2023 Jan 17 PC Meeting Minutes

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 17, 2023 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. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Cooper was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual), and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Mark North (virtual) and Mr. Dave Heatwole. Speaking from the public was Ms. Linda Parkowski. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Maucher stated that the Commission was provided with a Revised Agenda which adds under Old Business, a Request for Extension of Planning Commission approval for a Conditional Use Site Plan application C-21-01 Cassidy Commons at 101-1001 Cassidy Drive. Dr. Jones moved to approve the Revised Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Cooper absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2022 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022, seconded by Mrs. Denney and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Cooper absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Gray provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on January 9 & 10, 2023. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as the Chair noted in the intro, we have a new member of the Planning Staff that has joined us, Ms. Katherine Oehmke. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet was a Summary of Applications for 2022. This is a first look at some of our year-end tallies that they do coming out of a calendar year-end. You can see for 2022 overall, our Office was processing with our various Boards and Commissions, a total of 42 applications. That seems slightly lower when you look at 2021 but from a Site Plan perspective, they were just as busy with applications this year. If you will remember since your approvals are granted for a two-year timeframe, we are still dealing with projects back from 2020 which may be trying to finalize their plan or may still be in the construction stage. They are certainly busy and they have had some big projects come in over that timeframe. There will be more detailed information about the various applications as part of our Department’s Annual Report. They will make sure that comes forward to the Commission. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet are two of the upcoming Zoom presentations done by the University of Delaware’s Institute for Public Administration. One of them is tomorrow morning which is “Planning 101: Planning Your Community’s Future” and then the next one is on February 8, 2023 at 10AM. With those items, if you wish to participate in them, please reach out to Planning Staff and they can get you registered. There is a registration fee which Planning Staff has some training money that can help fund that. She is not sure if it is too late to join tomorrow’s training but if anyone is interested, let them know and they will reach out to see if that can happen. As they set the rest of their calendar, Staff will certainly bring those opportunities to the Commission as well. 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: C-21-01 Cassidy Commons at 101-1001 Cassidy Drive – Request for one year extension of Planning Commission Approval granted January 19, 2021 of a Conditional Use Site Plan for the construction of six (6) additional manufacturing/warehousing buildings (in addition to the four (4) already constructed) for a total of ten (10) 9,950 SF manufacturing/warehousing buildings on one parcel of land and other associated site improvements at 101-1001 Cassidy Drive. The property is 10 acres ± and is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) APZ I and Noise Zones A and B. The property is located on the south side of Lafferty Lane west of Horsepond Road along a private drive known as Cassidy Drive. The owner of record was Cassidy Commons, LLC at time of original application; the current owner of record is Delmarva Land Holdings, LLC. Property Address: 101-1001 Cassidy Drive. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.00-01-28.04-000. Council District 2. This Application received Conditional Approval from the Planning Commission at their January 2021 Meeting and has not achieved Final Plan Approval. Representative: Mr. Mark North (virtual), Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is application C-21-01 for Cassidy Commons. It was a project to continue development of a multi-building warehouse complex out on Lafferty Lane. It originally went through a review process back in 2011 after which time they built four of the ten buildings that are proposed. That Plan, due to lack of continuation of construction, expired and they filed C-21-01 to basically complete the balance of the project development. Again, showing the remaining six buildings to bring it to a total of ten buildings on their plan. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval in January 2021. At this point, they have yet to fully complete the Check Print Review Process to get to Final Plan Approval. In that timeframe, there has also been an ownership change that happened about the time that it was coming back through Planning Commission in January 2021. Tonight, by letter dated January 9, 2023, they are requesting a one year extension of their approval for application C-21-01. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 Mr. North stated that there was a change of ownership about two years ago and it has taken a little bit of time to get a forward momentum back on the project. They plan to build the project exactly how it was proposed at the last application and they are very close to submitting the Check Print. It will probably be within the month. The new owner is supposed to proceed and build the project exactly as proposed previously. Mr. Hartman stated that during the meeting two years ago, there were some concerns expressed in the DAC Report about non-compliance issues. One was actually made by the Fire Marshal, he believes. Are there any concerns with non-compliance issues at this location that would impact or that should be considered by the Commissioners when considering this extension approval? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there was some concerns at the time with this being a multiple building, multiple tenants within each of those buildings. There are a number of tenants that for one reason or another may have taken up tenancy there without proper Business Licensing in place. She thinks that those items have been resolved and certainly moving forward, it is a location that she believes our Code Enforcement Staff does try to keep an eye on. It does make a difference from a zoning perspective because of the zoning of this property and its proximity to the Air Force Base. They have to look very carefully at the types of tenants that seek to go there. She thinks that those previous items have been resolved, but it will certainly remain on our radar screen. Mr. Hartman questioned if there was a Performance Standard for this site. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, there is a Performance Standards that was put in place. That is something that they can continue to point to with them finalizing the plan as well as construction of new buildings and new tenants taking occupancy there. Mr. Hartman questioned if the Business License was the City’s main tool to use when assessing whether the Performance Standards are met. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that one of the tools for dealing with the Performance Standards starts with the Building Permit Application because there will be some type of occupancy identified at that point in time. The Business Licensing processing is another check for that and of course just regular property maintenance compliance checks. Are they storing things outside and things of that nature that they can look to deal with any kind of compliance questions and those Performance Standards measures. Mr. Hartman stated that he would just like to have faith that when they (Commissioners) approve these Performance Standards that there is actually follow up by the city to make sure that they are being followed, especially in areas like this as Dover Air Force Base is a critical part of the community. Mrs. Denney stated that she agrees. The close proximity to the Air Base, in her opinion, means that everything has to be really observed and they have to be doing things by the rules. She tends to think that happens anyway. When she looks at this she thinks to herself, the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy will mean that they have to comply with everything in order to get that Certificate of Occupancy. She doesn’t want to assume that; she wants to know that that is true. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as part of the process for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, there are of course inspections by the Building Inspectors, the Fire 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 Marshal’s Office, the Planning Office, and inspections from our Department of Water/Wastewater. They are all involved in order for a project to achieve a Certificate of Occupancy at the end of construction. Mrs. Denney moved to approve C-21-01 Cassidy Commons at 101-1001 Cassidy Drive for a one-year extension, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Cooper absent. Mrs. Denney voting yes; as indicated in the motion. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the review that was done two years ago for this application. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. NEW APPLICATIONS S-23-01 East Carolina Supply Warehouse on Ridgely Street – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan and Minor Subdivision Plan for a property currently addressed as 631 Ridgely Street. The Plan proposes to subdivide the current parcel of 28.65 +/- acres into two new parcels. The proposed Parcel A is southernmost portion of the site and is to be 4.928 +/- acres (214,643 SF). The Residual Parcel is the northern portion of the site containing an existing warehouse building and would be 23.726 +/- acres (1,033,516 SF). The Plan is to permit construction on Parcel A of a 42,400 SF +/- warehouse and associated site improvements. The current property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The property is located north of the terminus of Ridgely Street and at Clara Street to the west of the railroad. The owner of record is Clara Ridgley Project, LLC. Property Address: 631 Ridgely Street. Tax Parcel: ED- 05-076.08-01-01.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Curbing, Reduction of Parking Requirement, and a Subdivision Waiver to Create Lot without Frontage on a Public Street. For Consideration: Performance Standards Review. Representative: Mr. Dave Heatwole, Siteworks Engineering Mr. Swierczek stated that this is an application for both a Site Development Plan and an associated Minor Subdivision Plan. The parcel of land is currently a little over 28.5 acres. The Minor Subdivision Plan is proposing a 23.7-acre parcel to the north that would be the bulk of the existing land that will also contain the existing warehouse building. The second parcel to be created would be to the south and that would be just under 5 acres. That southern parcel of land would then be proposed to contain a new warehouse building which is the Site Development Plan portion of this application and that would be 42,400 SF. With that, there is first a Subdivision Waiver that they will be submitting. The Ridgely Street’s public right-of-way does not extend this far north. There is sort of an existing easement on this property. They are asking for the Subdivision Waiver so that they can establish a cross access easement to allow access from the Ridgely Street to the south across this property to the larger parcel to the north. They have additionally submitted Waiver Requests for the partial elimination of the 6-inch upright curbing for stormwater management and they have also submitted a Waiver for the reduction in parking. Fifty-three parking spaces would be required, and they are asking for it to be reduced to twenty-seven. In their Waiver Request, they have noted that they expect about five employees to work at this facility at once as the main reason for their reduction in parking. Lastly, they did submit a Performance Standards Review Application due to the zoning of this property being 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The Performance Standards Review Application was required to ensure that no undesirable activities or chemicals or anything of that nature will be present onsite. Planning Staff finds that the literature that they submitted meets those requirements but that will have to be something that the Planning Commission takes a vote on. Mr. Heatwole stated that this is a project that they are really excited about. It’s a redevelopment project. They are putting a 42,000 SF warehouse in an existing area that is paved. They are going to take up the paving and put the warehouse in. They are going to see a reduction in paving by about 23% so that is going to help the drainage in the area. It is at a great location. Behind them is an existing mini-storage complex. There is a cell tower on their property and then they are in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The property to the south is also IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). There is already over 1 million square feet of warehousing on the parent parcel; so, they are just going to do a small portion. They are doing 42,000 SF which is quite a bit less than the 1 million that is already present. There is water and sewer on the easement and there is also electric and gas. So, they don’t have to go far for utilities. It is a great spot for development, and he feels like it is going to pull development Downtown which is a good thing. One of the challenges that they face is with curbing. They are asking for the Waiver to create a new lot off of an easement and then they are asking for also a waiver with the curbing. They are planning to put curbing on the front of the building on the front side. That is easier for them to do because they can super-elevate that road and maintain existing drainage patterns, but on the back side is where they are asking to not put in the curbing. They have just over two feet of fall that they have to deal with across the site. When you put in a curb, you kind of concentrate the flows and they want to kind of fan out the water. They are going to push it more into the grass so that as it goes to the property to the south, it is not creating a concentrated channel going onto the property which would impact that. Mrs. Maucher asked if he wanted to address the request for the Waiver to create a lot without frontage on a public street. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Heatwole stated that right now to the south, which is the right side of the plan, Ridgely Street is 408 feet to the right. There is an easement that runs across the lot to the south that provides access. This is existing so trucks use this easement to access this existing warehouse. If you go to Sheet RP-2, see the hashed area or darker area that goes from Clara Street Extension and wraps all the way around. What they are purposing is a cross access easement so both parcels can continue to use both Ridgely Street and Clara Street Extension with essentially no change to the parcels. Mrs. Maucher asked if those easements were in place. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Heatwole stated that they will be in place once they record the Subdivision. Mr. Hartman stated that he thinks it is well presented and the proposal will probably improve the area, but he does have a couple of questions about Ridgely Street and the extension. Will that easement be used for truck traffic? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Heatwole stated that there will be some truck traffic from Ridgley Street, but his understanding is that with the way that this site is functioning now is that most of the truck traffic comes from the Clara Street Extension. Mr. Hartman asked if there are no maintenance plans in affect for maintaining the Ridgely Street easement. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Heatwole stated that to his knowledge there is no 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 easement maintenance agreement in place. He thinks that one of the things that they have talked about in this process is that they need to get one of those agreements in place. The two properties to the south are undeveloped so that if they develop in some time, they will need to become a party to that easement maintenance agreement as well. Mr. Hartman stated that the next concern that he has is the frontage requirement from the Ordinance. We are required to submit to the City Council a recommendation whether or not waiving this frontage requirement is something that is necessary. He hasn’t seen anything in the application that he can refer to or talk to City Council about why this is needed. There are specific requirements that they ask for would cause extraordinary and unnecessary hardship. Or it wouldn’t be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. This is all in the DAC Report, but he doesn’t see a response from the applicant. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Heatwole stated that the property has limited frontage. They just have a little bit of frontage on Clara Street Extension. They actually don’t own frontage on Ridgely Street. So the hardship is that the property has a lack of frontage; yet, there is more space on the property to develop. Mr. Hartman stated that he just doesn’t see that in writing where City Council can look at it and say this is a fact, this is in writing and is something that we can vote on. Can that be pointed out somewhere? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Heatwole stated that this plan that is up right now would show that. It identifies that they are 408 feet from Ridgely Street. They are showing Clara Street Extension. and there is about 30 feet of frontage on Clara Street Extension. This plan shows the hardship for the parcel. Mr. Hartman asked if Planning Staff feels that the applicant has met the requirement for the Commission to consider this waiver of the lot frontage. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as part of the DAC Report on Page 11 under the “Recommendations Suggested as Conditions of Approval,” Item #3 is the Planning Staff’s response to this request for a Subdivision Waiver for the requirement for a lot to have frontage on a public street. They find that this property is unique in nature as Mr. Heatwole noted. It has very limited frontage even on Clara Street Extension. On this image it is about 30 feet. There is no other street network that it is adjacent to. It is certainly adjacent to a railroad corridor but that doesn’t count as a public street. They feel that the current access easement that basically continues from the terminus of the right of way of Ridgely Street across adjacent property to this property in this southern area which has been in place for a number of years is likely from the time of development of the “parent building” on the site. That is in place, so it clearly provides access to a public street. There is that other existing access to the Clara Street Extension. This property is like the last property on the end of the street. They are going to do a cross access easement to ensure that even this smaller subdivided parcel continues to be able to cross the large “parent parcel” to be able to get to that public street. This is one of those cases where she thinks that the shape of the property and its relationship to this existing street network is one of reasons why waivers such as this are built into our Code. There is really no other street network for them to take access from or have frontage on because there are other properties that are between them and those street networks. Mr. Hartman stated that Planning Staff agrees that the waiver to create a lot without frontage should be approved. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes. 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 Mrs. Denney asked if ingress/egress is totally on Ridgely Street. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Heatwole stated that they envision that most of the truck traffic will come from Clara Street Extension. and Mr. Mast who was here tonight could explain that. They anticipate most of the truck traffic coming from that direction because it comes from that direction for the existing warehouse now, not entirely but mostly. Then they would expect employees to use Ridgely Street because it’s easier for cars on that street. He understands that that has more to do with the Route 8 intersection than it does with Ridgely Street itself. In laying out the site, they provided a means for trucks to come in, deliver materials to the site, and then kind of circle back and go around through the easement and back to the Clara Street Extension. The idea was to give vehicles the option in whatever direction they want to go. They feel that the traffic works now for an existing 1 million square foot warehouse; so with adding 40,000 SF, they are confident that it is also going to work. Mrs. Denney stated that primary ingress/egress at this point is the Clara Street Extension. There could be some options with employees and stuff but the biggest thought process lends itself to the trucks. Of course there is a school there but realizing it is separated by the railroad tracks so she is not as concerned about that. She travels that way and goes over in that direction every morning because she drops her grandkids off at school. But she also notes that within that area because of the public school systems there, we do have a lot of youth who are walking and coming and going in that area. She would say that she generally sees them mostly before and after school but kids and tractor trailers, to her, sometimes don’t mix. She just kind of wants to feel assured that that will be the primary ingress/egress for the tractor trailers. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Heatwole stated yes, that is his understanding. They are going to set the building to kind of front on Ridgely Street (easement). Dr. Jones asked if they are at a point where there may be concerns or any comments from residents. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Maucher stated that she is getting ready to open the public hearing. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Ms. Linda Parkowski – Kent Economic Partnership Ms. Parkowski stated that they have been involved with this project. She strongly encourages the Planning Commission to approve. Like everyone said, this is unique property and they don’t have a whole lot of options for where to place it. But this is needed. Warehousing in Dover is needed and this is an industrial area over on Ridgely Street. They support this project. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she did want to note that the applicant brought with him this evening, an updated Site Plan diagram that relocated a series of the parking spaces from the west side of the building (which is at the bottom of the page) over to the east side of the building. That would kind of cluster the parking for vehicles on one side of the building and that side of the building being the one closest to the building entry for employees and the public. It was also placed on the desks of the Commissioners this evening. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2023 Mr. Hartman moved to approve S-23-01 East Carolina Supply Warehouse on Ridgely Street for the Site Development Plan and the Minor Subdivision Plan for a property currently addressed as 631 Ridgely Street, including the Performance Standards Review, the reduction of parking requirements, and the Subdivision Waiver to create a lot without frontage on a public street. He bases the motion to approve the waiver for the lot frontage based on the recommendations of Planning Staff in the DAC Report, Section 11 Subparagraph 3 and comments made during this meeting, seconded by Mrs. Welsh. Mr. Heatwole stated that they have one more waiver for the partial elimination of upright curbing. Responding to Mr. Heatwole, Mrs. Maucher stated that is a function that Staff can grant without Planning Commission approval. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the curbing waiver is something that Planning Staff can recommend and take action on. They have done that as part of the Report. The motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Cooper absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the DAC Report and the questions and answers revealed tonight. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous discussions and Staff recommendation. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon the previous comments. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks that it is a great use of the property and a particularly good solution for the frontage on a public street. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for the reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Denney voting yes; for reasons stated as the motion was made. The DAC Report is certainly important to her and she thinks that the waivers, especially the frontage issues are just necessary because to her, they are exceptional practical difficulties because of the lay of the land and the location of the lot. She agrees with comments from Mrs. Malone (Mrs. Welsh) that this is a good use for this particular piece of property. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the DAC recommendations and Planning Staff recommendations. NEW BUSINESS Meeting adjourned at 7:58 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 8