mr. Holt moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of December 17, 2018, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Swierczek provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on January 14 & 15, 2019. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the packet is the Institute for Public Administration Training Series that occurs monthly. There was no one that attend the one that was held last Friday but there is upcoming training sessions available in February and in March. If a Commissioner is interested in attending one of those sessions please see Planning Staff and they will get you registered. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that a Summary of Applications is also in the packet. The chart for 2018 has been completed. Last year amongst our Boards and Commissions which also includes the Board of Adjustment and the Historic District Commission, there were a total of 54 applications that were heard by those bodies or qualified for an Administrative Plan Review process. You can see that the number is slightly lower than the rates in 2017 and 2016 but she can tell you that our permit activity for 2018 does still indicate a high level of construction both in the residential and commercial areas of the City. This is something that is typically handed out in a Quarterly Workshop but since we haven’t had one in a while, we felt it best to forward that to the Commission tonight. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Commission is deficient one member with the relocation of Mr. Holden to outside of City limits. City Council will be moving forward hopefully in a timely 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 manner to appoint someone to his vacated seat. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS 1) MI-19-01 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Pattern Book (Senior Living Residential & Townhome Option) - Public Hearing and Review of Amendments to Revise the Pattern Book (Comprehensive Design Standards Manual) for the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Amendment presented as Pattern Book pages focus on information for a Senior Living Residential & Townhome Options. The Residential District consists multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street and Wemyss Road and southeast of the intersection of West North Street and Saulsbury Road/POW-MIA Parkway. The owner of record for the unbuilt area of the Residential District is Eden Hill Residential, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. The current Implementation Plan SB- 06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Implementation Plan was granted conditional approval on June 19, 2006 by the Planning Commission and there have been other subsequent approvals related to lot layout and Pattern Book revisions. Related Applications: SB-07-01, MI-08-03, MI-08-20, MI-09-03, MI-09-13, MI-10-04, MI-10-14, and MI-10-20. A Revised Implementation Plan S-15-07 (with S-15-10) for the Residential District was reviewed in 2015 but has not achieved plan approval. Representatives: Mr. Jonathon Street, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Bill Russell; Wye Realty Advisors; Ms. Katie Burke, Ryan Homes Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is a proposal for a revision to Pattern Book for the Eden Hill Farm TND Residential District. On the screen just for reference is the existing plan for the Residential District. The highlighted colors indicate units that have already been constructed. The project tonight does focus on the Residential District which is the area located south of Wemyss Road and to the east of the POW/MIA Parkway. Those two intersections would be the upper left most corner of the screen. Tonight the applicant is seeking two topic area amendments to their Pattern Book. The first would be to establish standards for a Senior Living Residential Village area to consist of one-story single family detached units including front loaded garages. The second Pattern Book amendment is focused on the Townhouse options for the community and looking at architectural styles and lot format. She wants to introduce the public and remind the Planning Commissioners of the process for a TND. TND stands for Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone. It is a zoning classification. In 2005, this area known as Eden Hill Farm went through the process to rezone the land to become 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 a TND. That process does include an initial Pattern Book submission and plans. Subsequent to rezoning, the process then involves what are called Implementation Plans for each of the districts. Specifically, this is the Residential District. There is also a Neighborhood Commercial District and a Professional Office District as well. Our focus tonight is the Residential District. The Residential District’s initial Implementation Plan was reviewed in 2006. In the time frame between 2006 and 2011, there were a number of amendments to the Plan to revise various lot types and where they would be constructed. There are a series of Addendums to the Pattern Book which are currently on record. There was recently a second Implementation Plan focused on the Residential District and that was in 2015 that proposed a change in the development plan to focus on apartment units. That project did receive approval from the Planning Commission but the Plan and its associated Pattern Book were never formerly finalized. Tonight, the Residential District is technically approved for a total of 665 dwelling units, of which 83 units have been constructed. Majority of them are townhouse units; both two story and three story with about four duplex units. Tonight, we are really focused on the request for amendments. The first is for the Senior Residential Village. They are proposing lots in that area to be a width of 76 feet and a depth of 110 feet, keeping with the blocks that have already been established. The Pattern Book Addendum that they have submitted also shows the setbacks on individual lots as well as information about placement for garages which would be a front loaded configuration for this type of unit. They have also identified some architectural characteristics for these units and depicted those in a series of model views in the Pattern Book that they submitted. The second amendment topic area is Townhouse Options and looking at additional styles for the townhouse units. The Pattern Book Amendment is proposing a 20 feet wide townhouse lot. There needs to be some clarification as to whether or not they are front loaded or rear loaded. It appears that their intention is to be rear loaded but there are some discrepancies in the text of the document that hopefully the applicant will clarify this evening. Likewise, this establishes setbacks and provides a series of variations for architecture of these townhouse units. The townhouse width of 20 feet does already exist in the Pattern Book that has been approved previously. To focus on the review comments that are part of the DAC Report, the Planning Office review comments begin on Page 6 of 12 and then they also received basic comments from the City’s Electric Department and Public Works Department regarding utility planning should applications move forward in the future and then also information from the Fire Marshal’s Office. The key thing is that, there are some provisions that if a townhouse does not have an alley that there is some additional process that would have to be taken care of and reviewed. She believes that they are not focusing on having any townhouse lots that would not have an alley. She wants to highlight some of the Planning Staff comments. The Comprehensive Design Standards Manual which is also known as the Pattern Book is where the details about how you build in the TND District are presented. As mentioned before, there has already been a series of five Addendums over time that have made changes to the document; however, there is not one single document to go to and find all of that information. Any adoption or approvals that are granted tonight, we note that they must be submitted and amended to the Pattern Book. We do note that for townhouse units, if they are proposing any that do not have rear alley access that would not comply with our other provisions related to emergency rear access requirements and would have to be addressed separately. We do note that there needs to be some consideration given to the placement of driveways when you talk about front loaded access to lots and that 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 involves potential difficulties with on-street parking and separation from intersections and from fire hydrants. On Page 8 the Planning Staff did go through the Pattern Book submission document and has noted a number of things that need to be corrected or clarified. Some of it is as simple as labeling. In other cases, it is information that should be added to clarify intent. Specifically, with the Senior Living Village, Staff is suggesting that there should be more landscaping requirements and parking requirements in that District area and any provisions or conditions for how front loaded garages would be established in that particular unit type. Again with the townhouses, they are asking for clarification about alleys versus no alleys and then some clarification about other architectural elements related to townhouses; particularly, the side elevations. She does want to draw the Planning Commission’s attention to Page 9 which is the Recommendations that are suggested as conditions of approval to meet Code objectives. The Planning Commission can act on these as part of the application process. The first one regarding alley access, Staff is recommending that all lots that have access to an alley be required to take access from that alley. If there are townhouse units without alleys, Staff does not support that format for that lot type for various reasons. If there are areas where there are not accessible alleys then there are other unit types that can be developed. Item 3 under Recommendations focuses on garage placement and Staff is noting that special care should be taken to avoid the garage dominating the street. If Planning Commission wishes to approve the front loaded garages, they have suggested that some additional design features be included as a requirement for making use of that format. If you want to even increase compliance, Planning Staff has identified Item 3D which would include putting more of the massing of the building rather than the garage closer to the street. In what is labeled Recommendation #9, it should be Recommendation #4 is the focus items for the Senior Living Village. These are a series of recommendations that just make it a better product overall and likewise Recommendation #10 which should be Recommendation #5 focuses on townhouse units. They are noting that there are a variety of widths that can be utilized but we also encourage varying the number of townhouse units grouped together. Recommendation #11 which is technically Recommendation #6 is just a re-emphasis of key components of the development of residential units across the board in the TND. Again, noting issues with whether the lot has an alley, variation in grouping and use of items such as porches and other elements on corner lots as a feature. The last Recommendation is listed as Item #12 but should be Item #7 which is that Planning Staff is recommending the requirement for the applicant to develop a final version of the Pattern Book, meaning one book so they do not have to go through the original book plus the five Addendums to make sure that something is being built to the standards of the TND. It is noted that each of the other districts in the Eden Hill Farm TND project area do have a final Pattern Book specific to their district area. The Commissioners should act on amendments to the Pattern Book in the same fashion as you do adopting the original and any motion should reflect your stance on the elements of the DAC Report including any recommendations that you chose to support or not support. Mr. Street stated that he is representing the equitable owner and developer. They are here tonight to hear about a Revised Implementation Plan for the Active Adult Senior Living and Townhouse Option for Eden Hill. Note: He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the proposal. The cover sheet from the original Pattern Book that was conceived back in the spring of 2005 states “The 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 Pattern Book provides the pictures of general character of the project and its components. It not meant to be a binding document to detail. Much of the detail and character demonstrated with the use of photographic images in the City of Dover for the Eden Hill Project. The Pattern Book is not meant to be specific limitations to the developer in this phase.” It also goes on to state that “changes in details, materials and in some cases architectural facades will be necessary to meet market demand and the availability of materials.” He brings this up because what has happened between the spring of 2005 and now is that in 2007 and 2008 we had one of the worst market crashes in generations. this is clear evidence of changes in the market which is why they are here today. They are trying to restart this project and what you see before you in the submission and in the photos in the PowerPoint are what the developer and equitable owner are presenting as how they would like to make the change from single family living to active adult. He is not going to go through all of Staff’s comments that Mrs. Melson-Williams has already gone through. One of the issues is a predominant front loaded garage. The current Pattern Book itself gives an example of a front loaded garage in the existing Pattern Book. What they have done for the Active Adult Community because of how the Active Adult Community and architecturals present themselves is that they have adjusted that front loaded garage stance to a predominantly front loaded garage. The garage for an Active Adult Community is usually located in the front of the house. The house itself is attached and is usually recessed in the back. When they open up this option, the characteristics of an Active Adult lot are listed as single story living, predominantly front loaded garages, variations in the roof lines, brick or stone accents, contrasting trim at the eave line and varied siding style and color. He knows that Staff has recognized that it obviously doesn’t incorporate landscaping, mailboxes and all kinds of stuff that is listed in the original Pattern Book and they would add that any landscaping that was needed would follow the original Pattern Book itself. What they are trying to setup for are the products. He has a ton of slides that he can go through and submit for the record as examples of what they are trying to do, of the product that they are trying to put out there. They have four different styles with varying roof lines and varying colors, trim patterns and stone and brick on the front. They are not proposing front access townhomes; all of the townhomes have alley access and they are continuing to keep them rear loaded itself. The only exception is some of the duplex lots that they have. The developer is proposing to build two end unit duplex townhomes that would be front loaded because the original duplexes do not have front loaded garages. One of the concerns of the Fire Marshal’s was any townhouse block above three units requires a rear access. They are just proposing two units which then fits within that Code where they don’t require an emergency access. So for the comments from Staff with regard to Code compliance, they don’t have any issues with the Code compliancy. What they are having issues with are the recommendations from Staff. As many of you are probably aware over the past year and a half, the Recommendation came from Planning Commission that they liked the architectural and the elevations that they saw but for the developer and equitable owner to go back and work with Staff on the details. They are here tonight because we are at an impasse. They are here tonight to show the architecturals and they will submit all of the photos for the record but this is the product that they want to build. They would like it to start up again and get moving. Mr. Russell stated that he has been working with the applicant for some period of time since they originally started working on the discussion on architecturals. Thank you for letting them present the product and talk about ways to rejuvenate the Eden Hill project. He knows that the Commissioners are familiar with the project because they have appeared before you before and 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 candidly the matters before us haven’t changed much since we were here in June. The applicant and Planning Staff are at an impasse. They have been meeting with Staff since the spring of 2017 and the issues haven’t changed. Importantly, when they came before the Commission in June they presented concept and products that were really substantially similar to what you are seeing this evening and the Planning Commission unanimously supported the project moving forward based on those submissions and their working in conjunction with Staff to come to a final product for review. Unfortunately, they haven’t been able to do that so they are appearing before the Commission this evening seeking approval for simple Pattern Book Amendments and your blessing of the architectural designs and construction concepts which Ryan Homes would build to rejuvenate the project without the conditions recommended by Staff. Staff has made it pretty clear that the products in this application aren’t what they are looking for. They have proposed conditions in their Recommendations which if attached to an approval would affectively render them unable to build that product. To them, it would be consistent with a denial. The Traditional Neighborhood Design and the original Pattern Book was approved by this body in the summer of 2005; that has been almost 14 years. As you know, under the original project 83 units have been sold between 2008 and 2012. That is about 17 homes per year, 4 per quarter and a little over 1 per month. The project went into foreclosure and then it went into bankruptcy. This followed the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. Many real estate and housing projects suffered a similar fate and they failed. Really what their developers and home builders did was reimagined those projects. They right sized the homes, they changed the layouts and they redesigned both for affordability. It was a drastically changed market. It’s a national phenomenon; it’s not unique to Dover. They appear before the Commission this evening to reimagine Eden Hill consist with the change in the market conditions nationally, statewide and local. They think that the product here meets the needs and capabilities of Dover residents present and future. He did pass out at the June meeting some Federal Reserve statistics which documents the state of the housing market in Dover, specifically Kent County versus the other Counties in the State. They believe that that data demonstrated that affordability is paramount to a successful housing project and particularly one here in Dover and Kent County. They are presenting a range of housing product including townhomes and 55 and over or single-family homes. In addition to their affordability, he thinks that it’s important to point out that they are attractive, energy efficient, well designed and constructed and they are really perfectly suited to the local market. It’s important to note that Ryan Homes is building this product throughout its footprint and is excelling well throughout its footprint which includes the majority of the East Coast. They are proposing that a significant portion of the project, approximately 50% of the land area would be changed to a 55 and over or Active Adult Community. There are some benefits that they perceive and that they would like to discuss including reduced peak traffic flows, low to no impact on the local school district and then requiring the elimination of the alleys. Staff has been pretty clear that the changes in the products to the TND in the Pattern Book that they would like to see them recommended with certain conditions and that they would like to see the Pattern Book implemented by the book. Mr. Street pointed out that they believe there is flexibility built into that document. In the June meeting minutes, there were questions from the Commission and Staff and they thought it was notable that the Staff made two comments in particular regarding TND. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that “the TND will probably not ever be replicated anywhere in the City.” They agree because the Zoning Ordinance says it’s conceived and was conceived in 2005 before the drastic changes in the market and the financial crash and 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 to make full compliance without flexibility that they believe is built into the Code is uneconomical to pursue. Mr. Hugg stated that with respect to the 55 and older section “this is really a traditional neighborhood. It’s probably not; it’s being reconceptualized so that it can be successful in the current market conditions and the 55 and older is a new product which will create a new market inside of the project.” Many of the Commission members in their comments in those minutes noted that there should be “flexibility to find a path forward and a desire to see a stalled project get back on track.” In summary, they are here this evening asking for the Commission’s approval of a simple Pattern Book Amendment to build the products as presented in the materials before you. To allow us to rejuvenate a stalled project with a well-designed, well-constructed housing product that is attractive, affordable and appropriate for Dover. To allow us to reimagine a major portion of the project as a 55 and older single-family community with previously mentioned benefits. We are asking you to do it without the Planning Staff Recommendations and Conditions that they attached only because they effectively remand us back to the Planning Board to try to work through product issues again which they have been unable to do for the last 18 months. This particular developer can’t move the project forward and won’t be able to actively engage, develop and build in Eden Hill and pursue an economically, viable project unless we get the product approved as it’s being presented to the Commission tonight. The team is happy to answer any questions and there is a representative from Ryan Homes here, Ms. Katie Burke who appeared before the Commission before and she can answer specific product questions. Ms. Edwards questioned the purpose for the fully front loaded garage? Why is that so prevalent in the Active Adult Communities and is there space for parking in the driveway based on these drawings? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Burke stated that she is a General Manager with Ryan Homes. This is our new “Lifestyle” product that we are building. There is space to park cars in the driveway. They are all the front loaded garages. Ms. Edwards questioned why front loaded garages are so prevalent in the Active Adult Communities? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Burke stated that typically with Active Adult Communities, the size of the lots are smaller with less maintenance. The goal is to have a low maintenance home and part of that is really the outside; so, having the garage placed there gives them the ability there to be able to have the majority of the home situated behind it. From a lot width perspective you don’t need as much yard width to be able to accommodate that space. Dr. Jones questioned to what extent does the dominant front loaded garage impact living space? Responding to Dr. Jones, Ms. Burke stated that it does not impact living space. There is still living space. They have a variety of square footages; there are four different plans. They range in square footage from 1,200 SF to 1,800 SF but the garage space does not take away from living space inside the home. Mr. Holt questioned if these homes were all two car garages? Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Burke stated yes, they are all two car garages. Mr. Holt further questioned if there was access from inside the garage to the home? Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Burke stated yes, there is door from inside the garage that gives access into the house and then there is a front door as well. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 Ms. Edwards questioned what concerns Staff had in reference to the front loaded garages? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Planning Staff had noted that when you start placing driveways that are front loaded then you limit how much on-street parking can occur. With these being a double width driveway, you start to minus out that you can’t park in front of the driveway. As you move down the street, there are also limitations about not parking within so many feet of the street intersection with another street. There are also parking limitations surrounding fire hydrant locations. What it starts to do is depending on the placement of the driveway, you start to get only little chucks of curb line that would then be available for on-street parking. Sometimes that can be mitigated if driveways are grouped together rather than them being all on the right side of the lot. If one is on the right side and then one is on the left you have kind of grouped the driveways together and you may get a larger space to then have on-street parking. Without having a plan that shows exact driveway locations, they couldn’t definitively say that all on-street parking has been eliminated or a significant portion of it but when you start front loading, that repetition of driveway then limits the amount of on-street parking. The other thing related to driveways is the length of the driveway that is on the lot. In order to park a vehicle, you need at least 18 feet beyond the front sidewalk. You want to make sure that the front sidewalk along the street is still passable when someone has parked a vehicle on the driveway. Ms. Edwards stated that when they are looking at other developments outside of the TND, how is that looked at with the on-street parking? How is it different in a different development than it would be in the TND? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that some of the difference about that on-street parking and a regular residential subdivision is dependent on the minimum lot width. In some of our zones that would allow for a single-family house such as this, the minimum lot width may be greater. They are looking at 76 feet she believes. They have ones that are narrow like 70 feet but that variation of lot width makes a difference on the ability for on-street parking as well as the street network itself. If you have a lot of intersections then you are slowly taking away bits of the street because of the need to not have parking right at that intersection. If you have long blocks, then that’s less of an issue but you may pick up requirements for fire hydrants as well being placed mid-block. You can’t park in front of a fire hydrant. Ms. Edwards questioned if it was the 18 feet that Mrs. Melson-Williams was talking about on that driveway allotted on these renderings? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Street stated that the short answer would be yes. What they are talking about would be Code related issues with regard to on-street parking per lot. If this were approved to move forward tonight, we would have to meet those Code requirements without some kind of waiver or variance from Staff or the Commission. What you are seeing is kind of a typical lot. The block that you see isn’t necessarily the house, it’s the envelope that the house can sit in. That depth we would have to give you at least eighteen feet beyond that sidewalk so that you could park at least one car. He is not 100% sure on the exact Code requirement for the vehicle parking on-street itself. What would happen next would be that they would come back with another Implementation Plan for the reconfiguration of the lots. Then they start getting into more detail of the exact lot widths that they have that have been approved and then they get spacing of driveways themselves and then fire hydrants. You get all of those spacings when you get into the more detailed plan so then it 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 gives them the ability to adjust things to meet Code requirements. Ms. Edwards stated that when you would re-look at that Implementation Plan, would you be taking into consideration putting the driveways closer together for two houses to address the issue of the on-street parking? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Street stated that typically in residential house for construction of the driveways you have a couple considerations. One is the slope of the road. Driveways are typically on the downhill side of the house except when you get to an intersection you like to keep that driveway away from the intersection because you don’t like the intermingling of traffic. As your street goes up or down, your houses will all be aligned in that same orientation. You have the ability to do that in certain circumstances like at an intersection where you would be going downhill towards the intersection you would have one driveway on one side and the house would be flipped from the intersection. Like Mrs. Melson- Williams stated you have that distance from the intersection where you have constraints where you can’t park. The driveway location is more dictated by the lay of the land and the grade of the street itself. All of these things have to be taken into consideration when we doing these detailed plans. Dr. Jones stated that as she listened to the applicant’s summary, it appears that you are not in agreement with a majority of the Recommendations. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Street stated that is correct. This is a unique situation which is why they are all here because that have been working for the past year and a half on trying to come together on this. Dr. Jones questioned if this was a complete packet including the Townhouses and the Senior Living Village? Are they the same project just different types of construction? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Street stated yes. Dr. Jones further questioned which one the applicant has the most problem with or do they just have a problem with everything? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Street stated that it is more the Active Adult Community that is the reasons for the impasse. He thinks that with most of the Townhouse issues that they have gone through with Staff, they have been able to rectify as far as he is aware. He knows that there are Townhouse Recommendations in there and it all kind of comes together with the whole project itself. Mr. Russell stated that the architectural issues pertain to both products: the Townhomes and the 55 and over community. The alleyway is a specific issue which is unique to the 55 and over community. The developer split the project into two products because it’s such a large project and in order to get absorption of sales they need to offer two types of different homes to sell. If you said the 55 and over community is okay, they probably couldn’t do it all that way. If you said Townhomes were okay, the market is just not big enough to absorb all of the units. They needed to introduce the new product type and divide the community into two pieces which would have, by the way, two separate amenities, two clubhouse features; one separate for each. They like the product that they have presented but they have been unable to come to agreement with Staff on either product. First is the architectural issue and the second issue which is unique to the 55 or older or active adult is the alleyway elimination. Dr. Jones asked if the reasons for the objections have to do with the economics of the project. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Russell stated that Staff is objecting to the products because they don’t believe that they comply by the book and they are seeking more architectural features on the homes for purposes of meeting the TND Ordinance. They had hoped that the TND Ordinance has in it flexibility to accept the product which they are proposing. The reason that it is important to them that the Recommendations of Staff aren’t attached to an approval is because it would effectively make us change the product in such a way as they would unable to build it economically and move the project forward. Ms. Edwards stated that specific to the products, it’s the front-loaded garage for the Senior Living and the alleyways. Are we were looking to have them eliminated for the townhomes? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Russell stated that the alleyways would be eliminated for the 55 and older only. The townhomes would have alleyways and that is consistent with the existing plan. There are some lots in the community which are designed without alleyways behind them where they would be building a duplex which is two townhomes matched together. Therefore, they would be front loaded and they are very limited in number in the total amount but he doesn’t think that Staff objected to that but he does not want to speak for them. Ms. Edwards stated that there are no front loaded townhomes, only the duplexes. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Russell stated that was correct. Mr. Holt stated that the variation that Staff is asking about would give individuality to all of the different homes but that gingerbread stuff would not be that difficult or expensive to maneuver around. When you offer the homes to somebody do they get a chance to decide on what they want so that their home is a little bit individual from the next guy’s home? Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Burke stated that they do offer the option for customers to select exterior colors. They offer multiple elevations so that changes the roof line and what the exterior appearance looks like. They do have the option to offer selections to customers to make it individualized both on the exterior and also on the inside too. To Mr. Russell’s point earlier, for them to add some of the additional features that Staff has recommended, it really becomes cost prohibitive for them. This is an opportunity to offer some affordable homes for active adult buyers and when you continue to add additional features it adds cost. Therefore, that has to be pushed over to the customer in a higher sales price. Mr. Holt stated that maybe the customer would be willing to pay the extra to have it on his home. Everybody is a little bit different. Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Burke stated for them as a builder, they are not a custom builder. There are minor changes that they offer to make but changing features on the exterior of the home is not part of their program. Whether it be this product or really any of their other products, they design their products so they are able to have some consistency with branding. Mr. Russell mentioned that Ryan Homes builds up and down the East Coast in 14 different states. This product has been really well received up and down the East Coast. They have it in Milford, Delaware so that is the closest community where they are currently building this product. Mr. Holt stated that it is a nice looking project and it should sell. If you can’t sell it then maybe you need to get better sales people out there. 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 Ms. Edwards stated that the homes look very similar in appearance. There are some structural differences but at first glance they look very similar. What plans do you have in place when you are selling these homes as far as siding colors, the door and shutter colors so that at least the homes that are next to each other are not identical? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Burke stated that that is part of their marketing program in every community. They do not have the same elevations which would mean that the roof lines would not look the same next door to each other or across the street. That is the same for color schemes as well. They want to have some streetscape and curb appeal with a variety of elevations and also color schemes. Ms. Edwards questioned if you have two different elevations side by side, they are not allowed to have the same color? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Burke stated that was correct. Mr. Roach stated that he is very close to this development and on one end he is very excited because we definitely have the need for the 55 and up and the townhomes. He is a very big advocate in regards to growth in his City but it is also the idea of setting precedence. They have the TND Zone and we have these requirements and restrictions and these things that they need to have done. Essentially everything that Staff is saying, the response is “we don’t want to do that because it costs too much.” It starts to set a tone for the next time somebody develops, they are going to come in a say well you let Ryan Homes do it. It kind of puts them in a place where they don’t have a leg to stand on in regards to the purpose of even having a TND. His reluctantcy to move forward with this, especially because he loves the homes and everything about it but what is the purpose of having these things in place as far as zones if every time a developer comes in and they can’t do something because of cost. That is going to be with anything. We obviously want to make sure that we are doing everything is a cost efficient way but there has to be give and take. If you come to the Planning Commission, he doesn’t feel as though you can walk in and say we don’t want to do anything that you guys are saying but please approve our plan. It doesn’t sit well with them as they set a precedence in regards to moving forward with future TNDs. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Street stated that he understands the comment and understand the numerous times that he has come before this body and probably any body and he thinks that this is the first time that he has ever said no Recommendations. The TND Zone itself and the Pattern Book is meant as a guide. The reason why they are here tonight is not necessarily because the developer and the builder aren’t trying to abide by any of this; it’s that they are trying to work within it which is why they have submitted the Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan that is before you for the Active Adult Community becomes the guide in addition to what is in the Pattern Book itself. It is unique and he understands the reluctancy of the Commission but this is the first time that he has ever been a part of a project that has ever said that. Usually they work with Staff very well to come together on Staff’s Recommendations with what they can do. He thinks that this is a unique situation where they have a stalled project that has been stalled for years and they are trying to revitalize the project itself with a product that can sell. He can go through the 7 or 9 Recommendations but he is not going to sit here for the next hour doing that; it’s extensive. He understands where Mr. Roach is coming from but at this point they are all kind of at an impasse. That is why they are here with all of the elevations and all of the options to kind of be the guide for the Active Adult Community so they can move forward with it. Mr. Iacono (equitable owner) stated that he believes that he is correct in saying that this is the 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 only TND community in the City of Dover. As it was pointed out in some Staff comments in the June 2018 meeting, it is probably not likely to be replicated. He is not sure anybody else with a TND would come to you and say you did it for them because there is no other TND. Ms. Edwards stated that she understands the conversation that just took place but she does want to ask, what concessions have you as the developer made to work and collaborate with Staff? She likes the product and understands exactly why you are here and why you need to put this forward but what concessions have you made? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Burke stated that over the course of the last 18 months, they have had multiple meetings and there have been a lot of different discussion points. For the townhomes, there is a rendering in the packet handed out tonight that shows the side view of a townhome. Some feedback that they had from Staff was concern with regard to the side of the townhome units specifically for prominent street corners and intersections. What they have done here is traditionally they would have one siding color that would run consistently on the whole side unit of the townhome. What you are seeing here is that they have a piece of trim that is running down the side of the unit where they are splitting it with two different siding colors and that is consistent with the siding colors where they offer a variety of siding colors on the front. They have also added the faux shutter treatment on the side unit as well. There is a vent up in the corner of the gable also. So there have certainly been some changes on their end where they have tried to work with Staff to be able to compromise as much as they can that follows with the product that they currently have. Mr. Tolbert stated that when Mr. Russell was speaking, he had made mention that he had talked extensively with Staff regarding the Recommendations and that if he complied with those Recommendations then he could not proceed with the development. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Russell stated yes, he is not the developer but he has advised that if the Recommendations are attached to the approval then the architecturals really aren’t approved. The product that they would have to seek to build wouldn’t be economically viable so he would be unable to proceed. Mr. Tolbert stated that unless Staff changes their Recommendations, you are saying that it would not be worth your while for further discussions with them. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Russell stated that they think they have exhausted their efforts to come to an agreement on the product so he doesn’t think that it would make sense. The conditions would remand them to go back to Staff and work on the product more and he doesn’t think that they would do that. Mr. Tolbert stated that there is no point in talking to Staff unless they decide to make changes. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Russell stated that they would still have to go back to Staff to put in an Implementation Plan for the 55 and older section. He doesn’t think that a new Implementation Plan would be required for the townhouse section. There is still a lot of work to do if they get beyond this point. If they can’t get beyond this point with an approval without the Recommendations, they won’t be back to Staff but they will have to go back to Staff if they get this approval. Mr. Tolbert stated that if Staff doesn’t change their Recommendations at this point, are you saying that there is no point in them going further? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Russell stated yes, unless the Planning Commission approves the application without the conditions. 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 Ms. Edwards questioned if there were any of the Recommendations that are listed by Staff that would not be as costly to change to provide some more visual difference between the homes? She is looking at using a variety of siding, colors, and different trim work. She understands that some of this has extensive cost to it but is there anything in the Recommendations that could be done and agreed upon that would not be as costly? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Burke stated that they do have an example of the townhomes. They do have some pieces of the Recommendations from Staff that they have tried to incorporate like having a variety of color schemes. She thinks that there is something that is mentioned about the garage component and varying the colors of the garage doors. That is a piece of their program that they would be able to incorporate. The short answer is that they have the ability to compromise in some situations like the townhome example and some color changes that they are certainly able to make. They have agreed to have additional landscaping on the side of the townhomes units that are prominent corners but unfortunately with the list of Recommendations here, for them to be able to meet these, it would drastically change the product and they wouldn’t be able to build the product that they currently have. Mr. Baldwin stated that considering all that he has heard this evening from his colleagues this evening, it also wrinkled him that you expect to move forward with a project overlooking Staff Recommendations. With that being said, he would like to know from Staff if this project was to be approved without your Recommendations, how hard would it be for them to meet Code when it came to implementation? Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it really varies on the Recommendation that you are talking about. They have earmarked the Recommendations and if you are looking in your packet, that is on Page 9 and they are number 1-3 and the missing numbering that currently lists them at 9-12. Some of these she doesn’t think have cost implications. They are more clearly identifying more process type items. For the alley access, they are recommending that if it has an alley you take access from the alley and that would be the townhouse scenario. If they get a separate Implementation Plan approved that eliminates alleys in areas, then you certainly would not be required to have the alley. She is not sure if that is causing confusion with the Senior Living but if there is an alley and you want to build a townhouse then the townhouse has access from the alley. Number 2 goes along with that. Staff doesn’t support approval of any townhouse units that don’t have the rear alley. She thinks that the applicant has agreed in principal to that Recommendation already in saying that they are not expecting to build townhouses where there are not alleys. Garage placement is something that is unique to their Senior Living and Staff is trying to tighten up the ability to do a garage in that format. The current Pattern Book does not allow for a garage being the thing that is closest to the street. If the Commission is looking to allow the applicant to do that, Staff is making some suggestions about how you should allow that to happen. If you are looking at not going as far as Staff recommends, then maybe you don’t adopt Item 3D which really allows for a front-loaded garage but in the Staff Recommendation still pushes the house forward. Recommendations 9 and 10 are more refinement of their two questions. That is where some things they might be able to easily implement. These are fairly consistent with what is already in the existing Pattern Book. The Pattern Book, for example, talks about corner lots being special. It talks about the ability to do detailing and how you choose to do that detailing; there is a variety of ways which have a variety of costs. Again, it’s also encouraging the multiple models in the variation. Some of what is in Numbers 9 and 10 are making sure that there is that flexibility within the Pattern Book to allow for what you are seeing as the units that are presented here or the units and elevations that 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 may come forward within the next month or whatever is the latest and greatest thing that they want to try to build. The same thing with Item 6; that is just really there for emphasis of the key concepts of the TND. A lot of this information is already contained in the Pattern Book that exists. Perhaps the most significant one that Staff stands by is Number 12 which is a final version of the Pattern Book. They have made the recommendation that a final version of the Pattern Book for the Residential District should be developed. If it’s confusing for you to figure out what is going on, imagine Staff having to do that every time a permit walks in the door or a developer trying to figure out if what they are proposing actually works with the Pattern Book. They have the original Pattern Book and at this point 5 Addendums that change various texts or pages throughout that document. It makes it very difficult to review whether a project complies or not. The other two districts have been successful in creating a final version of the Pattern Book and they think that the Residential District should do the same thing. Ms. Edwards stated that amendments to the TND, what does that process look like if they wanted to move forward with this project? What has to happen to move forward? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Zoning Ordinance outlines the TND and it talks about amendments to the TND. There are some minor things that Staff can do. But what they are proposing here is not minor which is why a Revised Pattern Book has been presented to the Planning Commission for public hearing and for your action. This is separated out into the Pattern Book because they wanted to have some sense of architectural approvals before they moved forward with what would be a requirement. If they are interested in pursuing the Active Adult Senior Living, that requires a Revised Implementation Plan submission because they are talking about rearranging lots, eliminating alleys and reconfiguring an area for a club house. Those are the more plan detail type things. It is something that is significant and would require again, a formal application submission and public hearing process and action by the Planning Commission. She thinks that you have heard the applicant multiple times about this impasse with Staff. Some of that impasse has been related to what should the process be for making changes. There are some things that Staff can do administratively but what it is proposing is not that; it requires a full review and hearing process. Finally, a submission was made in regards to revising the Pattern Book and that is what we are focused on this evening. You did see concepts of it as early as June of last year, but the formal process is happening tonight. Ms. Edwards stated that if the Commission decided to move forward then the formal application has to come through to make those changes that you are talking about. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this would be the formal application to make changes to the Pattern Book document. The formal process to make the changes to the Land Plan, the layout of lots and streets for the Senior Living requires another application submission and that is a Revised Implementation Plan of that portion of the District. Mr. Street stated that Becker Morgan produced the original Pattern Book back in 2005. Trying to produce this, they have lost most of the digital document itself. He brings this up only because if this were some other engineering firm who had nothing to do with this from the beginning, they wouldn’t have any of that to begin with and to reproduce the document itself would be extensive. Essentially, they will have to do that anyway because they don’t have most of the document because back in 2009 or 2010 their servers took a dump and they lost most of that information. They have some of the documents, but they don’t have it all. That is why they were looking for 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 that Recommendation in the original DAC meeting to be moved to advisory. He did a little more digging after the meeting and learned that they don’t have most of the document itself. They are looking at this two-fold; they don’t have a majority of the document in addition to if this were some other firm that did not produce this document originally, how would they then go about recreating this document to the standards that the original document was held to. They understand the reasoning it is just the process and the task at hand to do that would be absorbent on the applicant’s part. Ms. Edwards asked if Mr. Street was talking about the last Recommendation for the final version of the Pattern Book? That, you would object to? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Street stated yes, because they have lost most of the information and would have to recreate it. So would anyone else but it would just be a burden on the applicant. It would technically be easier since they created the original one but if this was another engineering firm who was standing up here and had nothing to do with the original version it would be trying to recreate that. If you wouldn’t be asking them to do it but because it’s us and we should have some of the original document, that is where he gets the test of, is it because it’s us or is it because this is what’s needed? Ms. Edwards stated that she would like to think that it’s because it’s what is needed. Mr. Tolbert opened the public hearing. Mr. Leonard Iacono – Equitable Owner Mr. Iacono stated that he is the equitable owner of the project. He does not own the property. Procedurally, he thinks that fundamentally they are on the same page meaning the townhouse section would be an Administrative process and the 55 and older would be the Implementation Plan process. The Implementation Plan and/or the Administrative process in itself is really not the difficult aspect of this project because it’s really more dealing with engineering and Code. However, he as the equitable owner would not proceed to even doing the Administrative or Implementation Plan if we don’t fundamentally have an agreement on the architectural concepts and designs of the product, the elimination of the alleys, etc. That is what they have not been able to get past for the last year and a half. They have not been able to reach an agreement with the Staff fundamentally in the architectural and layout process as well as the elimination of alleys. If you read correspondence that has occurred within this year and a half between Staff and themselves, you will see that they regurgitate the same thing over and over again. Staff is on one side of the spectrum and the applicant is on the other side of the spectrum. If they can get past that part of it, the process is the simpler of the two. As far as the Pattern Book is concerned, he helped write the book. That book specifically says that it’s a guide and he just wants to stress that. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Dr. Jones stated that she thought that she understood that there was not willingness to go back to the table to re-hash some of the recommendations. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Tolbert stated that was his understanding. He is not sure if they are willing to go back to the table now or not because they have heard the Commissioners like never before. They have good reason to go back 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 to the table and converse with Staff. A deferment might be the most appropriate, but we should consider it along with voting it up or voting it down. Mr. Roach questioned if the townhomes will have an alley? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Russell stated yes. Mr. Roach questioned if the 55 and older community will have alleys? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Russell stated that they will not. Mr. Roach questioned if that was an issue with Staff? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that they did not identify that as an issue. they recognize that the Senior Living is proposed as a single family detached and their proposal is for front loaded. Their comments do not indicate that an alley would be required for that lot type. Their comments go to more about the garage placement for that lot type. Mr. Roach stated that Staff also stated that they don’t have an issue with the duplex style as long as it’s not more than three townhomes put together. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that a duplex unit is only two units together. As soon as you reach three, then it’s a townhouse configuration. Mr. Roach questioned if there was an issue if there were no alleys behind the duplex units? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated no, a duplex does not require an alley behind it. Mr. Roach stated that they can say that the alleys aren’t an issue. From the conversation, it seems like they spoke about alleys being an issue. Right now, it’s just an issue in regards to the front loaded garages in the 55 and old community. The alleys are not an issue anymore because Staff is in agreement with the applicant in regards to what portions of this section can have alleys or not. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Street stated that the duplex styles would be front loaded because they don’t have alleys. Their plan would be to build the two end unit townhomes as duplexes which don’t have alleys. Mr. Roach questioned if the duplexes would look like the townhouse but would only be two units? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Street stated that was correct. Mr. Roach questioned if the duplexes would have street parking only? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Street stated no, they would have some kind of front access like a front parking pad. Mr. Roach stated that being able to see that would help because essentially, he is trying to approve something that he can’t even physically view. When it comes to the townhouses, they are good and they have to have the alley access. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Iacono stated that as he said earlier, the issue progressed to a point where they are at an impasse with the concept of the architecturals, the placement of the garages and the predominance of the garages. For example, on a corner lot the Staff wanted a garage on the side of the house not the front of the house. They told Staff that they can’t do that because their product does not allow for that. A lot of the year and a half that they went back and forth centered around architectural concepts 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 and designs. They did make some concessions but they got to a point where they ran out of concessions. Then they got to a point of whether or not the alley issue would continue to dominant the conversation. Frankly, he never heard that Staff supported the elimination of alleys for the 55 and old community and he has been involved in it since day one. That is clarification that he would like to have because he doesn’t know that. At the end of the day, he thinks that it is important to understand that fundamentally to Ryan Homes’ point made earlier, that they have designed a product and they have done what they could to try to accommodate the Recommendations. He understands that it goes against the true concept of TND. He is the one who put it together in 2005 so he understands the concept of TND. He would be the first one to admit that it doesn’t follow the TND but then again, the TND doesn’t work. You either have to be broad in your thinking in eliminating the true concept or you just stick with it and maybe someone else will build it. Mr. Tolbert questioned if Mr. Iacono agreed that further discussion with Staff is not an option? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Iacono stated that he doesn’t think that after spending a year and a half going back and forth will accomplish anything. He can also tell the Commission that the actual owner is growing increasingly impatient with him and he is on a very short fuse. He doesn’t think that he can go back and extend his agreement of sale with the existing owner any longer because he is getting bombarded with phone calls constantly wanting to know where we are at. From a time standpoint, he is out of time. Mr. Tolbert stated that at this point the Commission should make a motion to either vote it up or down or defer it for further discussion with the Planning Staff because there are still issues to be resolved as was brought out in this hearing. Mr. Holt moved to defer MI-19-01 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Pattern Book (Senior Living Residential & Townhome Option) until the next meeting so that they can go over it one more time with the Planning Staff at a later date. Motion was not seconded. Ms. Edward moved to approve MI-19-01 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Pattern Book (Senior Living Residential & Townhome Option) based on the fact that she would like to see the project move forward. The TND was designed in 2005 and certainly time and development has changed since that point. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked that Ms. Edwards clarify the extent of approval in regards to the DAC Report and comments. Typically, if things are not exempted out or struck out then the entire Report is adopted as part of the motion. Ms. Edwards further motioned to add with the adherence to the DAC Recommendations to be included. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned if Ms. Edwards was recommending adoption of the DAC Report including the City and State Code Requirement Series and the Recommendations that are suggested as conditions of approval that are found on Page 9 and subsequent pages? Responding 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Ms. Edwards stated no, that is not what she is trying to say. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Ms. Edwards should work her way through the Report to select certain portions of it. Ms. Edwards moved to approve MI-19-01 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Pattern Book (Senior Living Residential & Townhome Option) based on the fact that she would like to see the project move forward. The TND was designed in 2005 and certainly time and development has changed since that point. She would like to include the architectural design concepts and that the final version of the Pattern Book be completed. Mr. Tolbert stated that it is a lot to go through and Mrs. Melson-Williams has given us a thorough overview of what the recommendations are and why and to go back through that is being redundant as he views it. We have come to a point where we either approve this application or we don’t approve this application or we defer it so the applicant and Staff can go over the issues that have been raised in this hearing this evening and then come back next month with a clearer view on their part and our part. They have already stated that they are in disagreement with the Planning Staff and they have also stated that they don’t see a further need for discussion but I do see a need for further discussion because of what has come up in this hearing this evening. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Ms. Edwards was in the middle of a motion and they were trying to configure the motion. She knows that the motion does not have a second at this point but her understanding is that the motion is to approve the application and it would be subject to the DAC Report and that includes the City and State Code Requirements Section that starts on Page 6 (Items 1 through 8) and then that it would also include the Recommendations Suggested as Conditions of Approval that begin on Page 9 (Items 1through 3 and then the mis-numbering of 9 through 12). Are those all part of the motion? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Ms. Edwards stated no. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned if Ms. Edwards was including City and State Code Requirements in the motion? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Ms. Edwards stated that maybe they could defer the application so she can figure out the motion. Ms. Edwards’ motion failed for the lack of a second. Dr. Jones stated that she does believe that our community is very much in need of affordable housing; however, all of that we have heard tonight is very complex. She does agree that we don’t want to set a precedent. It has been their manner of operation to be guided somewhat by the recommendations of the DAC Report. They are indeed independent thinkers, reasonably intelligent and are able to make decisions. Dr. Jones moved to deny MI-19-01 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Pattern Book (Senior Living Residential & Townhome Option) in view of the impasse, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was approved 4-2 by roll call vote. Mr. Roach voting no; he feels as though with the development and the hard work that has been going on he thinks that the 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 implementation of the Pattern Book at this point in time calls for flexibility in regards to the fact that it clearly stated that it could be looked at as a guide. Looking at something from 2005 to now, being 2019 and holding that accountable in regards to the growth of an actual community seems a little bit harsh especially if they have been working with Planning Staff all this time. He would like to at least move forward to the next stage after the Pattern Book. Ms. Edwards voting no; for all of the reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting no, for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Baldwin voting no, for the reasons stated. Dr. Jones voting no; she is very uncomfortable with the fact that there is no need for further discussion. Mr. Tolbert voting no, for reasons that have been stated. (Mrs. Mullaney asked for clarification if Mr. Tolbert was voting yes to disapprove the application.) Mr. Tolbert voted yes, to disapprove the application. (Mrs. Mullaney asked if Dr. Jones was voting yes to disapprove the application.) Dr. Jones voted yes. (Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the motion was to not approve the application and a yes vote is that you agree to “not approve it”. Mrs. Mullaney asked if Mr. Baldwin was voting “yes” to disapprove the application.) Mr. Baldwin voted yes. (Mrs. Mullaney asked if Mr. Holt was voting yes to disapprove the application.) Mr. Holt voted yes. NEW BUSINESS 1) Resolution honoring Dean Holden for his service on the Planning Commission Mr. Tolbert stated that the Resolution for Mr. Dean Holden states: Resolution Whereas, Dean Holden became a member of the City of Dover Planning Commission on June 25, 2012 and has served with diligence and distinction in this capacity as an advocate for sound land use planning in the public interest; and, Whereas, Dean Holden has played a key role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the planning and development of the Capital City through his service on the Planning Commission; and, Whereas, Dean Holden has provided leadership on the Planning Commission through his role as Vice Chairman of the Commission from July 2016 to December 2018 and through his service on the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommitee; and, Whereas, Dean Holden has influenced the pattern and appearance of development in Dover through his contributions to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project; his efforts to ensure compliance with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended); his participation in the development of amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance regarding various zoning districts and development design requirements; his knowledge of engineering topics; and his advocacy for the implementation of pedestrian pathways and his attention to Silver Lake and other environmental concerns; and, Whereas, Dean Holden completed his term of service on the City of Dover Planning Commission on January 3, 2019. Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Planning Commission does hereby express 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 its sincere appreciation to Dean Holden for his faithful and exemplary service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as an active member of the City of Dover Planning Commission and extends its very best wishes to Dean Holden for a bright and prosperous future. Dr. Jones moved to approve the Resolution for Mr. Dean Holden, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher absent. 2) Nomination and Election of Officer (Vice-Chairman) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with Mr. Holden’s departure from the Planning Commission, that leaves a void in the position for Vice Chairman. The By-laws for the Planning Commission suggest that any vacancies in either of your named Chair offices should be filled in a diligent manner. We accept nominations and the By-laws say that you should vote in secret, but we can suspend that if there is only one candidate. Dr. Jones questioned if it was possible to hold off until February when other Commissioners are here? We don’t know if someone has a desire to serve in that capacity. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Tolbert stated that they can be nominated even if they are not here. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that a Commissioner can certainly put forth a motion to wait until there is a larger compliment of Commission members present in order to take action as well. Dr. Jones moved to defer the nominations and election of the Vice Chairman, seconded by Mr. Roach and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher absent. 3) Appointment to the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28): Planning Commission Member Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is also because of the departure of Mr. Dean Holden. He was the Planning Commission member that was appointed to your Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee. The information in the packet identifies that Mrs. Welsh is one of the Planning Commission members so we would need to fill the vacancy of Mr. Holden in that group as well. Mr. Roach moved to defer the appointment to the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of the Planning Commission until the next meeting, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher absent. 4) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Planning Staff has kind of been through the Goals and Recommendations Series at the Staff level and we are making a number of refinements to them as we have discussed them amongst ourselves. They will be putting forth another Draft of those Refined Goals and Recommendations. They are also going to be focusing efforts on looking again at the two map series: the Land Use Development Plan and the Annexation Plan and its land use categories. If you have any additional comments on those and you would like Staff to 20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2019 weigh in on, they will do it. They have set a goal for themselves of having a Draft for internal review of the Comprehensive Plan document by mid-February. If the Commissioners have any thoughts or comments about the Comprehensive Plan, take a look at those Goals and Recommendations and Map Series that are up on the City’s website. Meeting adjourned at 9:02 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 21