PC Minutes 5-20-19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, Monday May 20, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Edwards moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2019 Dr. Jones moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of April 15, 2019, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 17, 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 April 22 and 23, 2019 and May 13 and 14, 2019. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she was going to update the Commission on a legal matter. There was a case filed in Superior Court for the State of Delaware that involves the Planning Commission. This case is Race Track Car Wash LLC as the Petitioner versus the City of Dover Planning Commission, the City of Dover, Blue Sky Properties LLC and Kathleen J. Gray as the Respondents. The City received a Writ of Ce; basically, that process requests a certified copy of the records regarding that application and that is the Tommy Car Wash application. The City’s legal counsel is dealing with that matter. If the Planning Commission needs to be aware of anything else, Staff will advise them of that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the packet there was information about training on “Creating a Flood Ready Community”. That was a training that was held on May 17, 2019. She doesn’t believe that they had anyone attend that one. The Commission has also in the recent week, been advised of the Annual Ethics Training that is scheduled for June 11, 2019 at 5:00PM in City Council Chambers. This is part of the required annual Ethics Training for all of the elected and appointed officials for the City of Dover. Please let Staff know of your availability to attend that training. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Re-evaluation Review of Conditional Use: a. C-17-04 House of Pride Offices at 45 South New Street – Re-evaluation Review including Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing one-family dwelling structure into a philanthropic use as the administrative facility (offices) for House of Pride. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2017 with approval of the use conditioned upon a one-year review among other conditions; the one-year review was completed on October 15, 2018 with continued approval subject to a six-month review. The property consists of a 9,090 SF +/- parcel. The property is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The property is located on the east side of South New Street, north of Reed Street, and south of Division Street. The owner of record is House of Pride, Inc. Property Address: 45 South New Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.05-03-05.00-000. Council District: 4. Representatives: Mr. Marion Lott, House of Pride Ms. Edwards recused herself from this application. She just recently learned that she is the Relationship Manager at the clients’ bank. Mr. Swierczek stated that on August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission granted approval of application C-17-04, a Conditional Use Plan for converting an existing one-family dwelling structure at 45 South New Street into a philanthropic use as the administrative offices for the House of Pride. As part of the approval by the Planning Commission, the project was required to return for a one-year review in 2018. This review was held on October 18, 2018. The review renewed the conditions of approval originally given at the August 2017 and additionally scheduled a second review for the April 2019 meeting of the Planning Commission. However, following improperly completed public notice, they were rescheduled to today. The first purpose of these reviews is to evaluate the project’s compliance with the conditions of the approval imposed by the Planning Commission as outlined in the DAC Report dated August 9, 2017. Secondly, the purpose of this review is to evaluate whether the project continues to meet the objectives of a Conditional Use process outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The memo that was sent to the members of the Planning Commission dated May 7, 2019 gave an overview of the status of select City and State Code requirements as well as recommendations suggested as conditions of approval to meet the Code objectives adopted by the Planning Commission at the August 9, 2017 DAC Report and renewed in October 2018. From there, the Planning Staff has listed a series of recommendations regarding the one-year review of the Conditional Use Plan for C-17-04. First, Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission grant a second renewal to the conditional approval granted in August 2017 and renewed in October 2018 and require finalization of the Conditional Use Plan in a timely manner. Secondly, Staff recommends that the Commission require completion of the Building Permit process in a timely manner to formally establish the office use in the building. The Building Permit has not yet been applied for. Third, as the office has been operating for over a year and a half without the proper authorizations in 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 place, Staff recommends that the Commission direct the Planning and Inspections Department to keep open the Code Enforcement case related to the buildings currently unauthorized use so that action can be taken should progress toward the Conditional Use Plan and Building Permit not continue. Finally, the Planning Commission may wish to require and additional review so that compliance with the conditions of approval and Conditional Use objectives can be checked again in the future. Such review could be scheduled for one-year after the Conditional Use Plan is finalized and the use is implemented. Mr. Lott stated that he serves as the Director of the House of Pride. At this time, they are back for the review because they needed to have a professional survey the property as well as for the floor plans. Mr. William Byler came out and took measurements and conversed with the City on the Codes that needed to be included. Colonial Surveying came out on Friday and surveyed the property. As of now they are waiting on the completion of the reports from the architect and surveyor. As soon as they get completion of those reports, they can turn that information into the City. They have done as much as they could as individuals to make sure that they are following the guidelines and that they have done everything that the City has asked of them. Now they are waiting on the professional aspect of it to be completed. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Maucher questioned what was needed to submit a Building Permit? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Swierczek stated that in this case the City was waiting for the plans to be finalized and that once finalized, they would need to be evaluated to assess the permit application. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that because this is a change of use, it does require a formal plan by an architect that outlines the floor plan of the house that is now becoming an office and any of the required Building and Fire Codes needed for access to that facility. That is the step in the process that they appear to be at, at this point. They did meet with Staff in the last month with their architect to go over the submission requirements that were necessary. Mr. Holt questioned if they were maintaining the property as a residential property but they are going to use it as an office. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Swierczek stated that the property is currently established as an office and it is the City working with the applicants to try and get that property into compliance that brings us here today. The office use is already established there. Mr. Holt further questioned if they were having any problems with the neighborhood or neighbors regarding the property with the club or has everything been going along pretty smoothly? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Swierczek stated that he does not believe that the City is aware of any complaints from the neighbors in regards to this specific project. Mr. Tolbert questioned if at this point are they to understand that the applicant is not in full compliance as of yet. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Swierczek stated that he does not believe that they are in full compliance yet. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 Mr. Roach questioned if there were any issues in regards to the architect as to why it took so long for the applicant to start the process in obtaining that paperwork from the architect? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Lott stated that they were constantly speaking by email; the architect went out of town and had some other things that came up. When he got back to them and he had everything that he needed in order to complete what the City wanted him to do. He was constantly in touch with the City, then he needed to wait until the surveyor completed his portion of the report. The surveyor didn’t inform them when they were able to get one that it would be three weeks out. They came by on Friday and completed the survey. When he spoke to the architect, he said he was waiting to get the information from the survey so that he could include the information in his report. It is a long drawn out process that he wasn’t familiar with himself but everyone is on board. They seem to be doing what is needed to be done so they can finalize the approval. For further clarification, prior to that they drew the plan. Mr. Tolbert stated that that’s what he was wondering; if there were any issues with the property or with the actual architect because obviously it has been a year. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Lott stated that when they drew it, they were under the impression that it was sufficient but they were informed that they needed a professional architect to do it and they also needed an updated survey to be done. He waited a year thinking that was sufficient. Mrs. Welsh questioned if they knew when they would be finished? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Lott stated no he does not; he just hopes that it is real soon. This is the first time that they have been able to get all of the information done based on the City guidelines. Mrs. Welsh further stated that they just got the survey information as of Friday? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Lott stated yes. Mr. Tolbert stated that they need a motion. The motion can require that the review process be continued until such time that there is full compliance. Ms. Maucher questioned if there needs to be a timeframe established for the length of the review period? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it could be set for six months. They are coming up on what would be two years since the initial action of the application which was August 2017. You could certainly request that they return to the Commission in six months so that they can determine the progress that has been made, and hopefully completion of the activities that they need to complete to finalize both the Conditional Use Plan and the necessary Building Permits for their activity. Ms. Maucher moved to approve C-17-04 House of Pride Offices at 45 South New Street for a second renewal to the Conditional Use granted in August 2017 and renewed in October 2018 for a period of six months so that the Commission can see the status of where things are, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Ms. Edwards recused. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. NEW APPLICATIONS 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 1) Z-19-05 Lands of Harman Oil, Inc. at 53 N. West Street and 517 W. Division Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council for a rezoning application for two parcels of land consisting of 0.20 acres (8,512 SF +/-) and 0.35 acres (15,278 SF +/-). The properties are zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The properties are located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North West Street and West Division Street. The owner of record is Harman Oil, Inc. Property Addresses: 53 N. West Street and 517 W. Division Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-04-02.00-000 and ED-05-076.08-04-01.00-000. Council District 4. Ordinance #2019-11. Representatives: Mr. John Paradee, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt; Mr. William Harmon Jr., Owner; Mr. Mark Strickland, Century Engineering Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is a request for rezoning involving two properties. The bright yellow on the screen (visual) shows the two properties which are addressed as 53 North West Street and 517 West Division Street. It is the corner of Division Street and North West Street just to the east of the railroad tracks. Currently, the two properties are zoned as C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and the applicants are making a request to rezone both properties to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The properties are in total a little over a half acre in size. The surrounding area does have a variety of zoning classifications. Basically, to the north and east there are residential areas zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone). Along the Division Street Corridor we do see other commercial zoning: both C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) as well. With any rezoning, we have to look to the Comprehensive Plan to see what it says regarding land use in that particular area. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan says that this subject area would have a land use classification of Mixed Use. With a Mixed Use land classification, there are a number of zones that would comply. Both the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) as it exists now and the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) are both eligible types of zoning under the Mixed Use land use classification. The Comprehensive Plan also talks about Mixed Use and presents a series of goals related to Mixed Use in the Downtown Dover area which does in fact place an emphasis on both residential and commercial activity. Looking at the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) zoning district itself, the report to the Planning Commissioner shows the different types of permitted uses. They do range from stores and other service type establishments, offices, places of public assembly, hotels, as well as some residential opportunities with a variety of different residential types that would be allowed in the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) also includes several uses that could be considered under the Conditional Use application process which is a totally separate application review process. Those would include things like parking structures and parking lots as well as fuel pumps that would be accessory to a permitted use. With this, Staff always gives their recommendations or findings in regards to a rezoning. They do find that the proposed zoning to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan under the classification of Mixed Use. Both of the zones, its current one and the proposed one, are zones that allow for a mix of commercial and residential type uses. In comparing the two, perhaps the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) does allow for some more intense type uses on the commercial side of things. Both of them are very similar when it comes to residential uses that could be occurring in the zones. With the zones, any future development of the site would be subject to the bulk standards and those are things like setbacks, parking, height and the like for whatever the particular zone is. This is where you find 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 perhaps one of the more significant differences between the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) in that the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) does allow for up to a six story building. Whether or not you could actually design something to fit on the site is something else but that would be part of any kind of future development activity process. It is not subject to review tonight. The DAC Report also provides comments from the other DAC member agencies which include the City’s Public Works Office and Electric Department that have no objection to the rezoning but do provide some guidance about future redevelopment of the site. Likewise, the Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection but does offer some initial comments about planning for future activity. DelDOT as well offered no objection to the rezoning but any development of the property obviously has some processes involving DelDOT as Division Street is a State maintained road. Mr. Roach questioned if the applicant knew what they planned on developing there already or is it just a general up in the air kind-of-thing right now? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Harman stated that they do not know. Frankly, they are pursuing this just to enhance the flexibility of the site. As Mrs. Melson-Williams noted it’s a relatively small site so it is somewhat restricted in terms of what we can do but C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) will give them a couple more options. They do not have any intended user at this point. Mr. Paradee stated that is the simplest Rezoning application that he has ever presented to the City. As Mrs. Melson-Williams noted, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Staff has recommended approval. They have no objections to any of the DAC comments or Staff recommendations. They therefore respectfully request your favorable consideration. Mr. Holt stated that this used to be the Harmon Oil site. He was wondering if there was anything underground like oil tanks that need to be removed or has that already been addressed? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Paradee stated no and Mr. Harmon can address that in more detail if you wish but the property is clean. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Ms. Karen Speakman – NCALL, 363 Saulsbury Road Dover DE 19901 Ms. Speakman stated that she is the Executive Director of NCALL. They are located on 363 Saulsbury Road but they are also adjacent to this property in terms of 200 feet. They own four properties on North Kirkwood Street that they are building four houses that are for sale. Those houses will be finished in June. They certainly welcome new commercial development on Division Street and do not know what the Harman’s plan to do with this property; however, they do not support changing the zoning for these two parcels from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The biggest difference between the two zones is that C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) allows for hotels, places of public assembly and drive throughs as well as Conditional Uses that include parking lots and fuel pumps. C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) prohibits fuel pumps. Both zones allow retail stores, service establishments, restaurants and business offices as well as apartments and one family residences. C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) also allows buildings up to six stories; whereas, C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) only allows buildings up to two stories. They feel that the present zoning of C-1A (Limited 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 Commercial Zone) is more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and changing the zoning to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) could change the nature of the neighborhood. She doesn’t think allowing zoning to be changed that could allow fuel pumps, drive through or a parking lot on the property would enhance the neighborhood. She also does think that anything higher than three stories would not be in keeping with the surrounding community. Changing the zoning simply allows these things to occur. Not that they will do that or not do that but it opens the door to those additional uses. If the current zoning is retained, they could still have a buyer who wants to build a store or a restaurant. They would welcome things like a green grocer, a restaurant or apartments. They are also very willing to meet and discuss with everyone their Restoring Central Dover work and what’s happening in the community so that they could come up with something that would be sellable to others. They have a launcher program where they have young people pursuing businesses. A number of things are happening in Dover. NCALL is the lead agency on Restoring Central Dover so they really have a lot of involvement and are concerned about the neighborhood. Mr. Arnold Braunskill – 91 North West Street Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Braunskill stated that he is located within the 200 feet limit to the property and he supports the zoning of C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The area there can get congested sometimes on Division Street. The tracks are right at the corner so it could be a problem at the same time. He feels that anything other than C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) would cause more detriment to the area. As the young lady said, they are building more houses there and the community that is there aren’t looking for a multiplex or anything as far as hotels or larger than two stories. Right now, the way that area is developing with the new houses that are coming in, he thinks that anything other than a small store would cause problems. He is still wondering if they have any certification proving that the area has been cleaned up from the Harman Oil Company when they were there. He doesn’t know if that can be verified or not but he thinks that should be looked at or they should show some proof that it has been cleaned up. As far the community is concerned, he doesn’t think that they need anything higher than two stories. He thinks that they could be affected by extra traffic coming in and out of there so he is not for supporting this zoning change. Mr. Tolbert questioned if Mr. Braunskill had spoken to his neighbors about his concerns? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Braunskill stated that he has spoken to some of his neighbors and they are not crazy about the idea. On the next block over where they have the Depot gas station, they have additional traffic there and it also becomes a hangout. They are not looking for anymore hangouts. Maybe an office building could be looked at but they don’t want any more gathering spots. Mr. Tolbert questioned if Mr. Braunskill knew how many neighbors that he had in the immediate area? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Braunskill stated no he couldn’t say. Mr. Tolbert stated that he would suggest that Mr. Braunskill talk to those neighbors because at this hearing, they will only deal with the zoning issue. That is the only thing that they are going to vote on tonight and their vote is only a recommendation to City Council. You should also attend the City Council meeting and tell your neighbors. Mr. Braunskill stated they will do that but at the same time, he is saying that he doesn’t see the need for a change in zoning. He is not looking forward to seeing a six-story building or gas tanks in the area. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 Mr. Tolbert stated that it would be advisable for you to tell your neighbors and find out where they stand on the issue also because it involves all of you in that area. Mr. Charles Jackson – 126 North Kirkwood Street Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Jackson stated that he lives in the neighborhood and he is President of the Neighborhood Watch. At a past meeting that they had, there is a big concern about what is going to be done with this property. They would like to see the zone stay the same. They don’t need anything above two stories and people would be more comfortable with traffic not getting heavier than what it is now. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Adams questioned if the applicant had any responses to any of the comments from the public? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Paradee stated that he thinks it is important for the Planning Commission to understand that due to the very small size of this property, it is extremely unlikely that anything substantial can be built here given the setback requirements and the parking requirements in the Code. For example, a six story hotel is never going to happen here but you couldn’t possibly get enough parking spots on this tiny parcel. They are not seeking and have no plans for any particular use but they are certainly not seeking to do something that would be out of character for the neighborhood. C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) does give them a little flexibility that C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) does not have as the Staff Report has recognized. He thinks some of the fears that you’ve heard tonight are candidly unfounded because he thinks given the physical constraints of the property, it’s just not realistic that something that is going to be an eye sore or something that is going to be out of character with the neighborhood would happen here. With regard to the traffic and other concerns, those are really Site Plan concerns and not zoning concerns. Obviously, they will have to come back to this body if the Rezoning is approved with any Site Plan application. The Code gives the Planning Commission and City Council plenty of leverage to restrict what they can do in terms of conditions that will address some of the concerns that you heard tonight. He hopes that you will bear that in mind. Dr. Jones stated that she noticed that the present use is a vacant property. How long has it been vacant? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Harman stated that the previous use of the property was an office for his grandfather’s heating oil distribution business. He had an office on that property. The tanks were above ground and they can verify that for you. Right now it is a vacant lot. What he thinks they are looking for is a little more flexibility. They have no interest in opening up a hotel and he doesn’t think that it would be possible for them to build a six story building. Their engineer from Century Engineering can verify that as well. It was his grandfather’s place of business since the 1930’s. Dr. Jones stated that it has been noted by members of the public that there is some concern about the change to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and you have indicated a couple of times that there is no intention to build a six story facility. Were you sorely restricted with C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) in terms of your vision of the property which is the reason that you are now coming to have a change? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Harman stated yes. It is impossible to building something that is more than three stories on this property because it is so small and you can’t possibly comply with all of the setback and parking requirements, let alone stormwater 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 management and so forth. They don’t have any intention of building a monstrosity like that. But C- 2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) does give you a number of additional uses that are not permitted in C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). They are simply trying to maximize the highest and best use of the property but again it’s going to be severely restricted given the physical limitations of the property. As he stated, they are going to come back to the Planning Commission once they have a specific proposal with a Site Plan. They will be happy to engage the neighbors and address whatever concerns they have to make it as visually acceptable and nuisance-free to them. This body as well as City Council has all kinds of authority under the Code to impose conditions to ensure that. Mr. Roach questioned what are the things that would be allowed to be done from a C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone)? It seems to him that it is kind of contradicting to say that we know we are not building a six story building but we don’t know what we are building. What are the things that will open up for them to be able to do other than a gas station or six story building? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Paradee stated gas pumps. Gas pumps are a Conditional Use but that is not something that they could do without coming back to the Planning Commission and getting Conditional Use approval. You cannot have gas pumps in C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) but you can have them in C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) so that is the obviously one. Mr. Harman stated that one of the main reasons that they are pursing C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is because of the favorable setbacks. It allows them to utilize more of the property. The property is about 0.51 acres so that limits them with parking restrictions. They have actually reached out to NCALL. Previously, he thinks that they have done great work building single family homes within the area. One thought that they have is that on a ½ acre lot they could fit two or three family homes with enough of a back yard and enough parking. They certainly don’t want to change the character of the area but they have been active and been to Downtown Dover Development Committee meetings. He thinks that there is a chance to provide services and something that people need in the neighborhood. The real reason that they want to pursue C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is because of the favorable setbacks. They don’t want to build lot line to lot line but it also gives them more flexibility. Mr. Paradee stated that if he had to guess what this would be and he represents a lot of real estate developers who look at sites like this, he would guess that it would end of being some sort of small retail location; maybe a small grocery store. Then it would be up to this body and City Council if somebody wanted to put a service station with gas pumps. That is something that they could certainly say no to. It’s not something that will automatically happen if you grant the flexibility that C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) would give. Mr. Tolbert stated that they are limited to just the Rezoning. They are only going to make a recommendation to City Council and then City Council will do what they wish so we don’t have to get into anything other than the zoning. Keep in mind that the zoning extends their uses of that land and all of them are not negative. Some of them are very positive. Keep that in mind as we proceed with questions, comments or a motion. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to remind the Commissioners that when they are voting they will need to provide comments and reasons for whichever way they happen to be voting. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 Ms. Maucher questioned if Planning Staff could comment on the setback issue? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the differences in setbacks are really a difference in the front yard setback which would be from the street and in this case two streets. C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) has a front yard setback of twenty five feet and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) has a front yard setback of fifteen feet. C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) would allow a building to be built closer to the street. The side yard setbacks are the same in both zones being none but a five foot minimum if it is provided. That would be the area along the alley; the eastern property line of the sites. The rear yard setback in the case of C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is fifteen feet and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) requires five feet at the ground floor and twenty feet above that. In the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), it becomes a stepped back situation. You could do the math and draw what the shape of the buildable area looks like on both of those lots. It is somewhat comparable but it certainly in C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) allows a building to be closer to the street. As we already mentioned, there is a difference in maximum height. C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is two story, thirty feet and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is six story, seventy-five feet. The other thing that will govern how much building versus the site you can have is something called the Floor Area Ratio which is the ratio of the total floor area of the building to the lot size. In C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) that is 0.5 and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is 4.0. For example, in C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) the building can be four times the size of your lot and you typically achieve that by multiple floors. In her experience here in the Planning Office, typically most designs don’t get close to what that maximum is just because of the other requirements for building and parking and those types of things on the site. There are certainly in either case, tree planting requirements and perhaps some buffer requirements as well depending on the use. Dr. Jones questioned if changing the zoning from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), would that perspective change minimize the number of requests for variances that we often get? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it really depends on the project whether there would be a need for variances. In this corridor, there has been a recent request for a variance involving a C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) property in regards to height. It really depends on the design of the project and the Board of Adjustment is the body that would deal with variances for things like bulk standards. Mr. Adams moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-19-05 Lands of Harman Oil, Inc. at 53 N. West Street and 517 W. Division Street to change the zoning from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) as the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the land use classification of Mixed Use. He would further encourage the applicant to continue their work with both NCALL and the neighbors to develop a plan that makes the most sense for both the property and the neighborhood at large, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 7-2 by roll call vote. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; he also wants to echo that they work with NCALL and that the public continue to work and show up to the City Council meeting to express concerns with them as well. With him being a resident of Dover, he has been staring at that vacant lot for his entire life and he would much rather see development in that area to be able to bring some things into our city that could help out the residents as opposed to it being a vacant lot where Dover PD sits and gives people tickets. Ms. Edwards voting no; to Ms. Speakman’s earlier point that it opens the door for opportunity that is being opposed by nearby 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 residents. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks it gives them the opportunity to build with the new zoning. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for that area. Dr. Jones voting yes; with the full understanding that there will be a concerted effort to work with NCALL and the residents. The other thing that she would add is that whatever is finally developed would be of wholesome benefit for residents in that neighborhood. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and she echoes Dr. Jones’ concerns. There is also the opportunity to address any specific issues once there is a finalized design for the property because that will come back to the Planning Commission and that any concerns could be addressed at that point. Ms. Maucher voting no; once the zoning changes it is difficult to claw back. She thinks the zoning should remain as it is. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; the approval of this application increases the utilization of the area which is needed and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At this point, we are only dealing with the zoning of the property. If anything goes up on that site it has to come back before the Commission. Those that have problems with it certainly have an obligation that when it goes before City Council to make their views known there regarding the change but at this point he doesn’t see anything wrong with changing the zoning. Mr. Paradee stated that they appreciate and respect the concerns that were expressed here tonight and it is their commitment to address them. 2) Z-19-06 Lands of AID in Dover, Inc. at 731 and 801 W. Division Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council for a rezoning application for two parcels of land consisting of 11,350 SF+/- and 8,400 SF +/-. The properties are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The properties are located on the north side of West Division Street and east of but not adjacent to Weston Drive. The owner of record is AID in Dover, Inc. and the equitable owner is Central Delaware Housing Collaborative. Property Addresses: 731 and 801 W. Division Street. Tax Parcels: ED- 05-076.08-01-34.00-000 and ED-05-076.08-01-32.00-000. Council District 4. Ordinance #2019-12. Representatives: Mr. Dan Houghtaling, Central Delaware Housing Collaborative Ms. Edwards recused herself from this application as she was directly involved in raising money for this project. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application involves two properties further west on Division Street. As you see on the screen, the bright yellow identifies the two properties that are addressed as 731 W Division Street and 801 W Division Street. The property owner is AID in Dover, Inc and there is an equitable owner of the Central Delaware Housing Collaborative. Currently on the site there are several vacant buildings. The property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and is also subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) which is the dark green shown on the Exhibit Map. They are requesting rezoning of the property to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) with it remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Their request to rezone is to allow for a proposed use of at least one of the buildings as a shelter facility. The DAC Report did note some previous history of these properties. They were previously operated in the dormitory style facility as a shelter and that at the time it was a legal non-conforming use in the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). She thinks the zoning of these properties has changed over 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 the years. However, the shelter ceased operations and their legal non-conforming status to operate as a shelter expired in January of this year. There is a new potential property owner here that is seeking to take the property to a zone that would allow for that shelter type facility as a permitted use. The zoning in this area is predominantly commercial in nature. There is a variety of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). Across Division Street is a laundromat and car wash which is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and then a little further west across Weston Drive is the campuses of Booker T. Washington and William Henry (schools) as part of the Capital School District. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan for this area, it is currently on the Land Development Plan Map as Commercial. They do note that the Preliminary Draft for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan shows these properties potentially going to the land use classification of Mixed Use. In either case, the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) is compatible with the commercial land use classification. In the Report is the full text of what types of uses are allowed in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone). It ranges from offices, medical type facilities, a series of different public and institutional type uses and day care center facilities. There are some Conditional Uses that are allowed in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and accessory uses once you get into more of a campus like setting. For this application, their focus is on the fact that that IO (Institutional and Office Zone) does allow for emergency shelters. “Emergency shelters” and “transitional housing” in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) both have very specific definitions and they were included in the packet for reference. The COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) is not necessarily related to use but related to more of a site design requirement. Should anything additional be built on these properties then they would be subject to those provisions as well. Planning Staff is recommending that the Rezoning be granted to the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) zoning classification as it is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and the Commercial Land Use Classification. They do recommend that the property remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) because they do have prominent frontage on the corridor that is the focus of that special zone with it being West Division Street which also becomes Forrest Avenue and the Route 8 Corridor. The other thing that they would note is that this is a high traffic corridor and any of the redevelopment in it would be subject to additional review processes. Like the last Rezoning, our agencies participating the DAC the Public Works Office and the Electric Department as well as the Fire Marshal’s Office have no objection to the Rezoning; however, do offer some guidance on future redevelopment or renovations associated with the project sites. The applicant has been meeting with the Fire Marshal’s Office in regards to any kind of future use of the existing buildings on the site. DelDOT has no objection to the Rezoning; however, redevelopment may cause requirements for submissions to that agency as well. Mr. Houghtaling stated that he chairs the Central Delaware Housing Collaborative. They are in agreement with the DAC. There are some things that they have to do and there are some things that are already done. They are moving forward. This zoning hinges on the fact that they can buy the property or not with the prearranged agreement with the Delaware State Housing Authority. Right now, it is going to be a homeless shelter for approximately twenty women. They are taking the building that was abandoned almost two years ago and trying to bring it back to life. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the applicant had no problem working further with the Planning Staff? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Houghtaling stated no, they have been very helpful so far and hope to continue the relationship. 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 Mr. Roach stated that the plan is to possibly house twenty women. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Houghtaling stated yes. Mr. Roach questioned if it would be a women and children shelter? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Houghtaling stated no, they have to be separated. At this stage of their growth, they were advised by the Housing Authority that Dover and Kent County needs a shelter for homeless women. Mr. Roach questioned if it would have restrictions in regards to operating hours as it pertains to when the women are allowed to be in the shelter? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Houghtaling stated that they have a very strict Code that they have to follow to be in the shelter. Mr. Roach stated that he doesn’t mean in regards to a time restriction because he knows that there are several shelters already here in Dover where during the day they are not allowed to be there. They can come at night for housing so therefore you see a lot of them hanging out around the shelter. Since he works at Booker T. Washington, he definitely has a vested interest because the kids walking from Booker T. Washington and William Henry come right down that street in front of that building every single day. He knows that they are discussing the zoning right now but he is looking at the bigger picture. If they say from the hours of 8AM to 4PM, you should be out looking for a job but women are standing out in front of the building that is a concern to him in regards to the safety of the children that are leaving school and walking across that street. Regardless of whatever they are housed in that shelter for, whether it is because of domestic violence, drug abuse or homelessness, it seems like a concern to him if we don’t know the operating hours. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Houghtaling stated that he is right because they come to the shelter for 30-90 days. They can be asked to leave if they are not going to conform with the program that they have to offer. Part of that program says that while they are with us they have to be looking for a job. They will be taking classes like certain classes with us on how to manage money, how to find a job and how to complete a resume. But there is a point where they have to be out looking for jobs. They will not lock the women out during the day time. They will be allowed to use their rooms. That is the one big difference from the men’s shelter. Mr. Holt questioned if these homeless women are local or are they from another area? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Houghtaling stated that there are probably some of both. There are 4 tent villages now and there are women occupying every one of them. This is relatively new. There are a few shelters now that take in women and children but there is no dedicated women’s shelter. From the numbers that they are told, twenty would be a good number to build off of. Mr. Adams stated that the expectation would be to start with twenty but does the property allow for opportunity to grow beyond that size? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Houghtaling stated no, they would start with eight and work their way up to twenty. There is a lot next door to them that they want to develop into some type of transitional or supportive housing. They already have transitional housing; they rent homes in the community. But when you rent a home and don’t own it and you put the utilities on top of it and break it down into three women that are living there, it’s almost unaffordable at that stage of the game. If you live somewhere and have a home, the Social Security Office gives you $700.00 a month. If you are homeless you only get $450 a month to live on and you bring them into transitional housing, $450.00 doesn’t begin to cover their cost of a 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 three bedroom place shared by three women. Mr. Houghtaling stated that they agree with the overview and they are happy with this stage that they are at right now. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Ms. Karen Speakman – NCALL, 363 Saulsbury Road Dover DE 19901 Ms. Speakman stated that she is in favor of this proposed change in zoning. Very much we need more housing that is affordable for families and for women. There is a desperate need for housing that would house homeless women. As said, we don’t have a shelter right now for that and the homeless population is only growing unfortunately. We do not have enough affordable housing. Mr. Holt questioned if these women have ever been married? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Houghtaling stated that they could be divorced; they could be battered or they could be addicts. Mr. Holt further questioned if they can’t go after the husbands? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Houghtaling stated again, they have very strict rules. If they come in that house, there is no male contact on the premises and they discourage it off the property. They have a limited number of days to work with them to get them on their feet and get them into the next stage of housing. They get all kinds of people. You have some that want to be there and then there are some that are just looking for a place to stay. If they are not part of their program then we are going to move them aside real quick especially with the number of people that are out there. Mr. Tolbert questioned how long the women can stay in this shelter? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Houghtaling stated ninety days but under certain circumstances they will extend to one hundred twenty days if they are making progress toward the end game. Mr. Roach stated that he knows the staff to kid ratio but what is the staff to adult ratio in regards to working the shelter? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Houghtaling stated that the Collaborative will have a full time house manager living in the house 24/7. They are a collaborative so they work with other agencies. Currently, they have no plans for case managers. Every person that is referred to them is referred by another agency. That case manager has to stay with that person for the duration of time that they are in the house with us. They actually have a proposed office for these case managers that will be coming in and out and other service providers will also be coming in and out. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-19-06 Lands of AID in Dover, Inc. at 731 and 801 W. Division Street to change the zoning from its present zoning to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 8-0 with Ms. Edwards recused. Dr. Jones voting yes; it’s a great project. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it’s a great project and it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Maucher voting yes; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning matches 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 this intended purpose. Mr. Adams voting yes; he is supportive of the project and wishes the applicant good luck. Mr. Roach voting yes; somewhat hesitantly because he has seen projects like this in the area but he is going to have faith that they will do it the right way because it serves a great need to community service to homeless women in our area. Mr. Holt voting yes; there is a great need and he wishes the applicant luck for success. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it is consistent with the land use classification. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; we are in need of such shelters and he wishes them success with this shelter. He hopes that they can get it going quickly. Ms. Edwards returned to the meeting. 3) C-19-01 Lands of Kent Del Properties, LLC: Apartments at 589 North DuPont Highway – Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Application to permit the rear building on the property to be converted into apartments to contain two (2) dwelling units. The subject property consists of 0.32 +/- acres (12,900 SF) located on the northeast side of North DuPont Highway (US Rt. 13) north of Townsend Boulevard. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area. The owner of record is Kent Del Properties, LLC. Property Address: 589 North DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.09-01-25.00-000. Council District 3. Representatives: Mr. Glenn Mandalas, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Conditional Use application to permit the rear building on the property addressed as 589 North DuPont Highway to be converted into apartments to contain a total of two dwelling units. The property is located on the northeast side of North DuPont Highway, north of Townsend Boulevard and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and is subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area. The rear building which is two stories currently contains an apartment unit on the second floor with a commercial use on the first floor. The applicant wishes to convert the lower level to also contain an apartment unit so there will be a total of two apartments in the building. The building at the front of the property is to continue as a commercial use. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 16.2A, apartments are an acceptable Conditional Use in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The current application for review is based on the Site Plan with a submission date of May 9, 2019 as well as the original letter and a series of photographs with the date of April 5, 2019. The applicant has noted that they intend to maintain a low intensity commercial use in the building at the front of the property. The commercial use of the building at the front of the property must comply with the regulations regarding the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area as found in the Zoning Ordinance. A series of photographs were provided and the applicant has confirmed that there will be no major alterations in appearance to either of the buildings. The applicant has however noted that five new trees would be provided along the southern boundary of the site behind the rear building. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Delaware Department of Transportation is currently working on a program to introduce sidewalks along the north side of North DuPont Highway from Townsend Boulevard north to Jefferic Boulevard. This would include the frontage along the southwest edge of the property subject to this application. The plan that is provided by the applicant does not note this (sidewalks) project nor the inclusion of any other new sidewalks. The applicant has also identified that a new enclosure for the required two 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 dumpsters will be built upon the gravel surface at the rear of the property. While Staff is satisfied that the gravel surface is sufficient to meet Code requirements, more details on the vertical screening elements of the dumpster enclosure to be provided are required. It should be noted that there was a slight error in the Report submitted to the Planning Commission for review in that there were only two Recommendations Suggested as Conditions of Approval to meet Code objectives. These would be numbers 3 and 4, not numbers 1 and 2 listed under the Recommendations. Therefore, Staff recommends the following two recommendations. Recommendation #3 states that the applicant should delineate parking spaces to ensure site circulation and fire protection needs are maintained around the buildings. The parking spaces must be clearly defined from the drive aisles to ensure proper traffic flow and limit any potential obstructions. Staff recommends accomplishing this with the use of parking bumpers, the restriping of parking spaces as well as adding any additional directional arrows or signage necessary for traffic circulation. Recommendation #2 which again is #4 listed in the Recommendations, Staff recommends a designated bicycle parking facility on the property. The applicant has indicated that they will provide such a facility and noted its location on the Site Plan but additional detailed information as to its form is still needed. If the Planning Commission approves the Conditional Use, the use is granted as a Conditional Use Permit, not unlike the C- 17-04 House of Pride application that was reviewed earlier. Such Permits may be permanent subject to limitations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10, Section 1.41 or be required by the Commission to undergo periodic renewal like the one reviewed earlier this evening using the procedure described in Article 10, Section 1.42. Mr. Mandalas stated that they are in agreement with the Staff recommendations. They are good ones and they are happy to comply with those. The application is for the back building. There are two buildings on this property. The rear building previously had a massage parlor and a spa in it on the first floor. The second floor was an apartment; we think as recently as 2014 since that is the last Rental License that they can find for it. That top floor has had that residential use and the bottom floor had a residential use at one time. In fact, the building was constructed to be two apartments but was converted some time later to a massage parlor and spa. If the Commission approves this use, they will be returning that back building to its original intended purpose of a residential use. There has been a little bit of discussion tonight about affordable housing and he thinks this would accommodate some of those needs in the City. It’s only two units but they are relatively small units and he anticipates that they would be in an affordable class of residential property. Concerning the legal standard, they think that granting the residential use would not be a detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the public or the residents of the immediate neighborhood. It has adequate access from North DuPont Highway; the structure already exists and there is nothing planned to change the configuration of the structure that would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. In fact, they think that it’s going to enhance it since they have already replaced the roofs on both of the buildings on the property and they are doing some other site improvements. The proposed use is residential and what they have to the rear of the property is residences behind it; so, this is more in kind with what is already there. Although their residences are going to be about fifty feet off of their property line so there will be a fair amount of buffering even between the residential uses. The property does easily accommodate the five required parking spaces for the residential use and then there are three spaces required for the front commercial building. They are planting trees on the southeastern portion of the property to comply with the tree requirement. They are doing the parking delineation with the 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 parking bumpers. They will have the bicycle rack installation as recommended. They think that this is a good project. Granting this Conditional Use will allow for the revitalization of an otherwise vacant property along the City corridor. Mr. Tolbert stated that Staff has made some recommendations regarding parking, is the applicant in agreement with those things and will they continue to work with Planning Staff? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Mandalas stated that he is in agreement and will comply and will continue to work with Planning Staff. The Site Plan is no Picasso and they are having that redone in connection with the Certificate of Occupancy that will be needed for this property. He is sorry that he doesn’t have something better for the Commission this evening but there is something in the works. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Roach moved to approve C-19-01 Lands of Kent Del Properties, LLC: Apartments at 589 North DuPont Highway for a Conditional Use and to include Staff recommendations and comments, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; it was an apartment at one point and she does believe that it will stay in compliance with the surrounding area. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr. Balding voting yes; it’s consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Adams voting yes; he is supportive of the project and also the affordable housing component as well. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; for all reasons stated. NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they have very busily been rewriting a whole series of different chapters at this point. They do remind the Commission to check the City’s webpage that has what they have released to the public: Preliminary Draft #2A of the Goals and Recommendations. They have set a somewhat ambitious deadline for themselves as they would like to have a rough rough draft of all of the chapters by the end of the month. They have made significant progress but they are still working away when they find moments here and there. With that, they are still probably looking at September for its formal review. They will release a Draft this summer. If the Commissioners have thoughts as they look at applications or drive around the City and want to make sure that Staff is thinking about something, please let them know. It is easier to tell them now then for them to amend it later on the floor. They are working away but she will be happy to try to address any questions from the Commission. Mr. Tolbert stated that he noticed the project that is going up at Division Street and Route 13 where the Aldi store is. Starbucks is already open and they are still building there. They already have a license for occupancy and to operate and yet they are still building on that site. 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2019 Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that he is talking about what is known as the Capital Station site which is the old Playtex Building. Its address is 10-50 North DuPont Highway. Yes, the first tenant is occupying one of the tenant spaces in the front middle building and that is Starbucks. They opened within the last two weeks. Each building has its own Building Permit and each tenant space also has its own Building Permit; so, you will slowly see parts of that property take occupancy and begin to operate. She can tell you that Staff, both in the Planning Office and in a number of the other City offices, did have to work very closely to allow the first tenant to open, meaning that they had to make sure that the entrances from Division Street and Route 13 were granted their blessing by DelDOT in order for the public to use them as well as making sure that the areas immediately around that building were ready to receive the public. When you have a property such as that, that has multiple buildings, you can expect that some of it may be occupied while other areas are still under construction. She thinks that the fifth building which is Building 3 will hopefully be getting underway soon. The Aldi is close; Red Robin is going crazy which is the piece closest to Wells Fargo and then the back building is another multi-tenant building. It’s a project and it can get complicated when you talk about construction versus people coming to partake in the services. Mr. Tolbert stated that his concern was that they are still under heavy construction but you have the public coming on that site. That poses a dangerous situation. Mr. Holt questioned the Ethics course on June 11th. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that an email went out last week. There is a required Ethics Training session that has been scheduled for June 11th. As far as she knows, there is only one session scheduled. They have not been advised that there are others. This time last year there was a series of dates and times that you could be pick and choose from. It is a requirement and attending it does count as a meeting so you will get paid for that. Please let Staff know of your attendance. If you are coming great, if you have a particular reason for a conflict, please let Staff know that as well so they can let the office conducting the training know. Mr. Tolbert questioned the time? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it is a 5PM in Council Chambers. Meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 18