PC Minutes 10-21-19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Dr. Jones presiding. Members present were Mr. Roach, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Maucher and Dr. Jones. Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Jeffrey Gosnear, Mr. Doug Liberman and Mr. Edward Gilmore. Speak from the public were Mr. Cameron Llewellyn, Mr. Doug Ferris, Dr. Dan Shelton, Mr. Anthony DePrima, Mr. Tolano Anderson, Ms. Faye White, Mr. Coban Goertz, Ms. Bessie Crane and Mr. John Paradee. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there was a Site Plan Application S-19-23 Central Delaware Housing Collaborative: Emergency Shelter and Apartment Building proposed at 731 and 801 West Division Street. That application will not be heard by the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. Its application and formal public hearing will be rescheduled for a future meeting of the Planning Commission and it will be subject to new public notice requirements at that meeting time. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 Ms. Maucher moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of September 16, 2019, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 18, 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 September 23 and 24, 2019 & October 14 and 15, 2019. Mr. Hugg stated that later this evening they will give the Commission an update on the Comprehensive Plan Release Draft which is out for public review and also at the State Planning Office for PLUS Review. We also interviewed a young Planner who hopefully will be able to join our Staff. They are in the middle of background and reference checks now and hope to make an offer to that person very soon. That would at least get us back up to full Staff which is a major challenge at the moment. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: a. S-17-25 Development of 219-229 Beiser Boulevard: Lots 2A and 3 at Enterprise Business Park – Request for a One-Year Extension of the Planning Commission approval granted on October 16, 2017 for a Site Development Plan outlining four phases of construction for parking lot areas and two (2) 19,304 S.F. two-story office building along with the associated site improvements on two separate parcels adjoining one another. The properties are zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The adjoining properties are located on the northwest side of Beiser Boulevard and are part of the Enterprise Business Park, a planned industrial park. The owner of record is Del-Homes Catalog Group, LLC. Property Addresses: Lot 2A is addressed as 219 Beiser Boulevard and Lot 3 is addressed as 229 Beiser Boulevard. Lot 2A Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-46.00-000. Lot 3 Tax Parcel: ED05-076.15-01-03.08-000. Council District 1. Representatives: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the Planning Commission Packet is the Letter of Request from the Realtor representing the property. It was received by the Planning Office seeking a one year extension of the Site Plan S-17-25. It was proposed for a project that involved development of two office buildings and some associated parking located along Beiser Boulevard. She can tell members of the Commission that this project has moved through part of the Check Print Review Process. They do have a number of the agency approvals already in hand but have not fully completed that process. They have approvals from the Fire Marshal and the Kent Conservation District. In this situation, it was not required from DelDOT. They are still working with the Public Works Office and the Planning Office to finalize their plan. They are seeking a one year extension and they have taken steps moving towards Final Plan Approval. Mr. Tolbert questioned since the one year extension was granted in 2017, would granting another extension at this time present any problems that she can foresee in the future? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this was reviewed by the Planning Commission in October 2017. The initial review of that Site Plan gave them two years to work on the plan. They did do that; however, our Code does allow for them to seek an additional one year extension of the approval, during which time they must finalize the plan and pull permits to commence construction. If they do not do so, they will have to resubmit a new application. If the Commission approves a one year extension, it gives them an additional year to finish up and get moving with the project. Mr. Hartman questioned whether the applicant has made substantial progress toward obtaining final approvals? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would say that they have made progress. The Check Print Review Process involves resubmission to the agencies providing comments as part of the Development Advisory Committee. In the case of the major entities that have to approve the plan, they have two of those completed, one is not 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 required and the two others have seen initial reviews and have provided comments back to the applicant. She would say that they are substantially on track to finalize their plan if they so wish. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve S-17-25 Development of 219-229 Beiser Boulevard: Lots 2A and 3 at Enterprise Business Park for a one year extension since they continue to be in compliance with the Planning Staff, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 6-0 by voice vote with Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh absent. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) C-19-08 Grotto Pizza: Dough Production and Storage at 122 Rosemary Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Plan Application to permit the conversion of two (2) existing buildings into a facility for the dough production, dry storage, food distribution, and warehouse at 122 Rosemary Road. The main building is one-story and 9,800 SF and the second building is one-story and 3,000 SF. The subject property consists of 2.088 +/- acres and is located on the west side of Rosemary Road, north of Lafferty Lane. The submission will be subject to a Performance Standards Review Application. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ-I, APZ-II, and Noise Zone A. The owner of record is MC5 LLC. Property Address: 122 Rosemary Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.16-02-12.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Bicycle Parking Requirement, Elimination of Sidewalks. Representatives: Mr. Jeffrey Gosnear, Vice President of Grotto Pizza Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Conditional Use Plan Review to permit the conversion of two existing structures into a facility for dough production, dry storage, food production and a warehouse at 122 Rosemary Road. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) and Noise Zone A. The submission is also subject to a Performance Standards Review Application. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to occupy the main building to the north on the property as a food production facility, office and warehouse. The proposed use of the second building to the south will be used as a storage facility for vehicles and kitchen supplies. A 1,240 SF addition to the main building is proposed for a dock and a freezer on a foundation and 3,200 SF of additional paving is proposed that will lead to the dock. An additional 128 SF is proposed for mechanical equipment on a concrete pad. The applicant is also proposing to have 6-8 employees working the facility based on a five day production week. The applicant has noted two waiver requests with their plans. The first is a waiver request from the bicycle parking requirement. Normally with thirteen parking spaces they would be required to provide one bicycle parking facility; however, a written waiver request for the elimination of the bicycle parking was submitted. In making the request, the applicant cites the facility is located in a rural business industrial park with limited residential housing in the area. Therefore, due to the location they believe bicycle access would be extremely limited and not used by their employees or vendors. Secondly, a written waiver request for the elimination of the sidewalk that leads to the two buildings and the elimination of the street frontage sidewalk along the north side of Lafferty Lane and Rosemary Road has been submitted for the consideration of the Planning Commission. The applicant has cited that there is no sidewalk along either the Rosemary Road or the Lafferty Lane frontages and that the entire area leading 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 from Rosemary Road to the buildings is already paved as reasons for their waiver requests. Consequently, Staff recommends approval of the request for the elimination of sidewalk leading from the street frontages to the main building and the proposed storage building on Rosemary Road. Staff also recommends approval for the elimination of the sidewalk along the Rosemary Road street frontage of the property; however, Staff would not recommend approval for the elimination of the street frontage sidewalk along the north side of Lafferty Lane. There is an existing sidewalk along the street frontage on the north side of Lafferty Lane in front of the adjacent property. It would be reasonable to construct a sidewalk along Lafferty Lane as a continuation of sidewalks that presently exist on that road. Staff would recommend approval of the request for the elimination of bicycle parking due to the nature of the use on the site and a limited number of employees and visitors to the facility. Lastly, as the aforementioned Performance Standards Review Application, Staff would recommend that the Commission affirm that the site’s proposed use as an office building, food production warehouse and storage facility with a dock for truck parking conforms to all of the applicable Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Section 8. The proposed use is not expected to generate excessive, dangerous or objectionable elements or emissions. Just as a reminder, the Planning Commission should act upon the requests for waivers as well as the Performance Standards Review Application as part of any motion regarding this project application or as a separate motion as necessary. Mr. Gosnear stated that he is the Vice President of Grotto Pizza. They are proposing to consolidate two dough production facilities. They have one in New Castle County and one in Sussex County. They want to combine them both into one in Kent County to service all of their Delaware and Maryland restaurants with their dough that they use throughout the restaurants. It is a fairly limited operation that they have; it is mostly automated. They have between five and eight employees that will be there on a daily basis on a Monday through Friday work week. There will be fairly limited deliveries that will be coming in there since most of it is flour that is coming in and they bring it in in bulk. The dough itself that they will be making is actually a frozen product that will be shipped to their distribution center in Pocomoke, Maryland. There will be very limited truck access. There won’t be a daily truck access that comes in and out of there. They are looking at probably twice a week and that is when they are at full capacity. For the waivers that were recommended, they are fine with the recommendations that were made by the DAC. Mr. Hartman questioned about the food waste at the facility. Do you have any concerns about the food waste near the airfield area? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Gosnear stated no, they actually have very little food waste. It really is just dough production. They aren’t sending anything out and then bringing it back in for trash or anything of that nature. It is literally taking their dough with their ingredients that they are using and then shipping it out. They don’t really have any by-product that comes off of that at all. Ms. Maucher questioned if the applicant was withdrawing their request to eliminate the sidewalk on Lafferty Lane? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Gosnear stated yes, they can withdraw just that portion of it. They want to still have their request for eliminating the rest of the sidewalks. Mr. Hartman stated that the submittal was great and it was easily understood. The confusion for 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 him is the review by the City. It was a thorough review but he is having difficulty understanding the zoning. He did ask for a clarification earlier today via email and he guesses that it is very difficult for a Commissioner to speak to a Planner asking for information. That designation was provided here tonight to all of the Commissioners he supposes. His concern is that part of the food processing building is in APZ-I (Accident Potential Zone). Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the overall property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The property is also in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) and that is the colored shading that you see happening on the screen as part of our Zoning Map. The AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) really has two components. The first is a Noise Zone and in this case, the entire property is in Noise Zone A. Next, is the APZ (Accident Potential Zones). This property is somewhat unique in that it is bisected by the APZ-I and the APZ-II. It appears that the dividing line may bisect the northern building which is where the food production is proposed. There was a Zoning Verification Letter Request and response that Planning Staff prepared back in June 2019 and this evening, she provided on the desks of all of the Commission members, copies of that letter. This letter actually made the determination that the Planning Staff considers that the north building to basically to be in the APZ-II zone which would allow for the manufacturing of food and kindred products. The Zoning Ordinance, when you are looking to a Zoning Map and trying to place buildings and the aerial, not all of the mapping is synced; it could be off depending on the angle of the aerial that is utilized in this area. They do feel fairly comfortable that enough of the building is in APZ-II to identify it as being in that area for the use compliance. In the other provisions of Zoning Ordinance, there is some guidance as to what you do when these boundary lines don’t look real clear. In this case, it talks about provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that if more than 50% of the property is in the less restrictive zone and in this case, the less restrictive zone is the APZ-II, then that area and an additional thirty feet to the south of that line is considered in that less restrictive zone. She thinks by both potential mapping differences and in that provision of our Zoning Ordinance, Staff has made that determination that the northern building is in APZ-II and would be subject to those regulations. The southern portion of the site which includes the smaller shed-like building is in APZ-I. That building cannot be utilized for food production. The Zoning Verification Letter documents that and it would be part of the record for this property. Mr. Hartman stated thank you for that reply and he wishes that it could have been provided to us earlier than tonight. His question relates to the Dover Code Land Use and Development Standards that states “any building or portion there of constructed or placed within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) shall comply with the following standards.” Does that apply? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that when you are looking at the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) you have to determine which Noise Zone it is in and if it falls into any of the Accident Potential Zones or Clear Zone. There is a Land Use Compatibility Table that you then have to look to as to whether the use is permitted in those areas. In the case of food manufacturing, it is allowed in the APZ-II and is also allowed in Noise Zone A. Mr. Hartman questioned if the Code disallows it in APZ-I? A substantial part of this building is in the APZ-I. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the southern smaller building is in APZ-I but that is not where the food production is occurring. For the other building, Staff has determined it should follow the APZ-II provisions which does allow for food 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 productions. A majority of the building and a majority of the lot is actually in APZ-II and the provisions of the Code allow us to consider a slightly larger area than where the line may fall on this lot because of the way it looks at boundaries. Mr. Hartman questioned if Mrs. Melson-Williams could confirm if this requirement in the Dover Code 22.5 Land Use and Development Standards stated that “any building or portion there of constructed or placed within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) shall comply with the following standards.” If a portion of the big building is in APZ-I, doesn’t this standard apply to that? This question is raised because of the importance of the Dover Air Force Base to our local community, to the State and to the Nation. Airfield operation is vitally important to the Dover Air Force Base and he has seen how they come out to question these things at other meetings and appeals. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the determination by Staff is that the northern building is allowed to have manufacturing of food and kindred products under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). In comparison to looking at the Zoning Map, they have done an interpretation of that Zoning Map where that boundary line crosses this property and what portions of it would be subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) provisions of APZ-II versus APZ-I. They are of record with the Zoning Verification Letter. They have looked definitely at the Code and made that determination. If there is a question of that determination, the Zoning Ordinance would allow for an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and it would be an appeal of an administrative decision. The administrative decision of the Planner is that the northern building falls into the APZ-II provisions where food manufacturing would be permitted. Mr. Hartman stated that he respectively disagrees but because of this designation was provided to us so late today, he has not had a good chance to look at it. Would it be possible to delay the approval until the next meeting? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Dr. Jones stated that perhaps we can hear from the other Commissioners and then get a feel for what is going on. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the Code restrictions will cause the applicant to have any problems with their food production? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Gosnear stated that they will not because the southern building which is where they were told that they cannot do any food production, they plan on using that shed type building really for a garage to put some of our catering vehicles that we have. For the warehouse part of that, they just plan on putting kitchen equipment in there. They have no intention of using any of that one building for food manufacturing in any way. Dr. Jones opened a public hearing. Mr. Cameron Llewellyn – 131 Rosemary Road Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Llewellyn stated that he and his partners own 131 Rosemary Road. They don’t have any objection to this application. There was a discussion of sidewalks on Rosemary Road. They are in the process of developing plans that the Commission will see shortly and they don’t feel that any sidewalks are necessary on Rosemary Road so they are in agreement with Staff and the applicant. As far as the ambiguity of that overlay zone, they are very familiar with that and he thinks that the City of Dover would be making a huge mistake if we were to try carving a line between that piece of property and tell these people that they can’t produce their pizza dough 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 because somebody arbitrally drew a line between that. He is not a civil engineer. He builds things out of sticks and bricks and he just thinks that it would be totally foolish for us to say that just because a little chunk of this property has a line drawn through it, arbitrally by the Lord knows who. They are fully in support of them developing their property as he is sure that they will be in full support of us developing our property. Dr. Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert stated that he understands that Grotto is in the process of building new facilities. Will this site provide the dough for all of the new facilities? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Gosnear stated that this location will not only provide for their new facilities but it will actually provide for all of their existing facilities in Delaware and Maryland. Mr. Tolbert questioned how many employees they will have at this facility? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Gosnear stated five to eight employees. Most of the production is automated so the need for a large staff is not there. Mr. Tolbert stated that as he sees more pizza facilities going up, do you anticipate more employees being hired for this facility? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Gosnear stated that as it stands now, he believes that they can go at least another 10-15 locations before we would need any more help because of the automation of it. Really the people who are there are just monitoring everything to make sure for quality assurance and monitoring, more than they are actually doing the work with the exception of actually putting dough in the mixer. That is the most manual part that they have in the whole process. Ms. Maucher questioned if the Planning Commission approves this application and agrees with Staff’s recommendations and observations that it is in the lesser restrictive zone, would that be challenged by the Air Base? Who could challenge that decision to the Board of Adjustment? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Zoning Ordinance in the provisions for the Board of Adjustment has a process called Appeals. That section states that “the appeal of an administrative order, requirement, decision or determination, the Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals where it is ledged that there is any order requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Appeals to the Board (Board of Adjustment) may be made by any person aggrieved or by any Officer, Department, Board or Bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of an Administrative Officer.” In this case, the decision of or the determination of the Administrative Officer is an interpretation of the Zoning Map as it pertains to this property. It is fairly broad as to who could bring an Appeal but it is somewhat narrow in that it is not an appeal of the Planning Commission decision. That would be a legal process through the Courts. Mr. Gosnear stated that this facility right now is currently a sign manufacturing facility. They do have employees in there each day. They are using that large building the same way that we would be using it as it stands right now. They are not adding any more people than they have in there now. They are manufacturing; they are just manufacturing signs as opposed to manufacturing dough. They are not using the smaller building. It was in the letter that the smaller 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 building was part of the APZ-I zone and they have no intention of using that for any type of manufacturing. Mr. Hartman stated that Mr. Llewellyn brought up the boundary line on the property. He was looking at Dover Air Force Base’s Installation Study last night and their boundary line appears to be the same as this. So Dover Air Force Base has this line on their Air Craft Installation Study (AICUZ – Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study) and that is his concern. Mr. Tolbert questioned if Dover Air Force Base has contacted the Planning Staff regarding this application? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as part of the DAC notification, there is a notification that goes to the Community Planner at the Base. He often participates in their DAC meetings. There was not any written comments from them in regards to this application. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve C-19-08 Grotto Pizza: Dough Production and Storage at 122 Rosemary Road, including the waiver for the elimination of the sidewalk on Rosemary Road and the connecting sidewalks to the site noting that the applicant withdrew the request for the waiver of sidewalk on Lafferty Lane so that sidewalk will be constructed and the approval of the elimination of the bicycle parking and that the applicant continues to work cooperatively with Planning Staff and that the applicant continues to be mindful of the Performance Standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 5-1 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Roach voting yes; based on the fact that the building was already functioning with an existing manufacturing and that the Planner from the Air Base did not disclose any issues in regards to this plan. Mr. Hartman voting no; based on not being satisfied with Staff’s explanation of why it is not considered in APZ-I. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff recommendations for this project. Dr. Jones voting yes; based on the communication with Dover Air Force Base and all of the recommendations from DAC. 2) S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan Application to demolish the existing structures and then construct a one-story 4,504 SF Car Wash (Service Establishment) with associated site improvements. The subject properties to be combined total 2.07 +/- acres and are located east side of Saulsbury Road north of Forest Street and west of Carver Road. The properties are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owner of record for all properties is Faithwork LLC. Property Addresses: 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road; 20 (and 26), 30 and 34 Carver Road; 971, 975 and 983 Forest Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05- 076.07-01-38.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-39.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-61.00-000, ED-05- 076.07-01-60.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-59.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-62.00-000, ED-05- 076.07-01-36.00-000, and ED-05-076.07-01-37.00-000. Council District 4. For Consideration: Designation as Superior Urban Design. This site (except the property at 34 Carver Road) was the subject of Rezoning Application Z-18-03 as recommended by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2018 and approved by the Dover City Council on December 10, 2018. 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 Representatives: Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering; Mr. Edward Gilmore, Tommy’s Express Car Wash Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Site Plan Application. It involves actually a total of eight parcels of land that are proposed for redevelopment. This property area is bounded by Saulsbury Road on the west, Forest Street on the south and then Carver Road on the east. It basically is the southern part of that block with the exception of the corner at Route 8 and Saulsbury Road where the existing Subway is. This project would demolish a number of existing buildings on these eight parcels which include a number of residences; several that were approved for an emergency shelter use and also a motor vehicle detailing and service facility that is on Carver Road. The properties for the most part are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). There is one parcel of land, the northern most piece on Carver Road, which is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The entire area is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) which has additional requirements related to architecture, building placement, landscaping and site design elements. This application is requesting no waivers. They do have for consideration the provisions of Superior Urban Design which is a component of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This evening, she placed a copy of what is the associated policy document that is entitled “COZ-1 Superior Urban Design Goals and Policies.” It is a document that was developed by Staff a number of years ago and those provisions were added to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). She apologizes for not having that information in the packet. Moving back to the DAC Report, this is a project that proposes a one story Car Wash facility to be established on property. It is recognized as a type of service establishment that would be permitted in the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) as well. The COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) does not regulate use; it regulates things more in line with the design of the property. With the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) there are front yard setbacks which really turn into build-to lines. With this project, they are seeking the ability to be recognized as a “Superior Urban Design” which then allows them to designate one of their corridor frontages to meet the requirements for setbacks, parking locations, and the like. That is eligible through a determination that it is a corner property. In this case, the corridor elevations are Forest Street and Saulsbury Road and through the Superior Urban Design they are hoping to designate Forest Street as the corridor elevation for those elements that are required. Those elements get into specific architectural needs for that elevation of the building as well as the location of parking. With the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), just some of the highlights of the requirements that they have to meet beyond that setback provision is that parking lots can’t be located in the front yard setback and they also cannot be located between the building and the corridor frontage. In this case, the parking is really to the rear of Forest Street and it is a substantial distance away from Saulsbury Road as well. Carver Road is not considered a corridor side of the property; it is street frontage but it is not a corridor frontage. Other provisions of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) require at least 25% of the property to be landscaped open space. In this case, there is over 58% of the property in this existing development plan that is open space areas and that is where we find stormwater management and tree plantings for the site. With the project there are parking requirements and these are based on the size of the building. Based on the size of the building, it is required to have sixteen parking spaces and they are providing seventeen. Some of these spaces also pull double duty as vacuum areas for self-vacuum services. The property is required to have bicycle parking and they are required to have one. They are providing a rack that will allow for more than one bicycle parking on the site. The access to this project is from both Carver Road and from Saulsbury Road. The access to the Car Wash is from the drive aisle in the middle of the site that continues south. The entry into the 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 Car Wash would be on the Forest Street side of the building and then you would proceed north through the building and then exit into the parking area with multiple options on how to leave the site. The property is required to have sidewalks on all frontages and their project is providing those. Additionally, they are providing a connecting sidewalk from Forest Street into where the building is located. The property also includes the requisite dumpster requirements and tree planting. There are a number of trees that are required because of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) along all property frontages and then along the other remaining perimeters. There would be trees required to the north of the access drive. In particular, the northern area along Carver Road is adjacent to a residential use so there is a requirement for an opaque barrier. In this case, they are providing a fence and there is also tree plantings on the north side of that fence to meet that requirement. The applicant did submit a Revised Site Plan that made some slight adjustments so the balance of their project will have to ultimately be revised to reflect that building placement. What is did was move the drive aisle slightly and everything slightly further south in their revision that they made in the last couple of weeks. This evening, the key things for the Planning Commission members to look to with this is first the consideration of Superior Urban Design. You have the guidelines that Staff has provided and the applicant outlined how they are addressing those provisions in a letter. Basically, its making that designation for Forest Street to be designated as the corridor elevation for purposes of setback and parking locations. The Development Advisory Committee Report goes on to include comments from the Department of Public Works, the Fire Marshal’s Office and DelDOT. They will be having to work with DelDOT for Entrance Plan Approval for their access onto Saulsbury Road and then the Kent Conservation District in regards to their Sediment and Stormwater Management Plans. New color renderings of the project were provided more recently than the ones that were in the Commissioner’s packets but they are relatively the same with some minor changes on the corridor elevation. There is a view if you were from the north looking south that shows the parking area with the vacuums and the exit portion of the building itself. There is another view showing the amount of green space. The plan does show these as future potential development areas that would be subject to future Site Plans should they develop in any other fashion other than being a grass lawn with trees. There is a view that provides elevations of all sides of the building. You can see that it is a very dynamic building with towerlike sections and a curved roof. There is a lot of glass and colored metal for the project. It does have like a tunnel opening. The second one from the top would be the view from Forest Street. On the west side of the building you have the drive canopy where you would pay for your services and then circle around to enter the building. There was a slight change to the elevation of this building to bring it more into compliance with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requirements of the corridor elevation. This is a use that is permitted in the zone and you are dealing with considering whether it is of Superior Urban Design. Mr. Liberman stated that the site fronts on two streets, Forest Street and Saulsbury Road within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). There are five categories for Superior Urban Design and they need to comply with two of the five. The first category is multi-modal transportation. The site has been designed with an emphasis on pedestrian safety even though it is a Car Wash. Crosswalks and barrier access have been provided throughout the site. They have a barrier free handicap accessible route from Carver Road into the site. They have also provided a sidewalk connection with steps that goes from the main building out to Forest Street. They are replacing the existing four foot wide sidewalk along Carver Road which is about 200 feet of sidewalk. They are going to be taking that out and replacing it with the Code required five foot sidewalk and extending that sidewalk for the full length of our street frontage along Carver Road. They have added a five space bicycle rack for 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 employee use which exceeds the one space bike requirement. The next category is architectural features. The proposed Car Wash has unique architectural features showing multiple colors and materials on all four sides. They don’t really have a blank wall associated with this building. It is a very sharp looking facility. The tower elements on the southwest and northeast corner elevations are identifiable and distinctive features that will improve the character of the area. Each tower also had glass windows near the roof line. Landscaping is the next category. They are going to provide additional increased landscape plantings along the Forest Street buffer with a main point of providing landscaping to kind of shield the drive-through entry. For the loop there that comes down towards the street, they are going to provide additional plantings in that area so that they can kind of hide the cars going in. They are also proposing increased base plantings along the east side of the building and around the tower elements of the building. The next category is improvements to public space. The site developer will be removing the four foot sidewalk as he mentioned and replacing it with a five foot wide sidewalk the entire length of Carver Road (frontage). Also the plantings along Forest Street will be added to emphasis the sidewalk canopy entering the site at this location. If you see, there is a sidewalk that comes down towards Forest Street that will be part of this category that calls for increased plantings in this area to kind of funnel people in through the sidewalk area and beautify that one location. Green technologies is the last category. The site is proposed to be served by green-technologies best management practices by a retention area for stormwater quality and quantity management. Also the Car Wash recycles approximately 70% of the water that is used in the cleaning process so there is a recycling element to what they are doing. They are supposed to meet two of the five categories and they meet all five of those categories for Superior Urban Design. The site takes access off of Carver Road with a full access and Saulsbury Road with a rights in/rights out access. They have met with DelDOT to go over those access points and they don’t judge us on Carver Road. They wanted to get them as far away from the intersection of Forest Street and Carver Road with the entrance so they are fairly happy with that one. They have to submit detailed Entrance Plans for the rights in/rights out entrance off of Saulsbury Road. That obviously will be up to their design standards and will require their approval for that location so they will work with them to maintain and get that. They was a question that was raised about stacking and the potential of how cars will move throughout the site. With cars entering off of both Carver Road and Saulsbury Road, they have stacking for about thirty-two cars from the pay window all the way out to the streets before one would block a crosswalk and then it’s another two cars before they get into the street so there is a total of thirty-four cars before we get into the street. It is a large number of cars that they are providing for stacking but it is really an enormous number when you consider that it only takes 2 minutes and 10 seconds for a car to go through the car wash. The car wash has the capacity to serve close to two hundred cars per hour. He does not think stacking through the site and onto the streets will be an issue. The proposed use within the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Zoning District is an approved use in the district. They are not asking for any waivers. The site also complies with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) per Staff review. Mr. Roach stated that on the outside it says nineteen spaces and on the inside it says seventeen parking spaces. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she believes that it was revised to seventeen. Mr. Liberman stated that the plan that was up on the board showed seventeen parking spaces. 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they made some adjustments to widths of parking islands to be in compliance with those and in doing so, lost a couple of spaces. Mr. Hartman stated that he has used that Subway in the past and it is very difficult to get out of there and get back into town. Have you looked at traffic patterns that might be exiting the site coming back towards Dover? Would they be going through the school zone? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Liberman stated that the whole block from Forest Street and Saulsbury Road all the way up to Carver Road is all commercially zoned properties at this point. He thinks that you are going to see an increase in commercial activity within this area. As far as the Subway, they have access off of Forest Street and then they have access off of Saulsbury Road. Part of what they are going to be doing with DelDOT is looking at how all of the accesses intermingle so that is something that they need to consider. Mr. Roach asked if the thirty-four total cars allotted for stacking was split for a certain amount one way and a certain amount the other way? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Liberman stated yes, they have seventeen that stack in from the vacuum area down to the drive through. There are nine that go towards Carver Road and there are eight that go towards Saulsbury Road. The eight and nine along the top coming in from those streets are single file. They started counting double file once they got below the access for the vacuums. They left the lane out from the vacuum area and then have singles leading up that one aisle going to the main drive aisle that goes east to west. That is where you get the odd number of seventeen. Mr. Roach questioned what the hours of operation would be? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Liberman stated that he believes the hours of operation that they are looking at is 7AM to 7 or 8PM and that is really based off of seasonal. During the winter they will close earlier. Mr. Roach stated that he works at Booker T Washington Elementary School so just knowing that around that time with everybody going to school at William Henry and Booker T Washington, he was just hoping that they really consider the stacking and the entry way and exit way because between the buses and the parents dropping kids off parked on Carver Road and all of the through traffic that is getting to Booker T Washington, there is a lot already going on on Carver Road. He just hopes that we make sure that we work with DelDOT to consider those entry and exit ways. Dr. Jones stated that he did mention that Mrs. Melson-Williams is very thorough but she wants to know if they are in agreement with the DAC comments and report. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Liberman stated yes, they have reviewed those and have responded back with their revised Site Plan and they are acceptable of those comments. Dr. Jones opened a public hearing. Mr. Doug Ferris – Angle Financial & Business Services 31 Saulsbury Road Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Ferris stated that he owns a planning firm at 31 Saulsbury Road which would be exactly adjacent to this project. He does want to start out by saying that as entrepreneur himself, he never wants to put a brake on any type of movement in our community or any entrepreneur themselves but he is opposed to this at least the way he hears it right now for a number of reasons. It will definitely have an adverse effect on several parts of their business as well as their real estate. His advisory firm 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 only deals with retirees. He ran a study a few years ago and his average age is 68 years old. He has a very difficult time at this point getting his clients in and out of that driveway. He is sure that anybody that has been on Saulsbury Road between 3-6PM knows what he means. It’s a great idea because of the traffic for a car wash but it is horrendous traffic. He advises all of his clients that when they leave the parking lot to turn right and go around the block because you can’t turn left. He also wants to tell you and you can probably verify this with the Dover Police Department, there is probably two to three accidents a month in that location just because of the overabundance of traffic. They have people at his office ask why there are so many accidents out front. It has to be the overabundance of traffic. Now we are talking about an ingress and egress from Saulsbury Road. He doesn’t even see how that is possible at this point. He is open to this but he needs to make sure that everyone understands how this will affect his business and property value. He has a tenant that rents from him next door and if someday he wants to close his business and sell it and rent that property, he is not sure how many people want to be next to a car wash mainly because of the noise. The noise can be the biggest issue along with the traffic. They have to operate and they are going to have vacuums out there. They are going to have people working. His understanding is that there are about fifteen motors that run these cars through the car wash which obviously does create a lot of noise. Also, to the gentleman that spoke about stacking, we are all familiar with the West Side Car Wash. On busy days those cars are out on the road. It is a little bit easier because of where it is but he can’t imagine it on Saulsbury Road. He can just imagine being in his office and hearing the car wash all day long. It is against his normal demeanor to oppose anything like this but he really does feel like it will have an adverse effect on our business and our property value. The ingress and egress off of there is going to be very difficult and he begs for anybody to go out to Saulsbury Road between 3- 6PM; it is a very difficult corner. Subway is a very difficult place to get in and get out of. It is also one of the reasons for the accidents. Coming around the corner off of Forest Street onto Saulsbury Road can create an awful lot of difficulty as well too. He truly does feel bad for opposing this but the way that he sees it right now unless there are changes and the only think that he can think of is are they going to put up a fifteen foot fence adjacent to his property so that he doesn’t hear the noise each day. With all due respect, he is in opposition of this project. Dr. Dan Shelton – Superintendent for Capitol School District Dr. Shelton stated that they own three properties adjacent to this project; Booker T Washington Elementary School at 901 Forest Street, William Henry Middle School at 65 Carver Road and the Kent County Community School on Carver Road. They are not here this evening to discuss the benefits of having a car wash in the vicinity of the schools but they did have a couple of questions and things that they wanted on record with the Planning Commission. This is the report that was published in 2018 which was publicly vetted and voted on by the Capitol School District Board of Education. It outlines sixteen projects that will happen over the next ten to fifteen years. They have had tremendous success so far. The State has already authorized five of those sixteen projects and the residents in the Capitol School District have voted and approved three of the five projects. The latest projects are two separate projects that will be going on at the William Henry Middle School and those are funded 100% by the State so they are very excited because they won’t be going to referendum again but they will be getting a renovation at William Henry Middle School. As we go forward in the plan moving forward for that site, Capitol School District has designated this particular set of properties as their main site because it is where we have a large chunk of our schools. As noted before, William Henry Middle School, just adjacent to that is the Kent County Community School and right behind that is currently the Kent County Secondary ILC which will be 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 moving into William Henry Middle School post renovation. They also have Booker T Washington Elementary School and as you all may recall, the District Office used to be sitting right next to Booker T Washington Elementary School and that now empty lot is slated for use of a 600 seat addition to Booker T Washington Elementary School to bring that to the right size. In addition, the Capitol School District purchased about ten years ago, the corner of Clara Street and Saulsbury Road. They purchased three properties on that corner and that property will connect into where they currently have the original football field for the William Henry Middle School, is slated to have a Preschool Center and Kindergarten Center added. That would then round out the main site and the main site would have a preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, William Henry Middle School and KCCS expansions. It sounded like there was a great deal of work around Saulsbury Road in making sure that Saulsbury Road and Forest Street would have clear access; however, we have a few people here who have spent a little bit of time on Carver Road and for those of you who have never traveled Carver Road during certain times of the day, it is extremely busy. The driveway that connects between Carver Road and Weston Road, they spent a great deal of work with their staff at Booker T Washington Elementary School and William Henry Middle School and the Community School to try to get traffic realigned so that we could try to get it not going from every direction. Those are our parents and we have their children kind of held hostage until they do it the right way and they are still struggling to get traffic to go in the right directions and not completely grid lock that corner that Commission Roach just pointed to. Having that driveway just slightly off-set is of great concern to them and they would hope that DelDOT would do some sort of Traffic Study on Carver Road to determine if that makes sense or not. The other potential is that it looks from this rendering that it would be open access. There would be no fencing or barriers or green so the noise potentials going towards educational spaces would also be of concern and there was not any account for that so far from what he heard in the presentation. Mr. Anthony DePrima – 575 Westwood Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. DePrima stated that he was on the Capitol School District Board. Dr. Shelton had asked him with his experience here to take a look at some of the more specifics of the Site Plan and to see if there is anything that we can do to mitigate the impact. There was no Traffic Study here and he doesn’t think DelDOT is going to speak on where the alignments of the drive aisles are because Carver Road is a City street as far as he is concerned. They are wondering based on the model as a franchise, what is your projecting amount of traffic per day and the number of cars per day that you are hoping to get through here on any given day. The other question would be what your peak times of day would be so that they can compare that to the peak times for the buses. Dr. Shelton had already mentioned that there was some concern about all of the open space. There are kids walking to and from school there now and there will be in the future so they are a little concerned about kids just wandering into the site. One recommendation would be a nice decorative fence to match the architecture here which is very nice by the way, but some sort of decorative fence along Carver Road and maybe Forest Street just to keep kids from cutting through. You have already heard a concern about noise. They know that they best way to suppress noise if you can’t put it in a building is to at least have some solid fencing right near it so he would suggest that the applicant consider adding a solid fence right behind those vacuums on the north side. Again, the idea is to provide some noise suppression and he thinks the closer that they are to the actual source it will help contain the noise within that area. Responding to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Gilmore stated that putting trees or some type of bushes around their vacuums is not a problem at all. He does not have any problem buffering any type of sound that there is so they can put trees in the islands around the vacuums. That will help 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 contain it and he thinks that it will also help the gentleman that spoke first about his business. They do have new vacuums and they are so new that they haven’t gotten the studies back from the engineer on how low they are because they changed them to electric systems instead of other motorized systems. One thing about their entrances, DelDOT is coming through and shutting down all of the entrances of their lots on Forest Street so they do not have an option but to be on Carver Road and Saulsbury Road. He does believe that Mr. Liberman staggered the lot on Carver Road from the school entrance there just for safety to see one car coming out and one car coming in. At that point in time, if there is ever any type of issue with the school of their cars coming in and out they would definitely work with the school and put an employee out there monitoring their cars coming out of the lot because they are about safety. The projected number of cars is roughly 350-400 per day. The franchise has one location where the traffic is just astronomical and unless the building just shut down, they would not stop cars from coming in. They just did shy of 3,000 cars in one day and it never backed up to the road. They have a pole camera that went up. The cars are on and off the lot. You literally have to put the 31 cars on the lot at the same time for it to back up because you are through the car wash in 2-3 minutes. For the traffic in this area, you would never see that and it’s proven because they can forward the video tape to anybody. With trees, there are trees being planted to meet the Code with Planning Staff every 75 L.F. Peak times are still to be determined right now. For most locations, the peak times are either early morning between 6-7AM when you are on your way to work. They are a different type of car wash; they are an express car wash. You are in and out and if you want to vacuum your car, that is on you. They see their peak times in early morning depending on the demographic of the area. If you are a demographic who has to be somewhere by 8AM, you are coming through between 6-7AM. Otherwise, their other peak time is after work which is usually between 4:30-5:00PM to about 7PM. Mr. Tolano Anderson – 50 Dove Creek Terrace Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Anderson stated that he is the seller of the property. The Commission may remember him from April 2019 when this group of properties including the Subway was rezoned through this body to C- 2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). With this being a permitted use, it was one of the windows that they wanted to open so they are really excited about that and they are also really excited about this project. He is here to speak in favor of this application. He owns property also in the same block on Carver Road to the north of this property. Unlike Mr. Ferris, he believes that this is positive for property values. He is looking at the ten buildings that currently exist; a combination of an auto detail shop, a shelter property and six or seven residential properties. This is not only going enhance the area but it will also help the property that he has to the north. He thinks that it is going to increase the values across the board. He thinks that it is going to beautify the area and he thinks that it is going to be just a really dynamic project so as a property owner as well, he thinks that this is a positive thing and hopes for the Commission’s approval. He has also been working with Mr. Davis who was here before the Commission with the previous application in April 2019 where they were rezoning together hoping to even expand this a little more. He is also in favor of this project and has no issues with it whatsoever. He knows that his Subway is a very tight site but he also knows that DelDOT is doing numerous improvements on Saulsbury Road in the future and they will be adding lanes of traffic there as well as improvements on Forest Street. They are aware of the situations and circumstances. He also attended the meeting that these gentlemen had with DelDOT last week and that is really positive. No one is going into this with blinders. Once again, he thinks that it is a great project that is really cutting edge. He actually has a very big truck and this will be the only car wash in town that his truck can actually go through. He knows that some people have concern about there 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 being another car wash in Dover. He thinks that it is actually a positive thing because as consumers, we win when there is competition or when there are options. If you want a full service car wash you go right down Forest Street, you don’t have to vacuum it or do anything you just get out and wait until they are done. But if you only have a couple of minutes, you would get through this car wash in 2 minutes and you are off to your next appointment. Consumers benefit when you have options and opportunities to pick and choose. On this same corner, there is a CVS Pharmacy and there is a Walgreen’s Pharmacy. If you want to eat at Subway that is fine or you can go right across the street to Vincenzo’s. It is good to have options because the benefit is to the consumer. It drives prices down, it gives options and it also increases service. He thinks that it is really good across the board. He also wanted to point out that he has looked at this project very carefully and he thinks that it is a benefit. He is all for green products and he thinks that what they are doing here and how they are doing it is really good. Ms. Faye White – Ms. White stated that she is speaking on behalf of the children. By working with the children years ago at KCCS and also at Booker T Washington Elementary School and William Henry Middle School, her concern is that little small street when the school buses and the parents are waiting for the children to come out it is congested there. How can you secure the safety of the children? He understands the project and she is not against the project but her greatest concern is the children. She has been there early in the morning when children arrive and also in the evenings and that little street when you enter off of Forest Street is so small. The parents have to double park as it is to wait for the children because you can’t get into the parking lots. Responding to Ms. White, Mr. Liberman stated that they are providing sidewalks along Carver Road and Forest Street. What times are the peak times for when people are arriving for drop off and pick up? Dr. Shelton stated that people are arriving from 6:30-9:30AM and then again from 1:30-4:30PM. Responding to Dr. Shelton, Mr. Liberman stated that the afternoon times should not cause an issue; it would just be the morning times. Like Mr. Gilmore said, they could provide someone onsite at the entrance to be able to direct traffic into their site as needed. Ms. White stated that the street is so small and with your customers coming in and out of the car wash and the traffic from the school five days a week and she doesn’t know whether the schools will have any activities on the weekends at the school. Responding to Ms. White, Mr. Liberman stated that they can take a look at it again. There is the possibility of some striping along Carver Road to provide maybe a deceleration lane. Mr. Coban Goertz – 5 Topaz Lane Camden-Wyoming, DE 19934 Mr. Goertz stated that he is a customer to Dover itself. He grew up in Dover and one of his first jobs was in Dover near this car wash. As said in the opening statements, the concerns were the housing and the homeless shelter that they would be eliminating. This would be eliminating jobs as well. He is not sure how many jobs an automated car wash provides. From a first responders point of view, getting to this school that has been mentioned several times, God forbid there is an emergency, this is just added traffic to get through. He can see someone’s car wash being a lot more important than his lights and sirens. He doesn’t know if the car wash is open 24/7 for the vacuums or not. He is sure that Dover PD can contest to this but that just opens up the possibility for drug transactions at a 24 hour business that is not manned. It may be surveillance and there may not be a reason to be there 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 but somebody will make a reason to be there and it’s not always legal. Coastal Car Wash on Route 13 is automated and they have terrible back up. But again, as a first responder, people don’t move and there is really nowhere to go even if they wanted to move in that instance. The roadway gets blocked worse than where they want to get where they are going. Ms. Bessie Crane – 855 Townsend Boulevard Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Crane stated that her main concern is the school. She used to travel that road just going to the Credit Union and getting in and out of that road is almost impossible. Getting out onto Saulsbury Road you definitely have to make a right hand turn and if you are going to get out on Forest Street you better make a right hand turn. If you try to make a left hand turn you are going to have an accident. Her main concern is when the school is in operation, they have the school buses and the parents trying to pick-up their children and it is really congested most of the time. Before you make the decision, each Commissioner should go out to the site and check for themselves just to see whether you agree with us or not as far as traffic is concerned. Seeing is believing and you would be able to make a better decision. Mr. John Paradee – Baird, Mandalas and Brockstedt – 6 South State Street Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Paradee stated that he represents Tommy Car Wash. He wasn’t planning on speaking tonight but he thinks that it is important that this body keeps in mind the context of the application that is before you. It is a Site Plan Application for a first permitted use under your Zoning Code. Although he respects and empathizes with a lot of the concerns that have been expressed here such as traffic congestion and noise, there are means of dealing with those concerns. DelDOT is certainly involved and will deal with any traffic concerns that there might be. All of the site concerns that were mentioned are dealt with by things like landscaping or buffering and the types of things that the applicant has indicated that they are prepared to do. The point here is, with all of the testimony that you have heard and opposition of the application, there has not be one single word or piece of evidence to suggest that this application fails to satisfy all of the Code requirements. He simply wanted to make that point so that it is clear on the record that this is in fact an application that meets the Code requirements and therefore, respectfully, the Commission is obligated to approve it. Dr. Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert stated that most car washes use chemicals in the water that they use to clean cars and those chemicals can be toxic and can affect underground water. Has your plan taken into consideration for taking care of that problem? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Gilmore stated yes. As you enter inside their facility, you have a sloped concrete that goes in and there is a trough that runs the entire length of the car wash so everything flows into that trough. They clean 70% of their water which goes through several tanks dropping all additives in it or any dirt or debris that comes off of the car. All of the soaps also go down into that trough. When you exit, that slopes out but you have gone through eighteen blowers inside the tunnel at that point in time so all of the water is trapped inside that tunnel. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if any of that water would go underground and affect the surrounding areas? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Gilmore stated no, the way it is designed in their engineered plan, it shows you where all of their reclamation tanks are and how everything falls into the system. 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 That is how their whole system works because they are a belt driven system which makes them so fast. Everything is sloped in and then inside it is sloped in to capture all of that. Mr. Roach stated that he wanted to get more clarity in regards to the Superior Urban Design determination. If we don’t approve that hypothetically because it didn’t meet the Superior Urban Design, what would happen as far as the design and the overall layout? Would it just be the setback issues in regards to the Forest Street site? Would it just be the height requirements? What would actually be the difference between approving it as far as the overall commercial zone versus the Superior Urban Design determination? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with a Superior Urban Design determination, it allows one of the corridors to become the focus of certain aspects of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). In particular, it’s focus on setbacks from the property line and parking locations. She thinks the difficulty if it is not recognized is that there is really not a way to meet the setback of Saulsbury Road because of the shape of the building. It becomes that the building is nowhere close to what would be minimum or maximum setbacks on Saulsbury Road without an L shaped building. In this case, there is a provision of the Zoning Ordinance that allows the selection of one of the corridor frontages to become the leading frontage in terms of your front yard setback. This is a little unusual as they are not totally at the corner but they have made the determination that it functions like a corner property because of its configuration. The alternative to that would have to be a Board of Adjustment Provision. But the ability is given to the Planning Commission to make that determination of Superior Urban Design and she thinks that they have certainly outlined that in their letter as to the types of components of Superior Urban Design that is in our policy document. Mr. Roach stated that the only reason that he was asking was to make sure that he was reading as far as the goals and the policies as specific as it is because it stated that partial fulfillment of one or more categories will not constitute a qualifying application but a minimum of two criteria must be addressed entirely as a specific of requirement. When they broke down the comments as far as the bullet points, he was just making sure that when it states that it has to meet all of the requirements of each bullet point, does that mean it has to hit each bullet point or as long as it addresses the bullet point in general. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it would be the bullet point in general and there are examples that are given. Mr. Hartman stated that one gentleman had mentioned that the applicant has met with DelDOT and some of the public has met with DelDOT and DelDOT hasn’t provided a lot of information in this submittal. Is there an opportunity for the Commission to look at DelDOT’s work on this or to look at traffic in the future? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that how DelDOT typically participates in our DAC process is what you see. They will give basic information as to what type of review process the applicant will need to move through with them. As a separate regulatory agency, they have their own review process for achieving entrance location and Entrance Plan Approval. They have their own regulations and you will not change or place a new entrance on a State maintained road without going through that review process. She believes that the engineer indicated that they have started that process which initially begins with meetings with the agency and becoming aware of what DelDOT projects are in the area as well as the submission requirements that will be necessary from the applicant specifically to DelDOT to achieve Entrance Plan Approval. Ultimately, how that interacts with our process here is that they cannot receive Final Site Plan Approval from the City until that regulatory process is completed with DelDOT and the other 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 agencies. Ultimately, to get Final Site Plan Approval we will need Final Entrance Plan Approval from DelDOT, the Kent Conservation District, the Fire Marshal’s Office regarding the site and the Public Works Office on sewer and water issues. Mr. Hartman stated that he is certainly interested in what the Fire Department has to say about access. Will DelDOT consider the comments of Capitol School District and the other people who are concerned about the school children’s safety and traffic in the area? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would imagine that the DelDOT review process takes into account all modes of transportation. They are well aware of the challenges of intersection of Route 8 and Saulsbury Road. They already have some Safety Improvement Plans for improvements to that intersection and its road segments approaching that intersection. She would imagine that this project may help in making some of those improvements to the corridor. Certainly with this project it eliminates a number of multiple driveway entrances that exist out there today and reduces that number which they always seem to like. Dr. Jones stated with respect to the comment about what the Fire Marshals might say, in the DAC Report, the Fire Marshal has said the following items have been identified as elements that need to be addressed by the applicant. Item #10 states that “multiple access roads shall be provided when a Fire Department access road is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access.” There has been some response. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hartman stated that he read that and it appears to be boiler plate wording that is carried on every time you read one of their reports. Mr. Roach questioned how many staff it takes to operate the car wash? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Gilmore stated that they operate one shift with approximately 3-6 employees. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road on the condition that the applicant continues to work cooperatively with the DAC Agencies and the Planning Staff and that the approval includes the Superior Urban Design determination as stated, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 6-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations and she also thinks that people train themselves to avoid congestion so she appreciates the traffic concerns but she thinks that it will work itself out. Mr. Roach voting yes; based on the fact that it complies with the zoning and what its uses are allowed so like Mr. Paradee said it is really nothing that you can deny but he also hopes that the owners of Tommy Car Wash continue to work with Capitol School District and the surrounding people and be a man of his word and actually add those buffers and the things as far as the sound and noise because be personally believes in upgrading and the beautification. He lives on Slaughter Street so he has lived here his entire life and that area that is being developed has always just been buildings and had no use or beautification. He thinks that by adding this like Ms. Maucher stated, we will figure out ways to manage the traffic. He just asks that the applicant continue to work with everyone and maybe meet with Dr. Shelton and the surrounding areas to make sure that we try to work out the best idea to be able to make sure we keep the kids safe because in his opinion, a car wash or food is not important when it comes to our kids. They are the most valuable resource so if we take care of that, he is all for it. Mr. Hartman voting yes; reluctantly and he hopes that throughout this process at some point DelDOT addresses the Capitol School Districts’ concerns about access and congestion and if we see this again and that has not been 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 addressed that will be very disappointing to all of us. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it’s a good addition and more importantly than that it does meet Code. Dr. Jones voting yes; but reluctantly for the very same reasons as stated by Mr. Hartman and Mr. Roach. Many things we control but we don’t really control the behaviors of children who are walking to and from school and parents who are very eager to pick-up their kids. NEW BUSINESS 1) Update on Appointments of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at the Annual Meeting they identified the Planning Commission members as Mrs. Welsh and Ms. Maucher to represent the Planning Commission on that body and that left us with the need to find two design professionals to join that Sub-Committee. Previously, Mrs. Sarah Keiffer who is the Director of Planning Services for Kent County and Dr. RJ Chandler who is a faculty member with the architecture program for Del-Tech were identified. Staff has reached out to both of those individuals and they have expressed their willingness to continue to serve. To formalize that, she would accept a motion that those two individuals be appointed to serve as the design professionals on the Architectural Review Sub-Committee. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve Mrs. Sarah Keiffer and Dr. RJ Chandler as the two design professionals to serve on the Architectural Review Sub-Committee, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 6-0 by voice vote with Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards and Mrs. Welsh absent. 2) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Introduction of the Release DRAFT Plan (dated 10/1/2019) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they have exciting news. The Release Draft of the plan is out for review. Mr. Hugg is going to run through some background information and then she will continue with the exciting news with what is now happening with the plan. Mr. Hugg stated that some of this you have heard before and at the risk of repeating, he thinks that it is important. The current plan that they are operating under today was prepared in 2008 and adopted in February 2009 and although there have been a handful of amendments to it over the years, that plan is pretty much the plan that we continue to deal with today. State Code sets forth a series of planning requirements for Municipalities and Counties. Essentially they are, once every ten years the Comprehensive Plan must be fully reviewed and updated against the set of criteria that address issues ranging from housing and economic development to community character to existing and future land use annexations. The 2019 Plan has been a priority of the Planning Department now for about 1.5 to 2 years. It has driven a lot of the day to day work that the Planning Department does and the additional little things that come before you on a regular basis. They applied to the Cabinet Community on the State Planning Issues some time ago and asked for an extension of our deadline which would have otherwise been February 2019 and asked that they have until February 2020 to actually achieve Plan Certification so we are operating under a one year extension of our existing Comprehensive Plan. It is kind of a five stage process. The first stage was a lot of information gathering and that gets to things like 20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 understanding what’s gone on in the community for the last ten years, where the occurred, what kind of development, population growth and all of the things of that nature. That becomes the basis for writing the plan and developing the plan maps. From that a set of plan recommendations which he believes the Commission has seen on a number of occasions. Then we move to Sections 4 and 5. They are beginning the formal review process and one of the steps in that process is called PLUS Review operated by the State Planning Office. The first complete draft of the plan is reviewed by them in a formal process and they will go before them this week to get their comments and determine how well they did at meeting all of the requirements. From there, the plan will come back to the Commission for review and consideration and adoption and then it will go to City Council. Once it is through City Council, it will go to the State for approval and ultimately the Governor’s Certification. Then the real fun begins because once the plan has been certified and adopted there are a whole host of implementation steps ranging from making sure that all of the zoning is consistent with the new plan to a number of ongoing studies and initiatives that are part of the plan recommendations and that will pretty much drive the work of the department for the next year. The 2008 and 2019 Plan are both located on the City’s website. b. Upcoming Public Outreach Events for 2019 Comprehensive Plan: i. Open House Event – October 23, 2019 from 3:00pm -7:00pm at Dover Public Library ii. Visitation Event – October 24, 2019 from 8:30am – 5:00pm at City Hall Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they are back into their public outreach opportunities. On Wednesday of this week we will have an Open House Event that is scheduled from 3-7PM at the Library and then what they are deeming as a Visitation Event that will be a little more informal at City Hall. You can still see the same maps and chat with Staff at any time during their normal work day about the Comprehensive Plan. This was in an ad in the paper and will be there again tomorrow. They have also done some of their basic outreach to some of the regular email list. If you have any friends that you would like to invite, they certainly have cards that you can take with you tonight or you also received a flyer via email that outlines both events. It is certainly an opportunity for the public to see what the Release Draft Document is. As mentioned the Release Draft Document was submitted for PLUS Review and that meeting is Wednesday morning so they will have a better sense of where we stand if there are any major deficiencies with the plan that would cause certification issues or other information. They will hear verbally at least some of that on Wednesday morning and then ultimately in mid-November receive formal written comments on the Release Draft itself. The Release Draft Plan, they had to submit the entire document to the PLUS process so there is the text of all fifteen chapters and the series of fifteen plus maps that go along with that. Both of those items are available on the City’s website. They are in PDF form so you can download the whole text as it exists now and the map series. They also have a copy available at the Library at the Reference Desk and also at the Planning Office. They are not handing them out but you could take an opportunity to take a look at it. Ultimately, you will receive a copy as part of the formal review process but if you want to start familiarizing yourself with the document there is certainly the online opportunity. It is not something that you read in one hour so you may want to start familiarizing yourself with the document. 21

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 As mentioned, she noted that the Release Draft is out now. There are previously a number of items that you have seen off and on over the year and then of course for the future activities, there will be a formal public hearing that is needed before the Planning Commission. At this point, they are probably looking at December because we will need to have the PLUS comments in hand and they are still evaluating whether that will be part of your regular meeting or if a special meeting will be necessary. It will be a full public hearing, the opportunity for the public to speak on the document. If there are any particular requests for changes to the document, those will also be packaged for you to address with that. They have a list of the Table of Contents. You can see the range of chapters that are involved in this Plan Document itself. The key element in Chapter 1 is that they did do a report card listing as a series of accomplishments in each of the major topic areas since 2008. Chapters 2 and 3 are a bunch of data; whether it’s about Development Applications or Demographics. It is a lot of number crunching in that chapter. Chapter 4 is a requirement where we have to report on any of the citizen participation, ranging from our survey to their various public engagement events. The meat of the document is really Chapters 5-11 which are the topic area chapters. They consist of a lot of background information and the Goals and Recommendations for each topic area. The Commission has seen some draft versions of the Goals and Recommendations. Chapter 12 is one of the key elements of the plan and that is the Land Development Plan. They have to describe land-use throughout the City and there is associated Map Series and a Land-Use and Zoning Matrix. She did place a copy of that Land Development Plan Map on the Commissioners’ desks in the Citywide presentation and a copy of the Land Use and Zoning Matrix. Basically, the land use category on the map then translates into the types of zoning classifications for an individual area. Chapter 13 is all about Annexation. They have to describe how and where the City would ultimately expand. Chapter 14, they have to report on what they call their Intergovernmental Coordination whether that is with adjacent Municipalities, Kent County as well as State and its various agencies. Chapter 15, as Mr. Hugg mentioned, once they adopt the plan there is more to come and that is the Implementation Plan. There is a series where they basically took the Goals and Recommendations and pulled the action items out of those and put them into a series of categories: Immediate, Ongoing, Short-Term, Immediate-Term and Long-Term. It is somewhat of the marching orders for both our department and the City overall in other departments. It is not just the Planning Office that does the implementation of this study for the City. Also in chapter 15, they have to identify what the process is if you need to amend the plan any time in the next ten years. There is a whole series of maps and she has to give kudos to Mr. Eddie Diaz, a previous Planner who worked with our Staff here who got us started on the maps but then she has to give kudos to the City’s GIS Department that is part of the Public Works Department. Mr. Jeremy Gibb who is one of the GIS Technicians has had a lot of visits from her in working with these maps all in the middle of Public Works’ anticipated move which happens this week. They have been a great assistance at that technical level. All of our maps were created using ArcGIS and again, a lot of data goes into map development. This is an example of one of the maps. They did do some format changes so if you are used to looking at the 2008 Maps, these look a little different. This is the Land Development Plan for the entire City. They have actually broken the City down into four quadrants to present this map in a little more clear way in the Plan but this gives you a fairly good sense that they have a series of commercial corridors and nodes throughout the City. They do have green space that exists. They 22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 have pockets of residential area and then of course the Air Force Base in our southeastern quadrant of the City. This is just a sample of one of the fifteen maps that is in the Plan. If there is any advice that she can give to the Commissioners is that if you’ve got a few moments, take some time to start to familiarize yourself with even just the Release Draft. Ultimately, you will receive a complete Final Draft that will move through the formal review process. If your schedule allows, feel free to stop by and see them either on Wednesday or Thursday and share that opportunity with anyone that you know as well. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the areas that are not part of Dover were in white on the map? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes. On this map, if it’s got a color on it, it’s in the City of Dover. White is outside of our jurisdiction. Mr. Tolbert questioned if they set zone for those areas? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for areas outside of the City, you would need to look at Map Series 13-1 and 13-2. They have to identify areas for potential annexation into the City. For some of those areas, they have to do the same kind of color thing. If it were to come into the City, what type of land-use activity should be happening there? Should it be residential? Should it be a mix of Commercial and Industrial uses? They have to look at their boundaries and see where it makes sense to expand. Where is it reasonable to expand? That is all part of the Annexation Plan and Chapter 13 really focuses on that. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the City can control what the residents in those areas can do or can’t do with respect to Code Violations? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that right now, those areas that are in white fall under another jurisdiction and in most cases it is Kent County. In some areas they may be areas that are located in the Town of Camden or the Town of Wyoming which have their own Comprehensive Plans to include in regulations that they would be subject to at the present time. If a land area was contiguous and was annexed into the City, at that time in would be under our rules and regulations. Mr. Tolbert stated that with respect to your duties, do those areas constitute a problem at any time to what your requirements are as Planning Staff. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that a lot of times there is confusion about whether a property is located within the City of Dover, especially if they have a mailing address that says Dover. They do at times have people think that they need to be talking about us and they check to see if their property is within our Corporate boundaries or not. Certainly the areas that may be most difficult are the areas that would be called enclaves, meaning that the area is basically surrounded by lands that are in the City except for a few parcels. Those areas include along Mifflin Road and Acorn Lane. There are some larger tracts off of McKee Road and there are some along Route 8. There is a pocket in the north end of Route 13. Those are kind of the next level of potential difficulties with either service needs questions or they may be getting City services but are not within the City’s corporate boundaries. Mr. Tolbert questioned if there were a total number of properties that fall into this category? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they don’t know the total number but there are several 100 properties that are surrounded by the City that aren’t in our jurisdiction. The bulk of that is probably the area on Route 13 north of the Dover Mall. There are certainly a 23

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2019 large number of lots and street frontage properties there that are probably the largest intact area with the highest number of parcels that are not in the City of Dover. Mr. Hartman stated that he recognizes the tremendous amount of work and thought that the Planning Office put into this and congratulations on your milestone, it is quite an accomplishment. He appreciates the invitation to the Open House and to the Presentation. You know that he has had some difficulty understanding what questions he can ask off the record. If he attends a meeting at that Open House, can he ask a question to the Planning Office as a Commissioner? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated that most certainly he can and they would welcome him to be there as well as any member of the public who also has a question, concern or simply a comment. He knows that there are a few people that were here tonight that he anticipates seeing over the next couple of days who may not necessarily agree with a particular designation of land use on that map that will have a comment. One of the things that they will do once they get those comments and the State’s comments, they will sit down as Staff and sort of go through them to figure out how they address them. Mr. Hartman questioned if it would be appropriate to ask those same types of questions in an email to the Planning Office as he reviews the document online? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated yes. The website and email address are on the information that you received this evening and they would welcome those comments as well. Mr. Hartman stated that he appreciates the invitation and he is a member of the website Next Door, it is a neighborhood website in the City and he did send the notice out to 2,000 neighbors. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated thank you. Ms. Maucher questioned to meet the February 2020 deadline, when would it come before the Planning Commission? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated that assuming that they don’t have major certification issues that they have to deal with; he thinks their plan is to bring a document for the December meeting or a special meeting in December and then get the January consideration by City Council so that they can be assured of making their February deadline. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 24