PC Minutes 4-15-19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 15, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mr. Roach, Mr. Holt and Mrs. Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Edwards moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Roach, Mr. Holt and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Re-evaluation Review of Conditional Use Application C- 17-04 House of Pride Office at 45 S New Street will not be heard by the Planning Commission this evening. It will be rescheduled to a future meeting of the Planning Commission and there will be new public notice given for that new meeting date. They did not adequately complete the public notice in order to have that hearing at this meeting. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2019 Ms. Maucher moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of March 18, 2019, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Roach, Mr. Holt and Mrs. Welsh absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on March 25 & 26, 2019 and April 8 and 9, 2019. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated there is another course offered from the University of Delaware Institute for Public Administration. This training is titled “Introduction to Real Estate Development for Local Government Officials.” It is to be held on Friday, May 3, 2019 from 9am-noon in Dover. If the Commissioners are interested in attending this training, please reach out to Staff to get registered. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 NEW APPLICATIONS 1) SB-19-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the subdivision of 105.6689 +/- acres of land into: the new Lot 1 of 16.3949 acres and the Residual of 89.2740 acres. The property is located on the south side of West North Street and west of POW-MIA Parkway. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The owner of record is General Foods Corp. (Kraft Foods Group, Inc.) Property Address: 1250 West North Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.00-01-12.00-000 and ED-05-076.00-01-10.00-000. Council District 2. Representatives: Mr. JC Dodd, Becker Morgan Group, Mr. Henry Huizinger, Kraft Foods Group Inc Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is a request for a Minor Subdivision which is division of a property into more than the number of existing lots that it has but does not involve the creation of things such as new roadways. This Minor Subdivision Application is for Kraft Foods Group Inc for their property that is located at 1250 West North Street. The entire site area is just over 105 acres of land and they are seeking to create what is Lot 1 that is just over sixteen acres of land and the residual holdings of just over 89 acres. The area is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and as such, both of the lots being created must meet the Bulk Standards of the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). In this case, those standards are appropriate for conventional individual lot development; this is not an industrial park setting. This property is located at the intersection of West North Street and the POW/MIA Parkway which now forms the eastern boundary of this property. In looking at the Bulk Standards of the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone), both lots being created do meet those. The report from Planning Staff did have to clarify how they approached the bulk standard of height in this case. The existing manufacturing facility has multiple heights to its building. She is sure that most of you are aware of the very visible tower with their name on it. The Zoning Ordinance was not as clear about how to determine height when you have a building that has multiple sections of varying heights. That is important because the height in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) is limited by the distance to the property line. With them striking a proposed new property line, they have to look for compliance with height. Staff, in evaluating the Code, has determined that the building height is limited by the distance of that specific building element or section of the building to the property line. The closest thing to the new property line ends up being 84 feet from that property line; however, it is much less than that in height. The tallest element, the tower, is well over the necessary distance to be that tall from the new property line. Other information included on the plan that they made reference to is that some additional details will be ultimately needed related to things like parking. There is not a requirement for sidewalks or pathways to be constructed with this type of application. The site actually does include a multi-use path along West North Street and part of a path system along the Parkway as well. The property does have a small section that is impacted by the 100-year flood plain and some wetland areas. These are in the southwestern portion of the property. It would be the lower right corner of the property on the screen. The new Lot 1 is nowhere near those areas so they don’t have to worry about the provisions that limit development in those areas. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 The DAC Report mentions some minor things to make corrections to the plan sheet itself. Staff notes that the Minor Subdivision Plan does create a new parcel and the existing residual do comply with the Land Subdivision Regulations. They do have comments from the members of the DAC, including the Public Works Office, Electric Department, the City’s Fire Marshal’s Office, Kent Conservation and DelDOT. For the most part, those comments are more advisory in nature and they relate to if development activity was proposed on specifically Lot 1 or any kind of expansions on the Residual Lot. Ms. Edwards stated that the only thing she could not find in the Report was the purpose of the Subdivision. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the applicant may be better to answer that question. Just from a plan of an existing parcel, the area that they are proposing to create as Lot 1 is currently the undeveloped portion of the site. It may be a future opportunity for them or another entity. Mr. Dodd stated that they do plan to meet all of the conditions of the DAC Report. They are planning to proceed forward and reach out to the other agencies and meet all conditions stated in the DAC Report. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Adams questioned if they were no plans currently for the sale or development of this site? Is this just simply a subdivision of the property? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Huizinger stated that is correct. It gives those options that were just discussed: sale, lease or other options. Mr. Adams moved to approve SB-19-01 Minor Subdivision Plan: Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Roach, Mr. Holt and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. 2) S-19-07 Retail Facility at 515 South DuPont Highway – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of a one-story 8,050 SF retail building and accompanying site improvements. The site is currently vacant. The subject area is 0.91 +/- acres located on the east side of South DuPont Highway south of Cowgill Street and north of Public Safety Boulevard. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Kent Del Properties, LLC. Property Address: 515 South DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-12.00-000. Council District 2. The site was subject of Site Plan S-08-08 Nastatos Office Building granted conditional approved by the Planning Commission at their March 2008 meeting; it did not achieve Final Plan approval and has since expired. Waivers Requested: Reduction in Number of Loading Spaces: Reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer; Elimination of Fence Component of Opaque Barrier Requirement. Representatives: Mr. K. James Taylor, Jr., Duffield Associates Mr. Swierczek stated that this application is a review of a Site Development Plan to permit construction of a one story 8,050 square foot retail building and accompanying site 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 improvements. The site is currently vacant. The subject area is 0.91 acres located on the east side of South DuPont Highway south of Cowgill Street and north of Public Safety Boulevard. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). For this application, the applicant has also submitted architecture information for the building in the forms of one elevation drawing and one rendering that was included in the packet. The retail facility is one story, topped by a flat roof. The front (west) elevation seems to indicate the capacity for up to six retail spaces each with their own entrance. The side or northern and southern wall elevations do not contain any windows, doors or similar features but are left blank. The Site Plan also shows a total of twelve trees proposed, whereas, fourteen are required. No new access is proposed to South DuPont Highway but rather use of a shared access easement is noted with the existing entrance at the southwest corner. The entrance is to be shared with the neighboring 84 Lumber property. Planning Staff has noted its concern about the site layout and the potential implications on design related to the Arterial Street Buffer, fire protection requirements and stormwater management compliance. It should be noted that there is a previous application for this site dated March 2008 when the Planning Commission granted conditional approval for a Site Development Plan for construction of an office building. The plan never achieved Final Plan Approval and has since expired. For the application submitted tonight, the applicant submitted a letter describing the request for three waivers. The first is a waiver from Article 5, Section 7.33 for the Arterial Street Buffer requirements. They are asking that they be permitted zero feet along South DuPont Highway, whereas, Code requires a minimum of a thirty foot Arterial Street Buffer. The second waiver requested by the applicant is to establish no loading berth on the site where in Article 6, Section 4.24 requires that a retail building over 8,000 square feet requires a minimum of one loading berth. Finally, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Article 5, Section 7.2 pertaining to the fence component of the Opaque Barrier requirements. As to the Arterial Street Buffer, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider a partial waiver from the requirements of the Arterial Street Buffer. Staff believes that the applicant should provide landscaping in place of some of the parking spaces at the front of the proposed parking lot nearest to South DuPont Highway as they are providing thirty-two parking spaces which is five more than the required twenty-seven. Staff believes that some enhanced landscaping can be provided at the front of the building without requiring the full buffer to be provided for the entire width of the parcel along South DuPont Highway. The expansion of existing proposed islands or additional islands with trees and plantings will help to fill the requirements of the Arterial Street Buffer. Staff does also note that neighboring properties have limited buffer areas on their properties and likely rely on the grass area within the right-of-way. With regards to the loading berth waiver request, Staff recommends approval of this request to eliminate the loading space requirements for the retail building. The proposed square footage is just fifty square feet over the minimum requirement to provide a loading berth and Staff concurs that the rear parking area would be sufficient for loading activities. Large vehicles; tractor trailers and the like would not be anticipated to need access for delivery of goods to the site. Finally, in relation to the waiver request from the fencing component of the Opaque Barrier requirements, Staff recommends approval of the request to eliminate the fence component. Staff concurs with assessment of the applicant in that landscaping would be a desirable alternative for the segment on the rear property line. Related to architectural characteristics of the proposed building, Staff has recommended that the southern and the northern elevations include some of 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 the architectural features of the front or western elevation which is on the screen now. The inclusion of some vertical elements or horizontal features including red brick pillars found on the front façade or simulated window elements would help to increase the visual appeal. This would be particularly true of the southern elevation which is highly visible from South DuPont Highway and the neighboring properties. Just as a note to the Planning Commission, they should act upon the request for the waivers as part of any motion regarding this project application or as a separate motion as necessary. Dr. Jones questioned why is it unlikely that large trucks are likely to access the loading area? Does that have something to do with the nature of the retail areas? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Swierczek stated that from their view, this type of retail facility and the type of spaces that they seem to indicate generally don’t require large scale semi-trucks to deliver goods to the site. They wouldn’t see that as being a necessity. Dr. Jones stated that she is interested in hearing the applicant’s response to that question if it is something different. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Taylor stated that this site is so small; it’s only about an acre in size. A tractor trailer would not be able to access this site and be able to turn around no matter what it did. Mr. Swierczek is correct in the fact that the plan would be for smaller box trucks; FedEx or UPS vehicles would be able to access the site and be able to maneuver around the front of the building to the rear where there is about thirty-two foot drive aisle along the rear of the building. There is plenty of space for a truck to park there and the intention is that the parking spaces at the rear of the building would be intended for the employees of the stores. That way if a truck does pull in, they are not impacting customers. The loading space itself would be harder to define the more that they got into it. Mr. Adams stated that what appears to him is that access to the property would be shared with 84 Lumber; an existing point of ingress and egress off of the highway. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Mr. Adams stated that when visitors to this site come in and deliveries as well, there is no ability for them to travel down the right side of the property. They would have to come across the front, loop around and then come to the back. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. The existing access easement on the site is really only that front 30-40 feet. It is identified on Sheet C201. There is a dashed line that identifies where that access easement is. There is no way for them to be able to traverse the property of 84 Lumber to go to the rear of the property to access what was set up in the past. Mr. Adams questioned if Planning Staff is recommending that they want both sides of the building to be broken up from the horizontal siding that runs front to back? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Swierczek stated yes, they noticed that there were a lot of vertical elements on the front or western elevation that were not included on the northern or southern ones. They think that those sides are visible enough from South DuPont Highway to warrant bringing in more of those architectural features on the sides. Mr. Taylor stated that after the DAC Meeting, he had a discussion with the owner. Right now, they are very early on in the architectural stage but the owner does plan on adding some brick to 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 the back and accentuating that one wall so it’s not continuous. He also mentioned potentially adding windows to both the south side and the north side which would help with that. He believes that is one of the comments that Planning Staff mentioned. Ms. Edwards stated that she is curious as to applicant’s response to the partial waiver request for the Arterial Street Buffer. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Taylor stated if they take a look at the common properties in this area: 84 Lumber and the auto repair place to the north, all of those properties pretty much have their parking pretty much right up against the property line. Based upon how this site is set up with the access in that was pretty much already established. There is no way to really push things back in order to keep the parking at the front and also have the Arterial Street Buffer. If they were to remove parking from the front, they would basically be forcing people to park in the back which isn’t really ideal. He understands Planning Staff’s concerns about having green space but if you reference the letter that was submitted to Planning Staff, from the arterial street to the property line is approximately thirty-nine foot from the edge of the travel lane into the property. If you look at the requirements of how the waiver can be requested, one is that there is plenty of green space between the road itself and the property line. Ms. Edwards stated in reference to Planning Staff’s recommendation to remove some of the parking spots to create some additional green space, what are your thoughts on that? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Taylor stated that they would like to not. On this, with the loading taking place at the rear of the building and because the access point is really restricted to where they are at, having the trucks go around the rear he thinks it could cause more issues by having additional parking for your normal people at the rear of the property versus in the front. Ms. Maucher questioned what this property backs up to? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Taylor stated that it backs up to the neighborhood at the rear. There is a day care on one of the parcels but it’s adjacent to where Century Engineering is putting their new office park. Ms. Maucher questioned if the applicant didn’t believe that fencing was necessary? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Taylor stated that the actual linear footage of where the property backs up to the residential is only about twenty feet and there is a fence on the property line on the day care currently. What they would like to do instead of providing a fence that might look a little awkward with just twenty foot of fence would be to enhance landscape screening in that area. They discussed in the DAC Meeting that they would be more than willing to provide that screen. As Mr. Swierczek mentioned, they are three trees short right now which they will go with the number of trees to make sure that it is property screened especially with the day care. They understand the safety and all of that involved. Mr. Taylor stated that they can always work cooperatively with Staff. He very much appreciates the City’s Planning Department and they will absolutely work with them as well as the other members of DAC to make sure we have an approved plan. He did want to comment on three items that Mr. Swierczek mentioned. First one is regarding stormwater control. As he is sure the Commission is aware, the State has some pretty high stormwater requirements and they would not be able to develop on this site without meeting those requirements. They met with the Kent Conservation District a couple weeks ago and discussed some options of how they can make this work. They are pretty confident that they can make this site work as needed to meet the State’s 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 stormwater management regulations. The second one was fire protection standards. During the DAC Meeting it was brought up that there were a couple of things that they needed to do to meet the fire protection standards and they have no problem meeting them. If there are a couple of tweaks that need to be done to the plan, they will make sure that those are appropriately performed. The third one was the Arterial Street Buffer. If need be, they are definitely some places where they can add an island to provide green space specifically where there is a fire hydrant along the frontage of South DuPont Highway which would work as one of two things. It would protect the fire hydrant but it would also provide that green space. As he mentioned, with the properties to the north and south it kind of fits in the area of what is going on. 84 Lumber has been developed for many years now as well as the auto repair shop to the north. They are kind of infilling and to put an additional buffer on the property could potentially hurt this property from being developed. Mr. Adams stated that as it relates to the second waiver request, particularly the Arterial Street Buffer, he is having a hard time reconciling. As he looks at the plan, the patrons of this proposed retail shop would only be able to access the retail from the front of the building. To the extent that in order to meet the Arterial Street Buffer, they are forcing individuals to park around back. They are making a recommendation as Planning Staff to eliminate spaces in the front and force parking to the rear where those people would then in turn have to walk around to the front of the retail place just to get in and out. Particularly also coupled with the fact that they are pushing the deliveries to the rear of the property as well where he would think that they would want to avoid the delivery vehicles and as many patrons as possible. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Swierczek stated that the main reason that they were suggesting that some of the parking spaces at the front be perhaps utilized towards landscaping was primarily just from the overview that they are at thirty-two parking spaces; whereas, Code requires twenty-seven. Obviously, the front of the building being where the Arterial Street Buffer is located, that would be the only logical place where there could be any kind of compromise. They do recognize that it might force potential customers to park at the rear; however, that is something that Staff is willing to work with the applicant with and that they do leave up to the Commission’s discretion. It was only just to find some level of compromise between the thirty feet required and the zero feet provided right now for the buffer. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Adams moved to approve S-19-07 Retail Facility at 515 South DuPont Highway with the inclusion of the three waivers that were requested: the waiver request for the elimination of loading spaces; the waiver request for the Arterial Street Buffer and the waiver request for the fencing component of the Opaque Barrier. He notes that Waiver Requests 1 and 3 were fully approved by Planning Staff. He would submit that the Commissioners all heard him as it relates to the second waiver where he believes that for issues of public safety, it makes more sense to leave those parking spaces at the front of the property rather than the Arterial Street Buffer, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Roach, Mr. Holt and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet is the April Report Update which is a document that Staff submitted to the Dover City Council Committee of the Whole. The first key thing is that they did receive an extension of the project due date. If you remember our current plan, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan was certified through February 9, 2019. Back in the Fall they submitted a request for extension and that was formally approved by the Cabinet Committee on State Planning at their March meeting. In doing so, that extends their revised due date to February 2020 but they will be done by then. The project team continues to meet weekly. They have ongoing meetings with various City and other agencies as they refine information and write text. They have fairly good text of the main chapters of the document at this point. The key thing that they included in the packet was what they have deemed Preliminary Draft 2A which is the Goals and Recommendations section of the Comprehensive Plan. They released back in the Fall an early draft of those Goals and Recommendations but they have been through them much more thoroughly at the Staff level. They are hoping that this is pretty much going to be it for that section and they can move forward with things. Draft 2A was included in the packet tonight but it is also up on the City’s website. They do have a Comprehensive Plan 2019 Project website where you can find the latest and greatest information. They encourage everyone to take a look at the website. Their current activities really focus on chapter writing. They are really working to look to the other chapters of the plan and make significant progress on them. They have had their outreach meetings with all of the jurisdictions except for one and that one with the Town of Wyoming is scheduled for Monday of next week. Tonight, she wants to give the Planning Commission a chance to share their thoughts on these Goals and Recommendations. If there is something that the Commission thinks Staff missed or something that they don’t understand; they want to hear that. Staff has read these and has been immersed in them for so long it’s starting to all run together. They have to push through and complete the draft of the entire document as well as the series of maps. Every chapter has a series of maps that go along with it. There have been Preliminary Maps issued for two of the key things: the Land Development Plan Map and the Annexation Plan, both of which they continue to look at and refine as they see things. Once they have a Draft, there will need to be some kind of general endorsement of that Draft so that they can submit that for formal review with the State for PLUS review process. Then there will be a formal public hearing review process both with the Planning Commission and City Council to ultimately act upon the new document. Dr. Jones stated that she raised some concerns about the improvement and the availability of entertainment in Dover City as our population grows. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that in the Economic Development Section is where she was able to point out a couple of things to Dr. Jones. In the Economic Development Goals and Recommendations, there are two things that kind of go towards that idea of entertainment and there may be others that are 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 sprinkled through these goals as well. One of them specifically is Goal #6 which is “pursue economic development linked to active recreation.” Here is where it mentions recreational pursuits and also includes in that the concept of travel and tourism. Also in Goal #3 is the goal to “promote the revitalization and redevelopment of the center city.” In Recommendation #9, it does mention an idea to create an arts co-op or arts and entertainment designation for the Downtown area to then focus on perhaps recruiting artists who live and work in that area. Some of Dr. Jones’ concerns were much more on a broader level of opportunity for entertainment of various types throughout the City. She thinks that certainly some of the other chapters related to natural resources get to activity of parks and trails. The library is discussed under the Community Services functions. They certainly have a wealth of programing as does the City’s Parks and Recreation Department as well. Dr. Jones questioned Recommendation 9 – Obtain effective contributions to the park system from the private sector. The first bullet states “evaluate the process and responsibilities for maintaining active recreation areas and common open space within residential developments.” At what point in time does a vacant lot or several vacant lots in a development become open space or does it ever become open space? The concern is that in the case when a developer is no longer developing and the builder is no longer building, there are vacant lots that are serving no purpose except to house building material and overgrowth. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Recommendation #9 that deals with obtaining effective contributions to the park system from the private sector is related to the active recreation area requirement that we have for residential properties. Over the years, we have run into difficulties in long term management of what are designated active recreation areas or common open space. Typically, they are left to the HOA which may or may not function well to maintain the areas. Years ago, a number of the smaller parks were actually dedicated to the City and that’s how we have pocket parks scattered everywhere for the City to take care of. The City typically doesn’t take dedication of open space in that manner quite like that anymore. The other related comment is regarding vacant lots. These are probably lots that are as part of the Subdivision Plan are proposed to have a house on them but for one reason or another do not as of yet. Dealing with a vacant lot becomes perhaps a Property Maintenance issue for Code Enforcement. In the meantime, if it was cared for properly, you might get that kind of pickup use for some type of recreational purpose if the grass is mowed to the correct height and it doesn’t have stuff left on it. It’s about what do you do with the recreation areas that are purposely planned to be recreation areas, how do you maintain them in the long term and then the intermediate step of perhaps vacant lots that maybe they have a different life until they gain a house. Dr. Jones stated that in this Recommendation, is there consideration when a developer comes in and/or builder who purposes the active recreation area and something changes and a new set of people come in and there is no recreation area because of whatever the reason may be. Is there consideration to have the new developer contribute to the Parkland Reserve Fund? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is certainly an option if a subdivision has the first plan for active recreation and over time that subdivision goes to a different builder and the new builder/developer has a different idea for active recreation; it would certainly have to come back through a review process to look at a new plan. They have had that happen in a couple of instances where the original development may have been focused on a mix of more family style units, so they plan for a playground and then years later the development is more senior targeted. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 They have had projects come back and then redesign their active recreation area to potentially fit their new market. In doing that redesign of an active recreation area, there is certainly the option of building a different type of active recreation or going the route of payment in lieu of construction. With active recreation areas, they are supposed to keep pace with the number of units that are in that subdivision. The typical requirement is 275 SF of active recreation per dwelling unit. As they build units, they are supposed to be making those active recreation area improvements. Ultimately, before Staff can release the last 20% of the permits for a particular subdivision, all of the active recreation area has to be in place. She can think of at least one instance where the subdivision is probably one or two lots away from that percentage and they are at a standstill. The vacant lots sit because they chose to not move forward with any type of construction for one reason or another. Dr. Jones questioned if the City has any leverage over a builder in a situation where the active recreation area component has not been fulfilled? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that as long as they have done some in a pace to equal the number of residential lots that they have done, they don’t have much other than turning to Code Enforcement for property maintenance scenarios of if they are keeping the grass cut in those areas or is there debris that needs to be cleaned up. That is about the only leverage that the City has. If they have a subdivision of 100 lots and they have built 79 of them and they are going to let the last 20 lots sit, there is nothing that the City can do to force them to finish the active recreation area and get started on the last 20 lots. Mr. Adams questioned if they have seen other jurisdictions where perhaps developers or Planning Departments require developers to post asurity or some bond as it relates to their obligation to fulfill that active recreation? Perhaps that’s something that has been considered or might be considered. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they do not have that for active recreation elements. They do have bonding or letter of credit type things related to infrastructure completion and that has focused on things such as the roadway, the water lines and the sewer lines. Ultimately, those types of infrastructure items are dedicated and are required to be dedicated to the City. So if you are building a house and a street and you only have topcoat and the water and sewer lines are there but the road isn’t totally constructed yet, there is a letter of credit bonding process in order for you to get a Certificate of Occupancy on that house that happens to be on the street that is not quite finished. That is something in the Public Works realm. They have had to call the bond/call the letter of credit in order to complete some of that infrastructure in a number of subdivisions because it was left unfinished for an inappropriate period of time. Mr. Adams questioned if we have seen a number of instances in the City where developers are not fulfilling their obligations as it relates to community recreation requirements or no? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that more of the difficulty that they have seen is what happens after the developer is gone and the common space areas have been turned over to a maintenance organization or HOA to maintain in the long term. That is where they have had a lot more difficulties in dealing with groups or organizations that have been assigned that task but don’t have the capacity to fulfill that task. There have been some changes to our Code related to HOA’s to deal with instances where that happens where the City has the 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2019 ability to come in, make the improvements and then charge those costs back to the parcels involved meaning residential properties in that area. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that if anyone thinks of any other questions please reach out to Staff. Mr. Hugg stated for the Commission to please continue to read the materials as they come out and Staff appreciates the comments. Some of this may become a little clearer to the Commission when you see the text which provides the content for the Goals and Recommendations. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 11