PC Minutes 3-15-21

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2021 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 15, 2021 at 7:00 PM as a Virtual Meeting using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Lord, Mrs. Welsh, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Ms. Shawanda Johnson, Mr. Jeff Speigleman, Mr. Doug Liberman, Ms. Michelle Marinucci and Mr. Jonathan Street. Speaking from the public were Mr. Allan Angel, Mr. Michael Petit de Mange, and Ms. Karen Vicks. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Agenda tonight, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2021, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 19, 2021 at 7:00PM. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on February 22 & 23, 2021 and March 8 & 9, 2021. Mr. Hugg stated that they are all generally coming back to work in the office; some people are still working at home and part time in the office. The building is open for business; the lobby only. They are taking applications and plans submissions in the lobby personally as opposed to remotely or just in the vestibule. However, we are still conducting all of our meetings in a virtual format; that includes Pre-Application meetings, site meetings, and the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Historic District Commission meetings. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 C-21-02 JJ’s Learning Experience 2 Child Day Care Center at 756 South Little Creek Road - Public Hearing and Review of an Application for Conditional Use to permit renovation of a 10,111 SF space in an existing one-story 33,143 SF building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 170 children. The property consists of a 2.39 acre+/- parcel and is located on the south side of South Little Creek Road opposite Babb Drive. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Empire Medical, LLC and the applicant is JJ’s Learning Experience 2. Location Address: 756 South Little Creek Road Suite 1. Tax Parcel: ED- 05-077.00-01-03.00-000. Council District 2. Representative: Ms. Shawanda Johnson, JJ’s Learning Experience; Mr. Jeff Spiegelman, Real estate representative Mrs. Harvey stated that the Conditional Use Site Plan Review is to permit the renovation of an existing 10,000 SF space in an existing one-story 33,000 SF building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 170 children and 19 adult staff. The building is located on the south side of South Little Creek Road opposite of Babb Drive. The owner of record is Empire Medical, LLC and the applicant is Ms. Shawanda Johnson. The property address is 756 South Little Creek Road. The plan identifies an outdoor play area that will be fenced in on the south side of the building. There are two areas of existing pavement to be utilized as parking lots for a total of 73 spaces on the site. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) with the existing footprint of the building not changing or enlarging. There is direct access to the site; one to the large parking lot on the west side of the building and one to the proposed parking area on the east side of the building. There are two entry ways and exits off of South Little Creek Road. These entrances must be evaluated by DelDOT for any necessary improvements. Dumpsters for trash and recycling collection are required for the property. The plan identifies the two dumpster locations for the building with the concrete pad and enclosure. There is an existing sidewalk and curbing along South Little Creek Road. There is currently no sidewalk on South Little Creek Road serving as direct access to this site. For the Day Care Center on the east side of the building, the entire parking lot is paved. Access is proposed to the building with the construction of steps and a ramp on the east side of the building. The Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions for establishment of the use. Mr. Hartman questioned the lighting for the building on the east side. Since the Day Care will be open until 7PM some nights, has there been any consideration of the lighting requirements on that side of the building? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that any commercial establishment should have lighting that lights the parking lot areas. She is not sure if there are any wall-mounted fixtures on that side of the building. If there is not, then there may need to be freestanding lighting for that side but that is something that they can certainly confirm. There may be street lighting along South Little Creek Road in that area that may assist in lighting some of the property. Mr. Hartman stated that they are all concerned with the safety of the children and he is sure that Ms. Johnson is concerned with that as well. The parking lot appears to be pretty tight so he was thinking that lighting should be addressed by the applicant for the safety of the children. He has another question regarding handicapped parking which is not on the east side of the building at 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 all. Why is there no handicapped accessible parking near the ramp on the east side of the building? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Ms. Johnson stated that she does not believe that there is any lighting located next to the building but they do have plans to have some freestanding lighting out there as well as in the parking area. That is a requirement from the Office of Child Care Licensing as well; from the time that you are open and during evening hours to have it well lit. As far as the handicapped space parking, she does know that they have a ramp but she does not see the handicapped parking available on that side but that is something that she can address as well with the architect. Mr. Hartman further questioned the position of the dumpster. Again, that is a tight area and when they are emptying that dumpster, it appears that they are backing up towards the entrance to the Child Care Center and he is concerned about the safety of the children when that occurs. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Ms. Johnson stated that normally during the dumpster hours as far as emptying, if children are not there except for when parents are dropping off. They are only really going to be out there in the playground area which has to be childproof locked on both sides. We have to have two exits but they also have to be childproofed. Really the only issue would be dropping off and picking up which they should be supervised by their parents at that time. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in this case, the trash collection and recycling collection would be a private hauler so they would have to work with the property owner or tenant about pickup options. Depending on if the truck needs to access on the front on or a side, there certainly may be an opportunity to reposition that. You could request that they look at doing so. Mr. Hartman stated that he would request Ms. Johnson to work with either the Planning Office or the private collector to make sure that the children who are entering or exiting that entrance are not put in danger by the trash truck. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. Allan Angel – Levy Court Commissioner for Kent County Mr. Angel stated that he is a Levy Court Commissioner and he knows this area very well. As Chair of Economic Development and or Levy Court for Kent County, he loves to see businesses, small and large flourish; however, a Day Care with 170 children at this location raises some major concerns. The first concern is traffic; bringing children in and dropping them off is an issue because that area is so traffic heavy because of John Hunn Brown Road and South Little Creek Road. It is very congested and hard to get in and out of at times and sometimes you see a little road rage when you are sitting there for long periods of time. Our County walking trails back right up to this property where the public individuals can be close to children. He would hope that the applicant will put a fence up for safety. The homeless are living in that area and urinating and defecating up to the tree line at the war memorial in that area. Since only a portion of that building is going to be utilized, the unknown of what else could be part of that building leaves an uncertainty of what else could be next to those children in that Day Care. Finally, our most precious cargo are our children and they need to be in a safe environment. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 Mr. Michael Petit de Mange – County Administrator for Kent County Mr. Petit de Mange stated that he wasn’t aware that Mr. Angel was going to be speaking tonight and he thinks that he covered most of his concerns. The only point that he wants to share with the Commissioners is about the outdoor play area that is planned to be fenced. He was wondering if the fencing will continue all the way to entrance/exit of the building where the children will be coming and going. He could not make that out from the plan and it was a little unclear to him if the fencing just kind of ends at the building as a gate. If that’s the case, they would be concerned about children going to and from the Day care to the play area. It looks like they would have to walk out and into the fire lane to get there. He shared the plans with Levy Court leadership and that was one concern that was noted. Other than that, he thinks that the use would be a good neighbor and they certainly support child care activities. East Dover Elementary is in the area also and their playground is fenced in as well. They have never had any concern with (children at the school) getting out into traffic there and they would like to see the same consideration here at this facility. Responding to Mr. Petit de Mange, Ms. Johnson stated that the exit from the building to the playground is right near the playground. So towards the end where the children will be entering, you literally come down a hall, come out and step right into the playground on both sides. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they do go through an area that is not totally fenced from the building into the play area but there is a short distance where they would obviously be under teacher control to make that gap happen. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Ms. Johnson stated that the playground was a few steps from the building. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that you do not open a door directly to the play area because that door is likely serving as egress purposes as well. Mr. Petit de Mange stated that it did answer the question but it did not satisfy the concern. There is a space between the entrance/exit and the playground that is not fenced. That is really the point that we wish to raise just for safety purposes and also Mr. Hartman mentioned the fire lane and the access to the dumpsters as well. He just thinks that it is important, particularly when you are dealing with youngsters and a sizeable number of them, that the fence be contiguous to entrance/exit where they are coming and going so that no mishaps occur. Mrs. Lord questioned how many feet is the exit of the building to the fence of the playground? Approximately how many feet will the teachers and the children have to travel to get to the playground? Responding to Mrs. Lord, Ms. Johnson stated that the back entrance would be the main entrance, not the one that is by the fire lane which will only be used for fire drills or emergencies. They will mainly use the back entrance but she believes that there is approximately five feet between the entrance and the fence for the playground. Mr. Spiegelman asked if they could zoom out on the drawing because there may be a scale to determine exactly how far it is. More importantly, when we are saying “back entrance”, what they are talking about is the entrance on the east side of the building. In the playground area directly to the south, there is a set of steps and so it is kind of tucked away behind the fence. That allows for an added level of security but also importantly, they need to be careful about fencing in a potential exit because of fire violations. The idea is that the kids need to be able to get out 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 rather than into a fenced in area in case of an emergency. A lot of times it is actually added safety to have a short walk such as this directly to it. If everything on the plan is to scale, then they could argue that it is half of a dumpster length or it is about the width of a parking spot; so, probably less than 10 feet. Mrs. Lord stated that when you are making sure that they have egress from the building without having to scale a fence should there be a fire or other emergency, that is a fairly short distance to go. She knows that they have all seen Day Cares where the children hold hands and are sort of herded in and herded out. It’s not like they are just running out there to the playground on their own. From her perspective, she does not see that being a possible safety threat. Mr. Petit de Mange asked if someone could point on the elevation where that exit is. It looks like you would have to walk out of the building into the fire lane to get to the playground, but he may be mistaken. Responding to Mr. Petit de Mange, Mr. Spiegelman stated that the east entrance is going to be the main entrance to move kids from the Day Care into the playground. There is a hallway where kids would go out from the Day Care to the exit that is going to be at the east side of the building and enter the playground from the south. That is going to be the main entrance, thereby avoiding the kids being anywhere near the fire lane at all. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is not sure that the elevation shows the depiction of improvements that are planned on the east side of the building. Responding to Mrs. Melson- Williams, Mr. Petit de Mange stated that he sees new steps there and they are right at the edge of the fire lane. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to postpone application C-21-02 JJ’s Learning Experience 2 Child Day Care Center at 756 South Little Creek Road until the next meeting so that issues involving the parking, the lighting, the traffic flow and the children’s access to the playground can be reviewed and formalized and presented again to the Commission, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the concerns with the safety of the children. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the safety issues. Mrs. Lord voting yes; based on reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks it is best to clarify what is happening with the issue of children being escorted to the playground. Dr. Jones voting yes; she would say that due to the safety of the children she has to vote in favor of the motion but she believes that Ms. Johnson will come back with appropriate information that is probably already there. Mr. Roach voting yes; he appreciates them trying to bring forth a child care facility to this area because it is a much needed addition to the City. He is not as concerned about some of the concerns but it is just more clarity. Working at on elementary school, he definitely knows why the fire lanes are close to the building but he would definitely like more clarity on the lighting and the parking spaces. Mr. Adams voting yes; he would tell the applicant to please not be discouraged. They are excited about the project, but he just thinks there is just a little more information that they need in order to move forward. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons provided in the motion. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 C-21-03 Warehouse Building at College Business Park Lot D – Public Hearing and Review of Conditional Use Site Development Plan to permit construction of a 9,520 SF one story Commercial Warehouse Building with associated site improvements on a 0.9907 acre +/- parcel. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The property is located north of College Road, at the end of College Park Drive, abutting the southwest side of the railroad right-of-way. The owner of record is Stoltzfus LLC (HSM Exchange LLC). Property Address: 1255-1257 College Park Drive. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-12.06-000. Council District 4. Consideration of Performance Standards Review Application. Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. Application C-15-03 Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless at 1255 College Park Drive approved by Planning Commission in August 2015 and Final Plan Approval on January 11, 2016 developed a telecommunications monopole (Towed Based Wireless Communications Facility) on the property. Representative: Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a proposal for a warehouse building on Lot D in College Business Park off of College Road. Currently on the site, there is an existing telecommunications monopole (cell tower). This structure is proposed to remain. There is also a trailer present on the site which will be removed to accommodate this. With the proposal Site Plan submitted, the applicants have also submitted a Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing Waiver Request as well as a Performance Standards Review Application which is required for development in a Manufacturing Zone. For parking on the property, the site in general has not had a specific tenant identified yet so for specific items that are sometimes required based on employees or square footage totals, they would have to assess that based on square footage. The applicant is showing that they are being compliant with the minimum required parking by providing twelve parking spaces. They have added details noting that they will be providing bicycle parking as required. At the moment, they are identifying one loading area shown at the top of the Site Plan which is sort of to the northeast of the property. For this loading area, once again, there are requirements that are based generally on square footage or the type of use there. This does meet minimum requirements. Once a tenant is identified and they go through the permit process, they will be obviously assessing this to see if it is efficient enough for what they are proposing. The Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing submitted as a Waiver Request does pertain to that loading space area as it does partially overlap an easement for stormwater drainage. They have indicated to the applicant that any proposed developments should ensure that it is not going to impede stormwater management there at all. It might look a little confusing where you see the entrance of the site. The drive that this is on, College Park Drive, is not a City maintained road nor is it DelDOT. It is a privately maintained road. On the plans that were submitted by the applicant, they did show that what was recorded as right-of-way is not actually what was built as right-of- way. What was recorded was that slightly larger cul-de-sac feature that ends a little lower down. However, what was built is that slightly smaller cul-de-sac that extends closer to the edge of the property lines. They did advise the applicant that they could revise their Site Plan submission to reflect that; however, they will have to ensure that any easements be recorded as necessary which will be part of the plan review process moving forward. They did also provide some building architecture. It does show elevations of each of the four sides of the building. It does not note anything like materials. It does give a general indication to things like doors, windows, and garages (doors). That will be more specifically identified once a tenant is identified for the space. 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 As a note, if anyone was sort of looking into this property, there did appear to be woodlands on the site in the not too distant past; however, the applicant has submitted some information with the public notice requirement that shows that the woodland was in fact lost to the recent storms that impacted that area. To the waivers submitted and the Performance Standards Review Application, it is noted that the Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing is an administrative Waiver that is at the prevue of Planning Staff to approve. As a note to the members of the Commission, Staff has approved it. They are also recommending approval of the Performance Standards Review Application, believing that the form submitted by the applicant sufficiently demonstrates the intent to comply with the restrictions on objectionable elements as noted in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 8.1 and 8.2. Mr. Liberman stated that they have a Conditional Use Site Plan for a contractor’s warehouse on an approximately one acre lot. Mr. Swierczek just about covered everything for this application. They have the required parking and they have extended the sidewalk along the frontage. They have relocated the right-of-way to match the existing cul-de-sac that is out there. They have added a bike rack. The drive aisles out front are suited for the contractor warehouse use. They have a 28 foot wide drive aisle as opposed to a 24 foot wide and they added an additional 8 foot concrete apron to help with maneuverability for the contractors using the site. He appreciates the approval of the waiver. That area is really from the trash dumpster heading east away from the building. The stormwater will sheet flow across that paved area to the stormwater pond located just south of the building. They did submit the Performance Standards Review Application. Like Mr. Swierczek said, they do not have tenants at this point but given the Performance Standards for dangerous and objectionable elements, he doesn’t think that Mr. Stoltzfus would want to have anyone in the building that is going to be using or generating the items listed within the City of Dover Code. Fire and explosion hazards, radioactivity, noise, vibration, smoke and all of that type of stuff just isn’t good for the area. He does not feel that they would be putting anyone in there who would want to generate anything like that. Mr. Swierczek had a comment on the architecture. It is to be a metal building. This building is industrial or manufacturing in use so a metal building will be sufficient for what is needed out there and given the location of this building at the very end of College Park Drive. Mr. Hartman stated that the Performance Standards (responses) that are provided are very open. He understands that since they don’t know what kind of tenants are going in there, but the Commission is tasked with approving the Performance Standards. He would just like to know that somebody along the line, either the City level or the applicant, will be verifying that the tenants will be at least aware of the Performance Standards so that they can comply with them. Some of the Performance Standards involve solid waste and things of that nature which are throughout the area. He would like to just understand who at the City or who at the applicant’s level will be ensuring that the tenants will be aware of the Performance Standards and will at least understand that there are Performance Standards to be complied with. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Swierczek stated that once the building is constructed and a tenant is identified, whenever they move into this location it has to go through a permit review process. Any permit for something like that does have to come to the Planning Office for review. At that stage, they will review it to ensure that whatever is being proposed onsite is compliant with the Performance Standards Review and is compliant with what the applicant has submitted. If it is not compliant, that would obviously stop that from proceeding further until their concerns could be addressed 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 on that end. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve application C-21-03 Warehouse Building at College Business Park Lot D for the addition of a 9,520 SF commercial warehouse building, inclusive of all DAC comments, the Waiver Request for the Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing and the Performance Standard Review Application, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it seems to be a good use of the area and space. Dr. Jones voting yes; she agrees that we should keep an eye on compliance with the Performance Standards. Mr. Adams voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he agrees with the commentary that the Planning Office provided. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Lord voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff comments and the reasons stated in the motion. S-21-02 Academy of Dover Charter School at 104 Saulsbury Road - Public Hearing and Review of a proposed Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of a 7,072 SF one story School Building behind an existing 37,960 SF School Building. The Plan also shows additional landscaping to meet code requirements. The property measures 4.757 acres +/- and is located on the west side of Saulsbury Road approximately 900 feet north of Forrest Avenue. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Dover School LLC. Address: 104 Saulsbury Road. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-076.07-01-27.00-000. Council District 1. Waiver Request: Elimination of Fence Component of Opaque Barrier and Alternative Format of Opaque Barrier. The property was originally developed with Site Plan S-02-27 Dover Academy Charter School approved by Planning Commission October 21, 2002. Representatives: Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering; Ms. Michele Marinucci, Principal for Academy of Dover Mr. Baldwin recused himself from this application as his daughter works for Academy of Dover Charter School. Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that this application is for a Site Plan for an additional school building on the property located at 104 Saulsbury Road. This property was previously developed under Site Plan S-02-27 for the Dover Academy Charter School and the property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property has been developed in accordance with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) so a lot of the features that are required for that are already established. Currently, there is a 7,072 SF building being proposed at the rear of the existing 37,960 SF building. In addition, they are proposing some pedestrian linkages around the building to get students safely to the play area located even further to the rear of the property without having to pass through the parking area. The applicant is also requesting a Waiver for the Elimination of the Fence Component of the Opaque Barrier requirements as well as Alternative Format of Opaque Barrier. They have submitted their request 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 in writing as well as a diagram showing the existing conditions on the property. When this was previously developed, the property to the south was zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and it has since been rezoned and now requires that Opaque Barrier along the south boundary. It is heavily vegetated; and therefore, the applicant is requesting that Waiver for the Opaque Barrier. They are proposing additional plantings in that area to create a thicker vegetative barrier in places where it may be thinned out. Previously approved too was a Waiver for the Opaque Barrier with the original Site Plan for the western property line as it is heavily wooded there and that also butts up to a residential area. Mr. Liberman stated that this is for a 7,520 SF freestanding classroom addition to provide space for up to 60 students. He thinks that they were looking to add approximately four new employees along with the expansion so there is not a large demand on the parking lot that already exists. The parking will not be changed from what is originally proposed there because parking is based off of the size of the auditorium and that is not changing. The site is located in the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and meets the site layout, landscaping and architectural requirements of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Utilities for water and sewer are being extended from the existing services that are serving the existing building. They are asking for a Waiver of the Fence Component of the Opaque Barrier requirements along the south and west property lines. These areas are heavily wooded and the same waiver was granted previously. The buffer has only gotten thicker with time. The zoning on the southern property line actually changed after the site was constructed so the fence then became a requirement. It was actually after our site was already built that the fence requirement came in. It will be very costly to have to remove all of the vegetation along our property line that is 700 feet long and then install trees and shrubs and the fence; it just doesn’t seem like a good use of time and money to be able to do that. Additionally, it seems like the fence component screens the parking lot from the residential use and the building is essentially going to be covering or screening the parking lot from the senior apartments to the south. The DAC comments were fine. Ms. Marinucci stated that their plan with this expansion of our Academy is to have a minimum impact to those around us while we are also providing a major impact to the families that they serve. This really just allows them to spread out their students and they are adding two grades. For the most part, it is going to be for the same families that they serve. Our families tend to have all of their children come through the Academy. So, the impact itself on surrounding areas should be very minimal. Dr. Jones questioned if the Planning Office heard from any of the neighboring communities or residents surrounding this area? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Bulkilvish stated no, they have not received any comments from the neighboring properties. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to approve Application S-21-02 Academy of Dover Charter School at 104 Saulsbury Road to permit the construction of a 7,072 SF building behind the existing building and to include the Waiver to Eliminate the Opaque Barrier Fence requirement for the south and west property boundaries recognizing the presence and maintenance of the existing trees and 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 vegetation along those property lines, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin recused. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the recommendations of the Planning Office and their DAC comments. Mrs. Lord voting yes; based on reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Adams voting yes; he wishes the school good luck in this project. Mr. Roach voting yes; this additional space will be a welcomed addition and he hopes that everything goes well. Mrs. Malone voting yes; she thinks that it is a good project and also for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff comments and DAC comments. S-21-03 Three Lots at Secure Storage on Lafferty Lane: Master Plan - Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Master Plan Application to permit development of three (3) existing parcels. The parcels are listed as Lots 2, 3, and 4 respectively; with Lot 1 being the main parcel for the Secure Storage Facility. Lot 2 is proposed to contain a Building of 23,600 +/- SF with associated site improvements. Lot 3 is proposed to contain a Building of 23,600 +/-SF with associated site improvements. Lot 4 is proposed to contain a Building of 21,400 +/-SF with associated site improvements. The proposed development area of the three Lots totals 7.67 acres +/- and is zoned IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone). The land tracts are located on the north side of Lafferty Lane and east of Bay Road. The owner of record is Secure Storage LLC. Property Addresses: unaddressed but are adjacent to 640 Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcels: ED- 05-077.00-01-25.01-000, ED-05-077.00-01-25.02-000, and ED-05-077.00-01-25.03-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Sidewalks, Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing and Consideration of Performance Standards Review Application. The three Lots were created as part of a Minor Subdivision Plan with Site Plan S-02-23 Secure Storage LLC for Mini-Storage Facility (Lot 1) in 2002. Representative: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Site Development Master Plan for three lots on Lafferty Lane. They are noted as Lots 2, 3 and 4 with Lot 1 being the primary and already developed lot for the Secure Storage itself. This is being proposed as a Site Development Master Plan as once again, the applicant has not identified any specific tenants. They have notified Planning Staff that they have been in some discussions with some businesses. They are looking to have some perspective developments approved so that they might be able to move forward in order to accommodate that. This would be allowed as a Site Development Master Plan and then the specific lots might be able to move forward under an Administrative Review. There isn’t specific phasing identified in that regard. It is mainly to address the ability to move forward with that additional Administrative Review. The buildings as shown on Lots 2 and 3 are each currently shown as 23,600 SF and with the building on Lot 4 identified as 21,400 SF. All three buildings are sharing a single access point off of Lafferty Lane that connects into Lot 3. This is the sole component of those that they could obviously identify that has to be developed first as that access point would allow for construction to be done on all three lots. The applicant has similarly noted a 60-foot cross-access easement being implemented across the entire frontage of Lot 3 that would allow that access road to connect to Lots 2 and 4 as well. There is no interconnectivity shown between any of these lots and the primary Lot 1. The most recent application for this overall site was from 2017 that proposed putting in the final Phases 2 and 3 of construction to Secure Storage. They did submit a Waiver Request for that application to eliminate the requirements for sidewalks 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 along the Lafferty Lane frontage. They have similarly submitted a Request to also eliminate sidewalks across the Lafferty Lane frontage on these three properties. They have further submitted an administrative Waiver Request for the Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. This pertains to certain areas around the parking lots and the added drive on Lot 4. Each of the buildings is shown to be approximately one story. Again, these do not have any building architecture (submitted). If there were any more specifics to be identified, that will come across for review by Planning Staff. There is a fenced in yard identified at the rear of all three of these buildings and there is a loading space identified at the rear of each of these buildings as well. The appropriateness of the loading facilities and the parking as well will be further addressed upon further review by Planning Staff through an administrative process as well as the permit review process. Another key thing that Staff notes is on Lot 1, immediately adjacent to Lot 4, there is an unmarked cemetery. This is something that came across when DelDOT was surveying for the construction of Lafferty Lane. In the development of Lot 1, it was identified that the applicant should obviously be cognizant of that cemetery and similarly to do so here with the development of Lot 4. The main thing is that they have again submitted a Performance Standards Review Application as this is an IPM Zone site. They have submitted that for review by the Planning Commission. Planning Staff has approved the administrative Waiver for the Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. As it pertains to the Performance Standards Review, Planning Staff would again recommend approval of the Performance Standards Review noting that we will be further reviewing each one of these sites through an additional administrative process as well as a permit review process and any potential objectionable or hazardous materials to be used by any tenant would raise a red flag for the Planning Staff along with the elimination of curbing, Planning Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the requirements for the sidewalks along the frontage of Lafferty Lane as they did in the 2017 application for Lot 1. If sidewalks were to be provided right now, they wouldn’t connect to anything. There is no other sidewalk along the Lafferty Lane frontage. However, the Waiver Request also noted that they were requesting to not have to provide a sidewalk linking the three buildings providing internal pedestrian access. Planning Staff was not recommending approval for that but they of course welcome the commentary by the applicant. As the applicant noted, there has not been a tenant identified yet for any one of these three sites. Supposing that there might be some type of connectivity between these potential businesses, it would be more beneficial to provide a pedestrian only access sidewalk as opposed to having people using drive aisles or the parking lots to access one property from another. Mr. Street stated this application is for a Site Master Plan and what that does is gives the applicant the ability to build each building or each lot separately and also allows them for a little bit more flexibility. Each one of these lots, as they would be developed, would still have to come before Planning Staff and would still have to meet the criteria of the Master Plan as you see it. They are in receipt of Staff comments and they don’t have any comments to them, with the exception of a couple things. For the Planting requirements in the DAC he and Mrs. Melson- Williams discussed them with the applicant. They had requested that the planting requirement be something less than the 7.76 acres of site area. You can see on the plan that there is a large area at the back of the site made up of stormwater management and a water swale. There are also areas of easement. There is a water line that runs between Lots 2 and 3. So, there is some area that is undevelopable that they can’t necessarily touch and they are asking that it be removed from the requirements. He thinks that it is mentioned in the comments that the tenants of each 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 specific area could be worked out administratively. They have a landscape plan that puts up 95 trees so he thinks that they are good with the area as long as they and Staff can work that out; he doesn’t think that there will be any problems. With regard to the Performance Standards, he wanted to make sure that Mr. Hartman was satisfied. Although, he thinks this application is very similar to another application that was heard tonight where they don’t know the tenants right now. They know that it is going to be more of warehousing and construction type uses and those standards would be reviewed by Staff as each administrative application comes through for them. With regard to lighting, lighting will be done on the parking lots and any impervious surface as per the City Code requires. You can see from the Site Plan in front of you that the site is going to have one main access from Lafferty Lane and then separate into the three individual lots; and that cross-access easement was previously recorded for this plan. With that, the partial elimination of the curb, they will often request a partial elimination of curbing for these sites to make way for stormwater management. Stormwater management on the site has previously been approved and managed but they will still have to submit to the Kent Conservation District to confirm impervious areas are covered with drainage; and they will issue that approval of that plan. They request the partial elimination so that water can sheet-flow off of the parking areas and the rear will have some amount of gravel used for turning areas for trucks and loading. It is a little bit easier to control stormwater when it is just able to sheet-flow off the ground. Often when we install curbs, we have to install closed drainage systems. This is a more natural and a little bit easier to control when you are just running it off of the property. With regard to the sidewalk and the Sidewalk Waiver that they requested, we thank the Planning Staff for requesting the elimination of sidewalk off of Lafferty Lane since this project has requested that on multiple phases that it has gone through during years of development. With regard to the elimination of (internal) sidewalk, they won’t put up too much of a fight for the interconnection between the lots and they can provide that sidewalk without question. Dr. Jones questioned if the Site Development Plan approval requires measures that will protect this (cemetery) area? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Swierczek stated yes, the unmarked cemetery actually does lie on Lot 1 and there were measures taken then to assure that the applicant did not disturb it. There were recommendations of putting up some type of temporary fence to ensure that no construction equipment would crossover that area even though construction wasn’t really being conducted in that area immediately. He thinks something similar would happen in this situation. Dr. Jones further questioned if that is the case, who is accountable for calling the stoppage if there are human remains discovered? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Unmarked Human Remains Law that is part of Delaware Code requires that anybody coming across from what could be perceived as human remains during construction activity is charged with stopping. Then there is a process that involves the State Historic Preservation Office for evaluation of whether that is in fact unmarked human remains. There is a fairly succinct process for dealing with that. The limits of the cemetery were fairly well studied during the requirements that DelDOT had to do with the Lafferty Lane relocation a number of years ago associated with the construction of State Route 1. The activities that would involve construction on these three lots are not within that cemetery boundary but there is always the possibility for outliers of course. So, that is why we make mention of it but certainly there is some stormwater management that is between the project sites and the location of the cemetery. It is a bit of a 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 distance so there is a comfort level there, but there is certainly activity in place and their plan itself actually defines the basic area of the cemetery anyway. She thinks that there are reasonable preventive measures there as we know where the bulk of it is. But that’s not to say that there might be something beyond that but there had been a lot of study done previously on the cemetery. The property owner is one in the same, so they are well aware of the presence in close proximity. Mr. Street stated that that area of the cemetery is located off of our property. Those updated Kent Conservation District plans as well as any Administrative Site Plan that would come through Staff’s Office, would define a limit of disturbance. That limit of disturbance the State uses on a State level is for construction activity and that limited disturbance would not cross that property line without written authorization from the neighboring parcel. He understands that the neighboring parcel has the same owner, but there is no need for them to be over there. Frankly, they pay a fee based on the area of limited disturbance so we try and keep that limit as small as we possibly can. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve application S-21-03 Three Lots at Secure Storage on Lafferty Lane: Master Plan, inclusive of all of the DAC comments and the waiver requests for the elimination of sidewalk, the elimination of upright curbing and the consideration of the Performance Standards Review Application, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons previously stated and she thinks that it is a good expansion of the property. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion and it will be a good addition to that area. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Malone voting yes; she thinks that it is a good project for the area. Mr. Hartman voting yes; the proposal is in accordance with Code and he would suggest to the applicant that they might want to install the internal sidewalk linkage as suggested by the Planning Office. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on reasons previously stated. Mrs. Lord voting yes; based on reasons previously stated and would also like to see the internal sidewalk installed. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the DAC comments. SB-21-01 Lands of Bayroadcap, LLC at 600 Bay Road: Minor Subdivision Plan - Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan to subdivide the Bay Road Commercial property consisting of 12.94 acres +/- into two parcels (Lot 1 and Lot 2). Lot 1 is to be 4.95 acres+/- and encompass the western portion of the property developed with Phase 1: Building, stormwater management facility, and parking area. Lot 1 does not have frontage on Bay Road. Lot 2 is to be 7.99 acres+/- and encompass the eastern residual portion of the property with frontage on Bay Road. The subject property is located on the west side of Bay Road near its intersection with Blue Hen Boulevard and the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Bayroadcap, LLC. Property Address: 600 Bay Road. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000. Council District 2. Subdivision Waiver Requested: Elimination of Requirement for Lot Frontage on a Public Street. Application S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building Update at Bay Road Commercial was approved by the Planning Commission in September 2019 and received Final Plan Approval on 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 March 6, 2020 regarding the development of the Lot 1 area superseding Application S-17-20. Application C-20-02 Landing Square: Revised Phase 2 Area was approved by the Planning Commission on August 17, 2020 for the commercial development of the Lot 2 area. Representative: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Minor Subdivision Plan. We have seen this subject site a number of times in recent years, but this is a proposal to subdivide what is a 12.49 acre parcel into two lots. Lot 1 being the smaller of the two and focused on the western extremes of the property and then Lot 2 being just less than 8 acres and being the eastern portion of the property with frontage specifically on Bay Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and both parcels would remain that zoning classification. For previous history, there have been a number of projects. The two most recent of note is what is proposed here in the Lot 1 area was developed under the Site Plan Application S-19-20 the Delaware State Police Administration Update to the Bay Road Commercial site. There is that existing building there now and their parking and some stormwater management which will serve Lot 1 as well as some areas of Lot 2 likely. The Lot 2 area is the subject of the Site Plan piece of C-20-02 The Landing Square, also known as the Revised Phase 2 area which is just the site development for an office building and then two restaurant pieces out along Bay Road should they move to that direction. If you will remember those applications, access to the site is with a right-in/right-out off of Bay Road along the property frontage but the main real access to the property occurs by traveling over what they call the Baycourt Plaza entrance drive. That is not public right-of-way; it just happens to be a named entrance drive which has easements that allow access to the subject parcel as well as to a property owned by DelDOT and DTC that is to the further west. The Baycourt Plaza entrance drive is not right-of-way. Because with the kind of Z-shaped property line that they are requesting to strike to divide this into two lots leaves Lot 1 without specific frontage on a public street. That is a requirement of our Land Subdivision Regulations; however, there is the ability for the Planning Commission and then ultimately City Council, to consider a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations to remove that requirement. They are seeking this waiver as Lot 1 does not have frontage on a public street. It has the ability to access a public street by the easement that exists along the Baycourt Plaza drive and then also if additional easements are established across Lot 2 for it to reach Bay Road. Lot 2 has the required frontage on Bay Road. Any time that we are striking a property line, we have to look at the bulk standards for the zone. With this being C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone), they have looked at that and the second sheet of their submission very specifically shows where the building is on Lot 1 so that we can confirm that setbacks from property lines as met. Likewise, that will also have to be confirmed with the development that was recently approved on Lot 2. In recent weeks, it went to Final Plan Approval so they will need to double check that the new proposed property line doesn’t impede any required setbacks there. For the balance of the development, that really is related to the approved development plans that exist so things like parking, sidewalks and tree plantings are covered under a Site Development Plan Review. As she said, Lot 1 is pretty much completed its development at this point, but Lot 2 will be subject to the plans that are recently approved for its development. There were comments from the other regulatory agencies that are included in the packet, but Staff finds that the creation of two lots generally complies with our Land Subdivision Regulations. Dividing it into two lots does not impede its future development; however, we do need to address the Subdivision Waiver for the requirement of the lot to have frontage on a 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 public street. Staff does recommend that that Waiver be granted and in doing so, that you require the cross access easements to be very specifically established to ensure both Lot 1 and Lot 2 can make use of that Baycourt Plaza entrance drive to reach Bay Road which is the public street in this general area and that there are also appropriate easements associated across Lot 2 and between these two Lots to cover things related to utilities, site circulation, and the like. With a Subdivision Waiver, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation and that recommendation must be forwarded to City Council. Mr. Street stated that what you are looking at tonight is simply the subdivision of two properties. What you are not seeing on the plan are the cross access easements. There are currently cross access easements between not only Bay Road and the neighboring property to the north where Century Engineering is now. You can actually see that cross access easement there defined on the plan, but it also includes the attorney’s office out front as well. Also, what you are not seeing on the plan that was deeded is that the project will provide sewer not only to both Lot 1 and Lot 2, but also that parcel out front as well. That will have to be restated and re-recorded to include new parcel numbers and owners if the Waiver is granted. The cross access easement that is currently on the Baycourt Plaza side which is the boulevard entry, that was actually made up of two different easements prior to the original approval to this a couple of years ago. They actually researched that and cleaned that up for our parcel in its entirety. DelDOT and DART are both a party to that and that obviously would remain as it has been a long standing easement that provides not only our parcel access but the DART facility access as well. As part of the State Police project, they also included that interconnection there to make the bus traffic in and out a little easier and well organized. With that, they are in receipt of Staff’s comments; they don’t have any real concerns with comments. The cross access easement that Mrs. Melson-Williams was stating would have to be recorded and taken care of. The State Police facility is kind of its own little parcel there as Lot 1. The stormwater management that is on the north side of them, serves both what would be Lot 1 and a small portion of Lot 2; so, there will be some sharing of maintenance responsibilities. It is going to be the same owner, but this is still a typical agreement that happens. Most recently the last one that he did was across the street to the south with the DSWA and the Chesapeake Utilities site. The stormwater management pond is located on the Chesapeake Utilities parcel, but it feeds the entire business park and there is an agreement of who maintains what and what percentages of maintenance needs to be done. This is a typical agreement and it is something that they are already aware of and are already working on. They are not changing anything about current agreements that are in place with the exception of updating parcel numbers and owners. They are not proposing to sell off any of these parcels. This is just being done so that they can kind of reorganize the financing for construction because the State Police Building is completed. This whole parcel (Lot 1) will essentially be done and signed off on which allows them to then move on with development of Lot 2 and its financing. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Ms. Karen Vicks – 580 Bay Road Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Vicks stated that she did not have any comments; she is here for informational purposes. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2021 Mr. Hartman moved to recommend approval to City Council for SB-21-01 Lands of Bayroadcap, LLC at 600 Bay Road: Minor Subdivision Plan to include the Waiver to eliminate the lot frontage requirement for Lot 1 provided that cross access easements among both Lots 1 & 2 and along the Baycourt Plaza entrance drive to ensure permanent access to Bay Road is secured and that these easements allow for the owners of each lot to make any improvements necessary to the internal circulation system as specified in the Zoning Ordinance Article 8, Section 1 to ensure that internal circulation and site access to both lots are beneficial to the public health, safety and general welfare, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he agrees with the Planning Office’s commentary and the DAC requirements in Section VII of the DAC Report. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff’s recommendations. Mrs. Lord voting yes; based on reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; based on DAC comments and that it is in compliance with plan for that site area. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff and DAC comments. NEW BUSINESS - None Meeting adjourned at 9:15 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 16