PC Minutes 9-19-22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 19, 2022 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present was Mr. Nick Patel, Mr. Troy Adams (virtual), Ms. Alyssa Pruitt (virtual), Mr. George Wilson (virtual), Mr. Jim Eriksen (virtual), Dr. Charles Fletcher (virtual), and Mr. L.B. Steele (virtual). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Maucher stated that the Rezoning Application Z-22-03 Lands of Silver Linings Holding Corporation at 630 W Division Street will not be heard by the Planning Commission on September 19, 2022 due to incomplete public notices. This Application and its Public Hearing will be rescheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting and will be subject to Public Notice requirements for the new meeting date. Dr. Jones moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2022 Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2022, seconded by Mrs. Denney and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to welcome our Planning Director, Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Melson-Williams provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on September 12 & 13, 2022. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they currently have two jobs posted in our department overall. A Code Enforcement Inspector and a Planner position are posted; so, if you know anyone that might be interested in either one of those or any of the other City job positions that are open, certainly visit the City’s website or reach out to our Human Resources Department and they would be happy to talk about that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the packet is information on the upcoming APA Delaware Chapter Conference. It will be a virtual event and the flyer is available. It is scheduled for 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 October 5 & 6, 2022. There is a small registration fee. If you are a Planning Commission member and are interested in attending this training, please reach out to Staff and they will get you registered. If there are other individuals in the room that are interested, please see Staff. They can get you in touch with the registration information for the Conference. It is a two-day session that begins at 9:00AM and runs until about 1:30PM. It is a series of different presentations focused on things related to climate change, ethics and other planning initiatives in the region. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS C-22-03 Lands of Chiang & Sons Properties LLC: Office/Retail and Apartments at 1241 College Park Drive – Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan to permit the conversion of an existing two-story 11,700 SF Building to serve as Office/ Retail on the first floor and Apartments (9 units) on the second floor. The project also includes building additions for stair towers and a laundry room. The property consists of one parcel of land totaling 1.102 acres +/- (48,021 SF). The property for the proposed development is zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). The property is located on the east side of College Park Drive, north of College Road. The owner of record is Chiang & Sons Properties, LLC. Property Address: 1241 College Park Drive. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-067.00-02-12.08-000. Council District 4. Representatives: Mr. Nick Patel, Elliott Surveying Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to establish the use of apartments at an existing building located at 1241 College Park Drive. The building is currently vacant and it had been most recently used as offices. The property is zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) which requires that any potential establishment of the use of apartments go through first a Conditional Use Application. It is noted that the existing building is 11,700 SF. The applicant had been showing that the first floor is proposed for retail office suites and on the second floor would be nine apartment units. It is noted that while the plans indicate either an office or retail use for the first floor units, retail is not permitted use in the C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). The apartments, as he noted, there are nine on the second floor. Given the square footage it would seem to indicate those being either studio or one- bedroom; however, that’s not been confirmed by the applicants. The property lies within College Business Park so the area contains a variety of uses from manufacturing business to storage warehousing. There is the Department of Agriculture, the Offices for the Correctional Officers Association of Delaware and across the street to the south is the North Dover Elementary School; however, there are no sidewalks or vehicle access directly to that property from this site. There are existing sidewalks on the property and sidewalk linkages from the site to the sidewalk 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 along College Park Drive. There were new entrances being proposed with the suites on the first floor and two new small additions to the building being proposed in order to accommodate staircases on the north and east sides of the building as well as a laundry facility for future tenants. They were proposing in order to meet the required seventeen trees for the property they might be doing tree plantings on the site. Otherwise, there were no new site features proposed. He would point out that as this is apartments (a proposal to establish an apartment use) there is generally requirements to implement the Active Recreation Plan. However, for apartments in a building of this size with this many units, there is not a requirements but there would have to be some sort of an alternative worked out. That would have to be proposed to the Parks & Recreation Committee. In the Conditional Use for the apartments, Planning Staff just wanted to point out a couple items for the Commission’s consideration before they take a vote on this. The location of the subject site is within a business park. There are other office, warehouse, and manufacturing uses in the area so it is a somewhat remote location for residential; however, it is an opportunity to establish a new residential use especially since we are hearing a little concern about there not being enough housing stock in the City. They did receive a few items of communication from members of the public. There is one email of objection from Mr. Stoltzfus who is the property owner of the majority of the properties within the vicinity in the College Business Park as well as two letters signed by representatives of businesses or tenants within the vicinity of the subject property. All three were noting an objection based on past experience with residential uses in the area. Mr. Hartman stated that in Section X (of the DAC Report) when you talk about the opportunity to provide a new type of housing. Are you supporting this or are you warning us of the precedent that it may set? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Swierczek stated that “support” and “warn” are strong words. He thinks they are trying to neutrally lay out a couple of different points arguing in favor and potentially against the consideration of establishing apartments here. On the whole, Planners are to be advocates of assorted mixed use housing providing apartments units or housing units near where people work. He thinks the more traditional process of that would be, for example, Downtown housing. But again, he thinks that they are trying to be neutral about that. Mr. Patel stated that he represents the owner Chiang & Sons Properties, LLC. There is really not much to add as far as what we are proposing to do. Having heard the concerns put forth by some of the other tenants and/or owners of the Business Park, they are talking about a simple nine units. They have scoured that Park and really there is not another building that can kind of manage something like this. This is a two-story building that has been vacant for almost five years. It was damaged heavily in the storms that we had back then and it was abandoned. At this point, they are going to completely renovate it from top to bottom. So, the thought process was that they could put another manufacturing or office complex back in but they also know that the building next door which is housed mostly by the State that is next door is mostly vacant. They thought, what could they bring to the area that could not only make the property more valuable but also beneficial. They thought about adding a combination of studio and one-story apartments upstairs. The additions that they are going to make to the building are strictly for entrances, a couple picnic areas for the tenants to use and things like that but no major construction will happen on the site because it was a pretty solid building and area to begin with. There is also plenty of parking. The other thing was that as we sat through the meeting, the owner is open to 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 any suggestions and/or changes that anybody would require. He may even be willing to accommodate anything that he can within the means that the building would allow. They have agreed to provide the necessary plumbing and electrical and the building already has a sprinkler system. He is willing to do anything and everything to meet the requirements set forth. Mr. Hartman stated that after listening to Staff and the Applicant, he is firmly opposed to this based on a precedence that it may set for the City for the C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) throughout the City. We have letters here from businesses telling us how they are afraid that it’s going to affect how they constructed their business with the assurance that this was a business park and not a residential area. He hasn’t heard anything to change his mind in the presentations; so, he supports the Commission denying this application. Dr. Jones stated that she does concur with Mr. Hartman in addition to the fact that there are just numerous areas that have been cited in terms of where attention needs to be given to this particular application. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would like to enter into the record the items of public correspondence that we received. They were provided to the Commission members by email this afternoon and paper copies were distributed on their desks. Those items include Attachment #1 which is an email from Mr. John M. Stoltzfus who is the owner of 1201, 1203, 1205, 1221, 1255, 1257 and 1285 College Park Drive in the College Business Park. In his email, Mr. Stoltzfus notes his objection to this “Rezoning” for the professional business park here to include residential apartments. Staff will note that it’s not a “Rezoning”; it’s a Conditional Use. He goes on to give information about where his concerns lie in regards to this application. The other attachment items are two letters that we received together. The first one being from Mr. Ken Merit of Sid Harvey Industries Inc. who is a business tenant at 1285 College Park Drive. That one again uses the opportunity to express their objection to the proposal for including the residential component in this commercial building. The other item of correspondence is from Ms. Deborah Hendrick of JSD Management Inc. who is a business tenant at 1283 College Park Drive who likewise, expresses a strong objection to the proposal to include residential apartments. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to deny application C-22-03 Lands of Chiang & Sons Properties LLC: Office/Retail and Apartments at 1241 College Park Drive that proposed the conversion of the existing two-story building to office, retail and aparmtents. He bases this not only on the comments of the businesses and the tenants that reached out, but Article 10 Section 1.2 saying Proposed use should be in a location, size and character that would generally be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the zone in which it is proposed to be situated. He believes that this instance should be an example of something that is not in harmony with the proposed use, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 7-2 by roll call vote. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on his previous statement. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the fact that it is a mixed use and we need housing but he just doesn’t think this is a good plan or good 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 location for that. Dr. Jones voting yes; for the reasons already stated and this particular proposal is just out of character for the area. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she agrees with the comments and reasons cited by Mr. Hartman as far as the character of the area. She believes that the size of the apartment units really didn’t seem to be conducive to apartment living or residential living but more of what might be transient nature. Mrs. Malone voting yes; there is a complex right across the street that was much greater than this and if there are only nine apartment units. It would help people that maybe don’t have transportation to be able to walk to their job, she is all in favor for that because we don’t have great public transportation here. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for all the reasons that Mr. Hartman stated in the motion. Mr. Roach voting no; he feels as though the apartments being there are more beneficial than it being consistent with the rest of the business park. Mrs. Denney voting yes; based on the fact that in this particular business park, she simply doesn’t see it mixing with residential use because should there be families or perhaps children, the business traffic that comes in and out and even trucks that may be bringing in stock or things. She just simply thinks that this doesn’t mix for this particular plan in this particular business park. Mrs. Maucher voting no; she appreciates looking outside the box and she thinks that there are other areas that have a mix of residential housing combined with other business opportunities. She thinks that the housing is needed. It is not something that everyone would want but there are people who want and need that kind of asset. SB-22-04 Lands of Wilson at 838 Forest Street: Minor Subdivision Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan to subdivide a property consisting of 23,648 SF +/- (0.5429 acres +/-) into two (2) parcels. Lot 1 (Residual) is to be 11,792 SF (0.2707 acres+/-) and is the northern portion of the existing parcel containing the existing single-family dwelling with frontage on Forest Street. Lot 2 is to be 11,865 SF (0.2722 acres+/-) and is the southern portion of the existing parcel with frontage on Lincoln Street containing no development. The subject property is located on the south side of Forest Street across from the southern terminus of Weston Drive. The property is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) with the northern portion of the property is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owners of record are William T. and Iris O. Wilson. Property Address: 838 Forest Street. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05- 076.12-01-31.00-000. Council District 4. Representative: Mr. Troy Adams, Mountain Consulting; Ms. Alyssa Pruitt, Mountain Consulting; Mr. George Wilson Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Minor Subdivision Application for 838 Forest Street. This is a parcel that has frontage along both Forest Street to the north and Lincoln Street to the south. The applicant is not at the present time, proposing any new development or anything beyond simply creating the new parcel out of the existing one. So, the northern parcel would have frontage along Forest Street. There is an existing dwelling unit there that has vehicle access and pedestrian access with the sidewalk along Forest Street. The parcel to the south does not currently have vehicle access but there is a sidewalk. Obviously any new potential development there, in order to be compliant with Code, would of course have to provide vehicle access but again that would be a future item to evaluate. The only other couple items of note are the minimum side yard setback for development in this zone RG-1 (General Residence Zone) is five feet. It is less than five feet along the western property line; however, that is considered legal 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 non-conforming. This proposal does not increase the non-conformity which is why it’s allowed to be considered still this evening. The Planning Staff had a question about wanting to confirm the impervious coverage that would be proposed with the line drawn as it is there. Just to confirm that that would be the maximum impervious coverage allowed which is 45%. If it is shown that where the property line is right now would mean that the lot coverage on the northern parcel would exceed that, then there might have to be an adjustment in the future. Again, this is not for any physical development of either parcel, it is simply for the subdivision to create a new parcel with frontage on Lincoln Street. Ms. Pruitt stated that she doesn’t have anything to add to Mr. Swierczek’s presentation. Mr. Adams stated that they have nothing else to really add; however, the impervious coverage of the lot to the north with the home, that lot is right at the 45% mark. This property is situated where there is not really much that can be added to it to create more impervious surface. Mr. Wilson agrees that we put it right at 45% and it will be sufficient. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Denney feels as though we are essentially creating two separate lots with each lot fronting on its own street. She just wants to be sure that she is looking at this correctly. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Maucher stated yes. Mrs. Denney stated that she has no objection and she thinks that it’s a reasonable request. Mrs. Denney moved to approve SB-22-04 Lands of Wilson at 838 Forest Street: Minor Subdivision Plan based on the fact that she thinks they would be creating two lots, both fronting individually on streets, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she believes that this is a logical use to subdivide these and make two separate lots on their own separate streets. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the fact that the lot is oddly shaped compared to its neighbors and a subdivision would bring it more in line with the neighborhood. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the forementioned statements. Dr. Jones voting yes; based on previous reasons given. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks it’s a viable change to take care of an issue of an irregularly shaped lot which would allow further development on the second lot and have an entrance off another street so that would be a much more viable use of the property. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. Z-22-02 Part of Lands of Calvary Baptist Church of Dover at 2285 Forrest Avenue – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council for a rezoning application for part of a parcel of land consisting of 25 acres (overall existing parcel is 75.521 acres +/-). The property is zoned R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and partially subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning for the 25 acres is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the south side Forrest Avenue west of Dover High Drive. The owner of record is Calvary Baptist Church of 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 Dover. The equitable owner is Leander Lakes III, LLC. Property Address: 2285 Forrest Avenue. Tax Parcel: Part of ED-05-075.00-01-06.00-000. Council District 1. Ordinance #2022-11. This property was subject to Conditional Use Site Plan Application C-19-06 which received Conditional Approval by the Planning Commission at their July 2019 meeting, and Final Plan Approval in December 2021. Representatives: Mr. Jim Eriksen, Solutions IPEM; Dr. Charles Fletcher, Land Owner; Mr. L.B. Steele, Leander Lakes III, LLC Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an application filed by Leander Lakes III, LLC. The property owner is the Calvary Baptist Church of Dover. The subject property that we are dealing with is the parcel that is located at 2285 Forrest Avenue. It is depicted on the screen in yellow. The entire tract is 75.521 acres; however, this Rezoning is the area of 25 acres which is shown in a hatched configuration. It does kind of look like an upside-down flag at the moment, so we are just focused on that 25-acre area. The present zoning of the overall property is R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and the frontage of the parcel is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The applicant is making a request to take the 25-acre area to the zoning of RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) with the front portion remaining to subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and then the balance of the acreage would remain R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone). With a Rezoning Request, we have to look at the Comprehensive Plan. The Report includes the Goals and Policies related to residential land-use activities. Specifically in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan Map 12-1 identifies that this property should be utilized for the residential land use of Residential Medium Density. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to identify those zones that would comply with that land-use category of Medium Density Residential; and the RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) is one of that collection. This property is in general, the western boundary area of the City in this location. The tract was originally annexed into the City back in 2007 shortly after the Annexation that brought in the land area that became the new Dover High School Complex. Adjoining this property, there is a church location, there is an existing apartment complex known as Leander Lakes that already carries with it that RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). For the subject parcel itself, Planning Commission members may remember a Conditional Use Site Plan Development C-19- 06 for the Calvary Baptist Church of Dover to construct a new place of worship. That plan is still in place and they are working on permitting for that at this point. This Rezoning is in the balance of the property where development of that new place of worship is not proposed. With the Rezoning, the Report includes information on the zoning district. This will focus on just the zoning change. Any future development of the tract of land would be subject to a separate review and approval process. The Planning Staff is recommending the rezoning to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) with retaining that COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) for the 25 acres be approved, finding that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for that Residential Medium Density Land-Use Classification. The Route 8 Corridor is a major east/west roadway and adjoining areas have been developed for larger and higher scale density both on the institutional side and residential side of things. There is an existing infrastructure and service capabilities in the area. Tonight, the Planning Commission is to hear from the applicant, conduct its public hearing and then they will be making a recommendation in regards to the Rezoning. Specifically, the Planning Commission needs to evaluate the three factors that are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Just in summary, it’s whether the use is permitted by the proposed change 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 and would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area; whether there is adequate public services and infrastructure; and whether the proposed change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The other agencies participating in our Development Advisory Committee voiced no objection to the Rezoning. Some of them also referenced should redevelopment occur that there will ultimately be other things to be considered. Mr. Eriksen stated that Staff did a fantastic job of putting together a comprehensive report so he won’t speak long. He did put together a few things, mostly visuals. One thing that he does want to point out is the transition in use that they left with the requested Rezoning. They left over 400 feet off the building and over 300 feet off improvements with the church so that should be plenty of space to allow that transition use. The next slide shows the general area and you can see that it is a minor arterial per DelDOT’s classification and along there in the vicinity of the project there is existing Medium High Density Residential land uses. There is a high school that was previously mentioned as well as some commercial uses. There is going to be a future church and there is an existing church as well as existing apartments already there right next door that already have this zoning designation. The next slide shows the map with the site that indicates that this was intended per the Comprehensive Plan to be a Medium Density Residential area. The next slide shows the Investment Level Area based on the State Spending Strategies; it’s an Area (Level) 1 and 2. Basically it coincides with a site that you would expect to be developed. When you take all of this in combination with Staff’s Report, they indicated that they believe it matches up well with the Comprehensive Plan and he believes that it meets all conditions. They will be here for any questions. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to identify that Rev. Dr. Charles Fletcher has joined us. He is a representative of the Calvary Baptist Church who is the land owner. Dr. Charles Fletcher stated that he had no comments. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she believes that Ms. Debbie Smith is also representing Calvary Baptist Church because she mentions whether other teammates were on the call this evening regarding this application. Ms. Smith does not have any additional statements to make. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for application Z-22-02 Part of Lands of Calvary Baptist Church of Dover at 2285 Forrest Avenue for the zoning change from R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion and it is appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated by the motion maker. Mr. Cooper voting yes; it’s in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she believes that this is exactly what should be there and it molds well with our Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the fact that the 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 proposed zoning is compatible with the existing zones in the area of concern. There is existing infrastructure and water, sanitary/sewer and electric services and they extended the development in the Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services area. It is also consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff recommendation and the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. NEW BUSINESS Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28): Update on Design Professionals Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at your last meeting, we worked on setting up the new contingent for the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of the Planning Commission. At that meeting, members allowed Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Roach to continue as the Planning Commission members and you directed Staff to reach out to the two previous members of the Committee that have served in the past. Staff did reach out to Dr. R.J. Chandler who is with the Architecture Program at Delaware Technical and Community College. We did receive a confirmation email from him that he will continue to serve if so called upon. They also reached out to Ms. Sarah Keifer who is the Director of Planning Services with Kent County. She is not sure if any of the other Staff have received an email confirming that at this point, but we are thinking that she is probably going to say yes. If there is something to the contrary of that, they will certainly report that to the Commission at the next meeting. They are going to assume that she wishes to continue her service. Mrs. Maucher asked if there was any action required. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they could accept the report of Staff in regards to the design professionals for the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee. Mrs. Malone moved to accept the report from Staff in regards to the design professionals for the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 9-0 by voice vote. Mr. Hartman asked for an update on the restaurant that was proposed by the railroad tracks on (North) West Street. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would defer to Mr. Swierczek since he is the Planner assigned to that project. Mr. Swierczek stated that he will confirm that we did receive a Check Print from them within the last couple of weeks, so they are still actively working through the plan review phase. Every indication so far is that they are proceeding full steam ahead. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Check Print Review Process is what happens after Planning Commission. The applicant’s project team have to go back into those civil drawings, make the corrections, and get all of the agency approvals. They call it the Check Print Review Process because they are resubmitting back to us and we are “checking” that they have satisfied 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 the various comments. The Planning Office is kind of the final gatekeeper to ensure that all of the agency approvals have been received because they must be in hand before the Planning Office will grant Final Plan Approval on behalf of the Planning Commission to the project making it then eligible for full review of its Building Permit submission. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 10