PC Minutes 11-21-22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 21, 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), Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Mrs. Denney was absent. 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 were Dr. Nicholas Alcorn, Mr. James Taylor, Mr. Robert Davis and Mr. Michael Riemann. Speaking from the public was Ms. Linda Parkowski, Mr. Zach Prebula and Ms. Maame Mould (student a Del Tech Community College) just listening to meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Maucher stated that earlier today a Revised Agenda was provided that was posted on the City of Dover’s website that added a Request for Extension. When we arrived at the meeting, there was another amendment to remove an application for inadequate public notice and that was Application S-22-14 Commerce Way Dover DE LLC Warehouse on Commerce Way. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Revised Agenda as submitted with both changes, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mrs. Denney absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF OCTBER 17, 2022 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2022, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mrs. Denney absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Gray provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on October 24 & 25, 2022 and November 14 & 15, 2022. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they received a piece of correspondence that the Planning Commission was copied on. This was a letter dated November 1, 2022 from Pennoni Associates. It is in relation to that Raymond Street/Railroad Avenue Street Improvement Project and the Land Subdivision Waivers that were under consideration at the City Council Committee. This was an updated letter regarding those requests for waivers and focusing in on two of the waivers specifically and withdrawing a third. This is just a bit of correspondence for you on those waiver requests. The Safety, Advisory and Transportation Committee has recommended approval and that will go onto City Council for their meeting next week. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the City is closed for the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday and Friday. They are inching closer to hopefully filling our Planner position. They conducted 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 interviews last week. Hopefully, they will have good news shortly and will keep the Commission posted on that. 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 Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: S-20-12 Walker Pavilion: 101 Mont Blanc Boulevard – Request for one year extension of the Planning Commission Approval granted November 16, 2020 of a Site Development Plan Application to permit the construction of a two story 24,657 S.F. office building with the associated site improvements to be known as the Walker Pavilion. The project area consists of one parcel of land totaling 2.615 acres ±. The property for the proposed development is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located at the southwest corner of Walker Road and Saulsbury Road and has its entrance access from Mont Blanc Boulevard. The owner of record is Moore Walker Road, LLC. Property Address: 101 Mont Blanc Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.19-04-52.00-000. This Application received Conditional Approval from the Planning Commission at their November 2020 meeting, and Final Plan approval is pending. Representatives: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that application S-20-12 is a Site Plan that the Planning Commission reviewed back in November 2020 for a proposed two-story office building and the associated site improvements. On the screen, they have an architectural view of it and its parking lot. That initial Planning Commission approval was good for a two-year time period during which time they needed to finalize the Plan, pull a Building Permit, and commence construction; however, we are not quite there. They are seeking a one-year extension which the Zoning Ordinance does allow them to do. They have a letter that they received dated today, November 21, 2022 seeking that request for extension. She will note that the Plan has moved through our Check Print review process and they believe that most of the agency approvals are in hand. We have the Final Plans in our office and will be confirming all of those agency approvals and getting ready for final endorsement of the Site Plan. There is a Building Permit Application that has been filed so that review will continue once Planning approval is granted to the Site Plan. However, they do need to extend their approval request and that is what is before you tonight. Mr. Hartman moved to approve S-20-12 Walker Pavilion: 101 Mont Blanc Boulevard for a one- year extension that was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 16, 2020, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Mrs. Malone voting yes. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. NEW APPLICATIONS 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 AX-22-02 Lands of Ditko Properties, LLC at 1107 S. Bradford Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 11,248.2 SF (0.2582 +/- acres) located at 1107 S. Bradford Street, Dover. The property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located on the east side of S. Bradford Street approximately 135.37 feet south of Wyoming Avenue. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Commercial Low Intensity. The owner is Ditko Properties, LLC. Property Address: 1107 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.17- 01-12.00-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2022-19. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was held on October 10, 2022. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for November 21, 2022 and City Council on December 12, 2022. Representative: Dr. Nicholas Alcorn, partner at First State Oral Surgery (ownership of property by Ditko Properties, LLC) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Request for Annexation as noted. It is a property at 1107 South Bradford Street. The image on the screen is of the location. It is to the south of Wyoming Avenue. It is an enclave area of several properties that are currently not within the City of Dover and this is a request by one of those to become part of the City. It is just over 11,000 square feet in land area. Currently, in the County it is zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) and the proposed zoning classification is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Our Comprehensive Plan has designated this property as Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use in the Comprehensive Plan is Commercial Low Intensity. Currently, the property has on it a single family detached structure along with a shed and a garage/shed type building. The property was recently acquired by neighboring property owners, and they are the ones seeking to bring it into the City of Dover. It is currently served by City of Dover Electric and City of Dover Water; however, the property is not served by sanitary sewer but there is sewer in the area. It would be the burden of the property owner to make that connection and the costs associated with it. With the Comprehensive Plan, we have to identify areas for annexation, and this is one of them. The Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for considering properties for annexation. It calls out looking at the associated land use category that is shown on Map 13-2; looking at the character and the compatibility of the surrounding land uses of property; looking at things like street type and its capacity; and environmental concerns as well as market conditions, as well as compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Our DAC Report includes information about the goals with Commercial Land Use in the City and specifically the Commercial Low Intensity Areas that are meant to really be on the edge of neighborhood areas and provide for retail and service needs of associated residences. Looking at the Land Development Plan, for the land use category of Commercial Low Intensity, the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is one of the compatible zoning classifications. On our Report, the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) allows for basically a mix of both commercial and residential use. So, the existing building on the site as a residence would be compatible with that zone or as the application indicates, future redevelopment of the site is likely. Those future uses would need to meet the requirements of the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Annexation and it’s Rezoning to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). It is compliant with the land use classification of Commercial Low Intensity. It is that High Priority (Annexation) Area. It is an 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 enclave that brings one more property into the City. We find that the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is consistent with other surrounding zoning in the area. There are some C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) to the north and there is also other residential zoning and office zones in that general vicinity as well. It is noted that this Annexation and Rezoning request needs a recommendation to City Council by the Planning Commission on the matter and City Council will take the final action. Tonight, we are not approving a specific use or development plan for the property; that would come after it was annexed fully into the City of Dover. The Commission will need to look at whether the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area, whether there is adequate public services and infrastructure, and whether it’s accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Application representative, Dr. Nicholas Alcorn noted that he had no additional comments. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to recommend approval to City Council for AX-22-02 Lands of Ditko Properties, LLC at 1107 S. Bradford Street to include the agreement with the DAC findings that the proposed change is compatible with existing uses and zones in the area concerned and that adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created to serve the needs and that the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan; in fact it is a High Priority Area for annexation, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs Denney absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for the reasons stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; the application is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and in consideration of the comments from the DAC. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; the Annexation Request and Rezoning Request are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan so it’s appropriate for the area. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. S-22-12 DuPont Plaza at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Revised Master Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Revised Site Development Master Plan to permit phased construction of a retail center known as DuPont Plaza. The center is to consist of three buildings totaling 52,190 SF and is to be constructed in three phases. The buildings proposed include three multi-tenant structures of 18,360 SF (Building A – Retail and Bank, Phase 1); 14,150 SF (Building B, Phase 2); and 19,680 SF (Building C, Phase 3); and a Pocket Park site amenity. The property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and south of Leipsic Road. The owner of record is Rojan 15 DD, LLC. Property Address: 747 North DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.05-01-15.00-000. Council District 3. PLUS #2018-02-02. This site was subject to S-19-03 Retail Center at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Master Plan reviewed by Planning Commission in March 2019 and July 2019 with its Final Plan approval issued in 2021 along with Administrative Site Plan S-19-18 DuPont Plaza: Phase 1. Representatives: Mr. James Taylor, Verdantas (Duffield & Associates); Mr. Robert Davis, Verdantas 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Revised Master Plan Application (a Site Development Master Plan). It is for a property that’s addressed basically as 747 North DuPont Highway. We find this property on the east side of DuPont Highway just to the south of Leipsic Road with one of its street connections linking to Leipsic Road but the main frontage of the property is on DuPont Highway. The property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone) and is also subject to SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The project consists of a total of three buildings in a series of phases. This project previously has full plan approval for a Master Plan for Phase 1 back with a Plan from 2019 which was S-19-03; however, they have made some changes. That Plan from 2019 consisted of four buildings, probably most notably including what was proposed to be a Golden Corral Restaurant, but plans have now changed. For this property now that is just under 10-acres of land, they have a layout of three multi-tenant commercial buildings. The one closest to Route 13 has a potential bank tenant and they are planning for a drive-through circulation with that building. With this project, they have outlined a series of phases with that building closest to Route 13 being Building A and also in Phase 1. There is a series of parking lots and perhaps what is something slightly unusual for a shopping complex. It does have a centralized kind of pocket park area; there is some area of green space in the center of this that is accessible by the series of sidewalks that cross the property and make those linkages. With the SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone), you may look at this and say it’s not quite big enough but it is associated with the property to its kind of northeast that the Commission recently saw as the Dover Apartments on Leipsic Road. That project moved through a Site Plan Review process. They have shared access from Leipsic Road and interconnection of those two properties as they were originally one large tract of land that was subdivided several years ago. With the project, she notes that it is in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone); and with that, there are some limitations on levels of impervious surface coverage. The existing conditions were over 77% impervious cover and they have reduced it down to just over 66%. They will be seeking that their stormwater management design meets superior infiltration in order to maximize groundwater recharge in this area and with a Master Plan, that would put them under the 75% maximum impervious cover. Moving to the building architecture, they do have a sample of the architecture; and this, kind of focuses on what would be the Building A. Basically, a one-story building somewhat taller than that with a series of colors and a mix of materials with the typical display storefront window systems for multiple tenants across the main façade of the building. It is anticipated that most of the buildings in this complex would be similar in architecture. From a parking perspective, they are exceeding the minimum required number of parking spaces. They are providing loading zones at each of the buildings and also adding incorporated bicycle parking in their project as well. There was an image of the Landscape Plan that shows tree plantings throughout the project area. They are required to have a landscape buffer along the perimeter of the project and they have implemented that. There are plantings in the park area in parking lot islands and the like. They have also planned for lighting, dumpsters and are utilizing curbing throughout the site. With this application, it is a Site Development Master Plan meaning that they provide the overall concept for the project and then each phase, before it commences construction, there is a more Administrative Site Plan review process that Planning Staff and our DAC reviewers will go through. In our DAC Report, there are some minor changes to the Plan for corrections. They did identify a couple of other recommendations. They noted specifically with architecture that they need to ensure that there is not blank walls and that there is some dynamic features, especially at the rear of Building A because that will be quite visible from the other areas of the complex. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 They also suggested a better pedestrian linkage could be established from Route 13 leading directly to Building A and then they asked them to consider the other amenities that could be possible in the pocket park area. There is not any particular requirements but we suggested looking at options for seating or their plantings in those areas because it may be the opportunity for the holiday Christmas tree in that location. Mr. Taylor stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned most of the items that he was going to cover here but there are a couple other pieces just to touch on. This Plan went through approvals from 2019-2021. DelDOT approvals were granted for the two entrances off of Leipsic Road as well as Route 13 and those entrances are staying in the same configuration as what was approved on those plans. With this they are relocating some of the buildings, but the amount of traffic is to remain the same or even slightly less. Then they are also adding additional green space into this Plan which he thinks creates a better atmosphere for this site. Three buildings are proposed in three different phases with the first building being Building A which is the one closest to Route 13. Himself, as well as the owner property who is there tonight in person for any questions for him, but they are both there to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Mr. Hartman stated that he had a question that may require an answer from both the Planning Staff and the applicant. First for Planning Staff; we acknowledge that this is in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and there has been some concern about that in the past. He sees that there are three standards matching; 30% impervious, 60% impervious and 75% impervious. How did we end up at 75% impervious at the site? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the property is within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), specifically the Tier 3 Area. When looking at Tier 3 Areas, the allowable maximum lot coverage is in that range of the 30-60%. It can be increased if you are doing infiltration. That’s for new construction. In this case, this is redevelopment of an existing site. So what the Tier 3 for an existing site, existing conditions and redevelopment says you have to reduce that impervious cover by 15% of your pre-development conditions. From that 75.35%, the Code for redevelopment would say you reduce it by 15%; however, because it is a Site Development Master Plan, it has a slightly different alternative for considering maximum impervious cover. With Site Development Master Plans, it allows that maximum impervious cover to be as high as 75% if it meets the qualification of the superior infiltration design. Our Code calls out that the City Engineer would need to certify to that. With the previous Master Plan, it did achieve that and we really haven’t changed the stormwater management plan for this. Technically if it is determined that it’s superior infiltration design, their maximum impervious cover could be as high as 75%. Their Plan as shown is at a rate of 66.3%. They are reducing from what is there currently, getting a lot more green space on that property, and are still seeking to use that infiltration design. She doesn’t know if Mr. Taylor wants to speak a little bit more to the Stormwater Management Plan for this project site. Mr. Taylor stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams answered most of the stuff that he was going to respond to but for this site, there have been changes so they do have to go back to Kent Conservation District for approval of the Sediment and Stormwater Plans. But the locations of those facilities are in the similar locations as what was done before. They believe that this superior infiltration design will be approved for this site as well which would allow them up to 75% but they don’t believe that they would need to get up to that 75% in this concept. 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 Mr. Hartman asked when the original certification was completed by the City Engineer. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it would have been associated with the S-19-03 Plan. That was the previous Site Development Master Plan for the project site. Mr. Hartman asked if at that point the site was considered to be 77% impervious. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she believes that the 77.35% was the existing conditions out there. This was previously the Berry Van Lines site where the buildings were taken down a number of years ago but there were significant areas of pavement and concrete covering most of the property. She believes that the 77% is that kind of existing condition. With the S-19-03, she would have to look up as to what they were achieving with that Plan as to what percentage they got down to. Mr. Hartman stated that looking at the aerials that he has access to on the internet, the site doesn’t look like its 77.35% impervious. He is questioning the Engineer’s original certification. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Taylor stated that he is correct. The current aerials would show that there is not impervious on this site. When the plans were approved back in the 2020-2021 timeframes, the site received a Demolition Permit to remove the existing asphalt and building slabs that were onsite. That 77% goes back before that timeframe of when those things were removed. As far as the question about when the superior infiltration design was received, that was received on January 6, 2021 as part of the Public Works Water/Wastewater approval. Mr. Hartman asked how they are going to maximize infiltration of this site. Responding to Mr. Hartman stated that there is an infiltration facility that is purposed at the front of Building A. It is an underground infiltration facility and a large portion of stormwater for the site will be going to that and going into the ground for infiltration. That ends up going to Mr. Lyon as the Water/Wastewater Engineer has to sign off on that item. Mr. Hartman stated that he believes that the Commission should be concerned with protecting our recharge areas. He wants to ask Staff one more question about the 77.35% impervious cover. If it’s been changed, why are we still using that number? Why is that number still in the DAC Report? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it’s likely that that was information that was reported on the Plan itself and technically their Plan from S-19-03 is still a valid plan; however, they are changing their design so that’s probably why it’s really being carried forward. We would not revert to the (current) existing condition out there because this has taken initial steps forwards redevelopment under an authorized Permit. Mrs. Welsh asked Mr. Taylor if they are in agreement with the DAC comments in regard to the building elevation on the east side to ensure that there is no big blank wall there. It is a highly visible area. She is just wondering if they have any thoughts as to what they might do to address that comment. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Taylor stated that they will be working with the owner and the project architect. Obviously all of this stuff has to be approved by the Planning Staff, but they are confident that they will be able to provide something as they did previously for the entire site. They are working through those comments from DAC as well as the City Staff on this plan. Mrs. Welsh asked if the Commission will see any new elevations at all or is that just going to go through the Planning Staff. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that if you 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 have concerns with that, you could certainly make that as part of your motion that the architecture for any individual building be presented to the Planning Commission for kind of a check in process. We have done that before with Site Development Master Plans and the general concept is approved; however, as part of that Administrative Site Plan review step, the architecture comes back in greater detail to the Planning Commission as an item of Old Business. It’s just to check-in to ensure that the Commission has that comfort level with that Code requirement regarding the avoidance of blank walls. Mrs. Welsh stated that she thinks that would be something that they would be wise in having as part of the motion. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Maucher stated the number of parking spaces is required at 174 but they are proposing 302 spaces. She is wondering what the cause for the increase is. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Taylor stated that a lot of the times tenants have specific requirements for parking spaces that they would end up having as part of their agreements. As part of that, they have an over amount of parking spaces at this point in time but they need to make sure that they are providing enough for each individual tenant to have their needs met. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-22-12 DuPont Plaza at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Revised Master Plan inclusive of the DAC Comments and in particular in regards to the future architecture of the buildings that the Commission be given submittal elevations that are presented for review on the facilities, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 7-1 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks that it is a great project for the space. That area has been vacant for quite some time and it will surely be an improvement if we have some great looking facility there with a lot of retail and a lot of traffic on that corner as it is a great location. Mrs. Malone voting yes; she agrees with Mrs. Welsh’s comments. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Hartman voting no; based on the inconsistencies tonight with submission of information for the project’s stormwater management and superior infiltration design. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated and it is a good plan as that site has been vacant for quite some time. S-22-13 Garrison Homes LLC Warehouse at 119 Rosemary Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan and associated Lot Consolidation Plan to permit the construction of a one-story, 17,485 SF warehouse and associated site improvements at 119 Rosemary Road and 110 Lafferty Lane. The properties are zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zones A and B, APZ I (Accident Potential Zone I), and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II). The properties are located on the east side of Rosemary Road and north of Lafferty Lane. The owner of record is Garrison Homes, LLC. Property Addresses: 119 Rosemary Road and 110 Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.16-02-12.02- 000 and ED-05-077.16-02-12.01-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Sidewalk along Rosemary Road and Lafferty Lane; Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. For Consideration: Performance Standards Review. 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 Representative: Mr. Michael Riemann, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Site Development Plan and also has a Lot Consolidation Plan. Right now, there are two parcels of land on the east side of Rosemary Road which are the final two lots within what was originally subdivided as the Simpson Industrial Park back 1995. The property involves two tracts of land addressed currently as 119 Rosemary Road and 110 Lafferty Lane. The piece on Lafferty Lane is an existing house with some outbuildings that they have acquired, and it is actually a part of the industrial park here. The zoning is M (Manufacturing Zone) and it is also within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). It has areas that are in the APZ I (Accident Potential Zone I) and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II) and then Noise Zones A and B. She mentioned those because within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) all uses of the buildings must comply with the Land Use Compatibility Table that is part of the Zoning Ordinance. So as tenants take all or part of this building, they will be vetted against that Land Use Compatibility Table. The proposal is for warehouse uses, most warehouse uses do comply unless you have a plan to store something like explosives and then is a no go in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). This is a proposal for a one story, 17,485 SF warehouse. There is a loading area on its west elevation and then a stepped configuration to deal with some of the setbacks of this particular property. It is intended to take access from a single access point off of Rosemary Road. She thinks that brings it into a parking area that meets the minimum parking requirements and she already mentioned the loading zone area. They have planned for a dumpster enclosure on the north side of the building and the far northern portion of the site is an existing stormwater management facility that is intended to serve this property along with other areas of the industrial park. They are seeking a couple of waiver requests tonight. One of which is the partial elimination of upright curbing which Staff has approved. That is for some of the areas of pavement in the northern portion of the site so that can continue the sheet flow into the drainage swale and into the stormwater management facility that’s in that location. The first waiver request for the Planning Commission to consider is a request for elimination of sidewalk requirements on both Rosemary Road and along Lafferty Lane. Those were both the street frontages for this property. Planning Staff is recommending approval of both of those requests with the notation that the other lots in the park along Rosemary Road have previously received waiver requests from that sidewalk provision. Staff is also supporting the elimination of the sidewalk along Lafferty Lane basically due to a number of environmental and topographic issues in that area related to wetlands nearby and also floodplain areas and what happens with drainage along Lafferty Lane and the Morgan Branch. The Morgan Branch on this property does play a role in how the property can be developed. The Morgan Branch has an area of floodplain. For that floodplain, they have to look to a Letter of Map Revision-Based on Fill that was approved back in 2012 to identify where the Flood Hazard Areas or the 100-Year floodplain is located on this property. As you know, you can’t build in those areas per our Zoning Ordinance, and they are staying out of that. With the Morgan Branch, there is also some nearby wetland areas and since there is a water body, there is a setback provision in our Code. The initial Code requirement is a setback of 100 feet but because of implementation of Riparian Buffer Areas and the documented stabilized bank 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 to the Morgan Branch, that can be reduced to 30 feet. Even so, they have to step the building to comply with that. They are complying with tree planting requirements. There are opportunities for tree planting on the site. Additionally, there is a buffer requirement because the property across Rosemary Road from them is a residential house so there would need to be some landscape screening of that parking lot that faces that residential area. That will be something that they will need to be adding to their Plan. Because this is in the M (Manufacturing Zone) there is a Performance Standards Review Application where they have to document that their intended project uses would not cause any of the dangerous and objectionable elements list. That is further detailed in their written letter response and in the DAC Report. Planning did have some comments on the plans themselves and just to remind the Commission on the waiver requests: they had granted approval to the elimination of curbing and are recommending approval for the elimination of sidewalks on Rosemary Road and Lafferty Lane. They also note that in the consideration of the Performance Standards Review Application that they find that satisfactory. They do note again specifically that any of the uses on the property will have to go through that Land Use Compatibility Test with the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The Dover Air Force Base does participate in our Development Advisory Committee review process. The last thing that she will note is that Rosemary Road is not currently a City street. It has not been accepted for dedication. There was some thought back in 1995 that they were going to build it to City street standards and ultimately dedicate it to the City. It is their understanding that that’s not the path that is being pursued at the moment but they would caution that the appropriate provisions should be in place for the maintenance and care of that road because the City is not going to be the one taking care of it. Mr. Riemann stated that the purpose of this project is simply to continue what was already planned and approved for this industrial park. It is one of the last couple of lots to be completed with the intended goal of building a flex warehouse space. It could be warehouse, distribution, light manufacturing or office. What they are seeing in the marketplace is that the spaces need to be ready to go so that tenants can readily occupy these spaces and this is attempting to respond to that market demand. The proposed site, as Mrs. Melson-Williams stated, is about a 17, 000 SF building. They are proposing access to Rosemary Road which is currently a private street. His client was not the original developer of the industrial park and so has no real control over that road and whether or not it would become a future City road. It is not his intention to do that. He understands that it is a private road and that the City of Dover is not maintaining that road. The site itself meets all of the various requirements in the City Code as Mrs. Melson-Williams had indicated. There are some riparian buffers associated with the floodplain and the stream on the back side. The building is set back from that; that’s kind of why you see the stepped sort of approach in the building. It is respecting those various buffers. Water and sewer are to the site as this was already a previous park. Stormwater management actually exists; if you look to the left on the Plan, there is an existing stormwater facility that’s constructed there for the original park. That is how stormwater would be served here. They are requesting a couple waivers for a couple of reasons. There are no sidewalks within the park, there are no sidewalks on Lafferty Lane that this could connect to and really these types of uses don’t really lend themselves to walk up public access like maybe retail or something. These waivers have been granted in the past for other parcels within this park as well. 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2022 Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Ms. Linda Parkowski – Kent Economic Partnership Ms. Parkowski stated that she is the Executive Director of the Kent Economic Partnership and she is here tonight to speak in support of the Garrison Homes LLC warehouse on Rosemary Road. As Mr. Riemann mentioned, there has been quite a bit of market demand for warehouse space in any size. The sooner that we can get some of these warehouses built, the better we are going to be for job creation. Hopefully we can get some kind of light manufacturing in there. This area is already mostly in an industrial area and we are seeing a lot of demand for that so this fits with the character of the area of Lafferty Lane, Horsepond Road and Rosemary Road. We know that some of the other warehouses along there are already filled and we have potential job creators just waiting for buildings. Mr. Zach Prebula, Kent Economic Partnership Mr. Prebula stated that he echoed everything that Ms. Parkowski said. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to approve S-22-13 Garrison Homes LLC Warehouse at 119 Rosemary Road including the requested waiver to eliminate the sidewalk along Rosemary Road and Lafferty Lane; Planning Staff’s approval on the partial elimination of the upright curbing; and to approve the Performance Standards Review submitted to the Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the statement in the motion. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for all of the reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated and it’s good to see. NEW BUSINESS Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 11