paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, November 18, 2019 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall, City Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING of October 21, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for MONDAY, December 16, 2019 in the City Council Chambers with the start time to be determined. This meeting will also include the Public Hearing and Formal Review of the Final DRAFT of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. 2) Update on City Council Actions 3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates a. GIS Day – November 13, 2019 from 10:00AM-2:00PM, City Hall Conference Room OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES OLD BUSINESS 1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: a. S-17-28 Multiplex at 299 College Road – Request for a One-Year Extension of the Planning Commission approval granted on November 20, 2017 for a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a three (3) unit multiplex residential building (multi-family dwelling) with adjoining parking spaces. The property consists of a 18,244 S.F. +/- parcel (0.42 +/- acres) and is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The property is located on the northwest side of College Road and adjacent to Conwell Street. The owner of record is Stephen E. Lumor (Enyam, LLC). Property Address: 299 College Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 067.00-02-26.00-000. Council District 4. Final Plan Approval was granted September 5, 2018. 2) Re-evaluation Review of Conditional Use: a. C-17-04 House of Pride Offices at 45 South New Street – Re-evaluation Review 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. A one- year review was completed on October 15, 2018 with continued approval subject to a six-month review. Re-evaluation review was completed on May 20, 2019 with continued approval subject to a second six-month review. The property consists of a

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: November 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2 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. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) S-19-14 Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard (Revised) – Public Hearing and Review of a Revised Site Development Plan Application to construct a two-story 27,665 SF office and retail building together with associated site improvements. The project is Lot 1 located in the Northgate Center (previously known as the Stover Professional Campus). The subject property is 2.0 acres +/- and located at the northeast corner of Stover Boulevard and Bay Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The owner of record is 605 South Bay Road, LLC. Property Address:101 Stover Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-03-01.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer. The property was part of the development of Subdivision Application SB-05-05F Stover Professional Park. NEW BUSINESS 1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Release DRAFT Plan (dated 10/1/2019) is available for review. See Project website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan b. Update on Public Outreach Events for 2019 Comprehensive Plan: i. Open House Event – October 23, 2019 ii. Visitation Event – October 24, 2019 c. Update on Next Steps i. PLUS Review Comments ii. Formal Review Process and Public Hearings ADJOURN THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Posted Agenda: November 8, 2019

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

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7196 Fax: 302.736.4217 DATE: November 8, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: November 2019 Review of C-17-04: House of Pride Office at 45 South New Street Background On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission granted conditional approval to C-17-04, a Conditional Use Plan for converting an existing an existing one-family dwelling structure at 45 South New Street into a philanthropic use as the administrative offices for the House of Pride. The property consists of a 9,090 SF parcel and is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone). As part of approval by the Planning Commission, the project was required to return for a One- Year Review in 2018. This review was held on October 15, 2018. The review renewed the conditions of approval originally given at the August 2017 meeting, and additionally scheduled a second review to be held in six months’ time. This review was scheduled for the April 15, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Following improperly completed public notice for the April 2019 meeting, it was rescheduled for the May 20, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Having been satisfied that progress was being made, the Planning Commission requested a six-month review on the progress of the Conditional Use Plan Review which is why it is included in the November agenda of the Planning Commission. There are two purposes to the reviews. The first is to evaluate the project’s compliance with the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission, as outlined in the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Report dated August 9, 2017. The second is to evaluate whether the project continues to meet the objectives of the Conditional Use process outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Sections 1.1 to 1.3. The Planning Commission is also reminded that the application returned to the Planning Commission with a request for a one-year extension of the Conditional Use Approval granted as the Conditional Plan Approval was set to expire by August 31, 2019. The Planning Commission voted to grant the request, and as a result of the extension, the approval for this project will now expire on August 31, 2020. The evaluations must be used to determine whether the use shall continue and also contains Staff

Memo to the Planning Commission: November 2019 Review of C-17-04: House of Pride Office at 45 South New Street Page 2 of 2 Recommendations on actions for the Commission. Plan Status as of November 8, 2019 The applicant has been working diligently with Planning Staff towards achieving Final Plan Approval. The Planning Office has issues comments on a Check Print on October 24, 2019 and received a further Check Print of the Plan by the Applicant on November 6, 2019. The status of the application with other reviewing agencies is as follows: a) Department of Planning & Inspections – Comments issued October 24, 2019. The nmost recent plan submission of 11/6/2019 is currently under review. b) Department of Public Works – Application still under review. c) Office of the Fire Marshal – Application still under review. d) Delaware Department Transportation (DelDOT) letter stating no objection dated August 2, 2017. The members of the Planning Commission are reminded that copies of the DAC report are available at the Planning Officed. Recommendations Planning Staff is satisfied that enough progress has made to not require any further reviews by the Planning Commission. As stated, the applicant is actively engaged in the Check Print review process and has made significant progress. Final Plan Approval is required any Building Permits to make improvements can be approved and issued.

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF November 6, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF November 18, 2019 Plan Title: Northgate Center Lot 1, S-19-14 (Revised) Plan Type: Site Development Plan Owners of Record: 605 South Bay Road LLC Location: At the northeast corner of Stover Boulevard and Bay Road Address: 101 Stover Boulevard Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-03-01.00-000 Site Area: 2.0 acres Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone -Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area) Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Retail and Office Space Building Area: 27,665 SF (13,832 SF footprint) Impervious Areas: Existing – 5% Proposed – 75% Off Street Parking: Required – 93 parking spaces Proposed – 94 parking spaces Sanitary Facilities: City of Dover Water Supply: City of Dover Waiver Requested: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer requirement P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: November 6, 2019 APPLICATION: Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard FILE #: S-19-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office CONTACTS: Julian Swierczek, Planner I PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY Review of a Revised Site Development Plan Application to construct a two-story 27,665 SF office and retail building together with associated site improvements. The project is Lot 1 located in the Northgate Center (previously known as the Stover Professional Campus). The subject property is 2.0 acres +/- and located at the northeast corner of Stover Boulevard and Bay Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The owner of record is 605 South Bay Road, LLC. Property Address:101 Stover Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-03-01.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer. The property was part of the development of Subdivision Application SB-05-05F Stover Professional Park. Previous Applications This application (S-19-14) was originally submitted for review by the Planning Commission at their July 2019 meeting. The plan was withdrawn by the applicant from that meeting pending Site Plan revisions per comments made during the initial Development Advisory Committee review process. This property was created through Subdivision Application SB-05-05 Stover Professional Campus. SB-05-05 received Planning Commission approvals in September and November 2005. It created twelve (12) lots and established Stover Boulevard and Krisko Circle to allow access to them from Bay Road. The subdivision used the standards for a Planned Industrial Park as outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §20.5. The Record Plan was recorded on April 20, 2007; and following that, construction of the Industrial Park infrastructure commenced in 2007 with utilities, the stormwater management facility, and the streets partially constructed. Construction and dedication of the overall industrial park infrastructure including utility lines, the stormwater management system, and the streets, has been an ongoing process since 2007. During the development of the Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus site, the Stover Professional Campus was renamed to the Northgate Center.

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 3 of 10 Site Development Plan applications to develop the individual lots in the Center included S-06-37 which developed the Mainstay Suites Hotel at 201 Stover Boulevard (Lot 2) and S-05-32 which proposed an office building on Lot 6 but subsequently expired. The most recent development, the Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus, was developed through applications MI-15-07, S-16-11, and MI-17-07. MI-15-07 was a Parcel Consolidation Plan to consolidate seven (7) of the twelve (12) previously created lots into one larger lot for the campus and to abandon part of Krisko Circle. S-16-11 was the Site Development Plan for the project; S-16-11 received Final Plan Approval on August 26, 2016. MI-17-07 was a Request for Street Name Change to rename the remaining part of Krisko Circle to Energy Lane. The Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus at 500 and 600 Energy Lane has since finished construction. In 2013, the property owners filed a Variance application (V-13-05) specific to Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the Northgate Center, in order to provide relief from the impervious coverage requirements of the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ). This Variance application was never heard by the Board of Adjustment. It appears the application was withdrawn after the Planning Office determined a variance was not needed; see the discussion on the SWPOZ below in the “Zoning Review” section. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is the only undeveloped parcel within the Northgate Center with two street frontages: one on Bay Road and one on Stover Boulevard. The only existing feature on site is a drive aisle that straddles the property and the Mainstay Suites Hotel property adjacent to the east. This drive aisle also connects to the Blue Hen Corporate Center adjacent to the north. Other nearby uses include the Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus on Energy Lane to the southeast, the American Legion building across Stover Boulevard to the south, the DelDOT administrative campus across Bay Road to the west, and the University of Delaware Paradee Center across Bay Road and Transportation Circle to the southwest. The 27,665 SF, two-story proposed building is to be built in the center of the 2.0-acre parcel. It is proposed to be a retail and office building with retail on the first floor and offices on the second floor. A continuous drive aisle with parking on both sides would run in a ring around the building. Site access would be the existing drive aisle to the east which connects to Stover Boulevard. Pedestrian access is proposed from Bay Road and Stover Boulevard. Other proposed features include two loading spaces on the east side of the building and a dumpster enclosure in the northeast corner of the property. Landscaping would be located in strips of land between the property lines and the parking areas as well as between the parking areas and the building. At present there are no known tenants for the proposed retail and office building. III. ZONING REVIEW C-4 Zoning District The development site is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and is subject to the regulations of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §16 and Article 4 §4.15. According to Article 3 §16, retail stores as well as business, professional, and government offices are permitted uses in the C-4 Zoning District. According to Article 4 §4.15, the proposed development meets the impervious lot coverage, setback, and building height limitations.

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 4 of 10 SWPOZ – Source Water Protection Overlay Zone, Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area The purpose of the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §29) is to provide a safe drinking water supply and to ensure that groundwater is adequately protected and maintained. This property is wholly within the Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area of the SWPOZ. The following uses are prohibited throughout the SWPOZ, including in the Excellent Recharge Area: Zoning Ordinance Article 3 Section 29 29.51 Uses prohibited: a) Automobile body/repair shop, motor vehicle, boat or farm equipment service; b) Gas stations and motor vehicle service stations; c) Fleet/trucking/bus terminal; d) Dry cleaner; e) Electrical/electronic manufacturing facility; f) Machine shop; g) Metal plating/finishing/fabricating facility; h) Chemical processing/storage facility; i) Wood preserving/treating facility; j) Junk yard/scrap yard/salvage yard; k) Mines/gravel pit; l) Land divisions resulting in high density (> one unit/acre) septic systems; m) Equipment maintenance/fueling areas; n) Injection wells/dry wells/sumps, except for single-family residences directing gutter downspouts to a drywell; o) Underground storage tanks; p) All uses not permitted in the underlying zone district. As proposed tenants become known, they will be evaluated to ensure they are not prohibited under the SWPOZ. Tier 3 Lands are additionally subject to specific rules regarding impervious coverage. For new development, the maximum coverage within Tier 3 Lands is typically 30% or up to 60% if infiltration is used in the development’s stormwater management. The Planning Office has determined; however, that development on this property is not subject to the Tier 3 rules on impervious coverage. This is due to a 2007 determination made by the then-Planning Director, which established that since the Stover Professional Campus was subdivided prior to the 2007 adoption of the SWPOZ into the Zoning Ordinance, development within the campus would not be subject to the SWPOZ “so long as the development continue[d] to move forward in earnest.”1 Development of the Stover Professional Campus/Northgate Center has continued to move forward since 2007 with development of the hotel, the Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus, and the overall infrastructure (including the stormwater management facilities) for the entire industrial park. The 2007 determination obviated the need for the Variance application filed in 2013 (V-13-05). While the determination means the impervious coverage requirements of the site are not set by the SWPOZ, they are instead set by the C-4 zoning district. Ordinance #2018-06 from 2018 updated the C-4 Zone to have its current lot coverage maximum of 75%. The property must 1 A copy of the former Planning Director’s determination is included with the attachments to this Report.

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 5 of 10 comply with the C-4 Zone’s 75% maximum coverage despite its exemptions from the SWPOZ. IV. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The applicant has submitted elevations for the proposed building. The front of the building faces Bay Road, while the back of the building faces the adjacent hotel property. The front and the back of the building are each divided into nine bays by using pilasters. On the front, the two bays at either end of the building each feature a tower with a standing seam metal roof. On both the front and the back the three center bays feature a raised parapet rising in two levels above the main level of the roof. The roof is otherwise flat but features a continuous EIFS cornice. On the front, the three center bays are faced with brick, the two end bays are faced with synthetic stone veneer, and the remaining bays are faced with EFIS. All the bays feature windows on both the first and second stories; the taller windows on the second story have spandrel glass for their upper portion. All the bays except the two end bays feature fabric awnings above the first-floor glass; the two end bays instead appear to feature a flat canopy element. All the bays feature a space for tenant signage in between the first and second floors, and all the bays feature a door integrated into the first-floor glass. There is a second cornice in between the first and second floors. All the pilasters have a split-face CMU watertable base. On the back, the first floor of each bay is faced with split-face CMU. Above the CMU is more space for tenant signage, and above that the center seven bays are faced with EFIS on the second floor. The two end bays retain the synthetic stone veneer seen on the front, while the three center bays retain the brick seen on the front on the pilasters only. Windows can be found on every bay of the second floor, but only on the single center bay of the first floor. The single center bay is also the only to feature a canopy. Each of the bays feature one or two doors in the CMU. The cornices and watertable seen on the front continue onto the back. The north and south (or left and right respectively) elevations are identical in design. The end bays on both the front and back wrap around the sides of the building, in order to give the left and right elevations the appearance of being divided into three bays each. The synthetic stone veneer seen on the front and the back sides is used for all the pilasters seen on the left and right sides; these elevations are otherwise faced with EFIS. Windows run the length of the second story, while on the first story glass (together with a canopy) is only used toward the front of the building. The cornices and watertable seen on the other sides of the building continue onto the left and right elevations. V. PARKING SUMMARY The parking requirement in the C-4 zoning district is one (1) parking space per 300 S.F. of floor area or one space per employee, whichever is greater. The number of employees to be employed on site is unknown. Based on a building size of 27,665 S.F, the building must be served by at least 93 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 94 parking spaces to serve the building, meeting the parking requirement. Loading Spaces For buildings with retail sales of at least 8,000 SF, one loading berth is required for each 25,000 SF or fraction thereof. For this project with a total building area of 27,665 SF, the requirement is two (2) loading berths. The applicant proposes to provide two (2) loading berths on the east side of the building. The southern space meets the required length of 60 feet for the first loading

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 6 of 10 berth, and the second loading space is the required minimum of 40 feet. Both spaces meet the minimum width of 12 feet. Bicycle Parking The site is required to provide bicycle parking at a rate of one (1) space for every twenty (20) regular parking spaces. Based on the proposed 94 regular spaces, five (5) bicycle spaces must be provided. The plan notes a facility to park five (5) bicycles to the northeast of the building. VI. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Entrances and Drive Aisles The Site Plan shows two (2) entrances to the site. Both entrances are from the shared drive aisle with the hotel, and these are also full movement entrances. The drive aisle is located to the east of the property and connects from Stover Boulevard to the south and also through to the Blue Hen Corporate Center to the north. Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations There is an existing multi-use path segment across the Bay Road frontage of this property; however, it does not connect to any other segments. Bay Road also has wide shoulders, but these are not continuous. The site is best accessed by bicycle from the Blue Hen Corporate Center to the north; that property’s expansive parking lot connects to the network of multi-use paths on the DelDOT campus, which in turn connect into the City’s wider bicycle network. The project proposes to lay new sidewalk along the Stover Boulevard frontage. It also proposes a sidewalk leading into the site from the multi-use path on Bay Road, as well as from the new sidewalk along Stover Boulevard, and from the shared drive aisle. Lighting The applicant has not provided any indication of the lighting strategy for the site. Lighting for commercial uses is required to be at least 1.5 footcandles at grade, and it must be positioned so it is not a distraction to passing motorists. Dumpsters For office and retail uses less than 50,000 square feet in size, two dumpsters are required for the first 16,000 SF of building area and one for each additional 16,000 SF of building area or fraction thereof. For this project with a total building area of 27,665 S.F., the requirement is for three (3) dumpsters. The applicant is proposing one dumpster enclosure in the northeast corner of the site and has identified that it is to contain three (3) dumpsters. Curbing Six-inch upright curbing appears to be provided around all parking and drive areas; however, this must be confirmed by the applicant. VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The Plan submission does not contain a separate Landscape Plan sheet, but a general tree planting strategy is shown on the plan sheet. The tree planting requirement is based on the development area with one (1) tree is required for every 3,000 SF. The developing parcel consists of 2.0 acres (87,120 SF); therefore, a total of twenty-nine (29) trees are required.

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 7 of 10 The applicant has proposed a total of 29 trees on the development parcel meeting the requirement. The species of the trees is not indicated at this time. The trees are located along the Bay Road frontage, the Stover Boulevard frontage, the shared drive aisle frontage, near the dumpster enclosure, and between the building and the parking lot. The applicant must specify the species of the trees before Final Plan Approval, as well as meet the other requirements of a Landscape Plan as outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §16.81. Arterial Street Buffer Bay Road is considered a principal arterial street and requires a thirty (30) foot landscape buffer along the road frontage known as an Arterial Street Buffer. The buffer is measured from the edge of the right-of-way. This plan provides only a twelve (12) foot width landscape buffer along Bay Road with some areas achieving the 30-foot width at the property corners. The proposed improvements in the landscape area involve grass areas, tree plantings, and a connecting sidewalk leading into the site. Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer In order to reduce the width of the Arterial Street Buffer from the required thirty (30) feet to the proposed twelve (12) feet, the applicant must receive a waiver from the Planning Commission. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §7.33, The Planning Commission when deciding whether to approve a waiver must consider several factors, including whether there are specific constraints related to existing lot size or configuration, whether a deep or shallow buffer would cause the property to be out of character with its surroundings, whether there is landscape area within the adjoining right-of-way, and what landscaping is included within the buffer. The applicant has submitted a written waiver request. VIII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with this agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) The property must be provided with a 30-foot wide Arterial Street Buffer unless a waiver is granted by the Planning Commission. A Waiver Request has been submitted for review. 2) Identify width of sidewalks and sidewalk areas adjacent to the building. Per Fire Marshal requirements, please ensure that there is at least a 15-foot buffer between the front of the building along Bay Road and the parking in front of the building. This buffer may be taken up by sidewalk, landscape area, or both. a. Also show accessible ramps from the handicapped parking spaces at the front of the building. 3) Please specify the location, direction, power, and time of use for any proposed outdoor lighting. In addition, please verify that a minimum lighting level of 1.5 footcandles is achieved throughout the property. 4) Please specify locations for any proposed below-ground or above-ground utilities. Please also add a note to the plan stating that the developer will bear financial responsibility for

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 8 of 10 construction of the new utilities, and that the utilities are not intended to be dedicated to the City of Dover. 5) Please provide a Details sheet in the plan set to include details on Dumpster enclosures, sidewalks, curbing, bike racks, light fixtures, sanitary sewer and water systems, and any other utility details required. 6) Please provide a plan which shows in detail paving striping and markings, signage for fire lanes and for traffic control measures, etc. 7) Please provide a Landscape Plan which meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §16.81. 8) The Site Plan must be updated with changes required or approvals granted, including any waivers granted by the Planning Commission, prior to Final Plan Approval. 9) Any Sediment & Stormwater Management Plans granted approval by the Kent Conservation District must reflect the Site Plan layout and design conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and technical review requirements of other agencies. 10) Plan sheet corrections: a. In the C-4 Zone, the required rear-yard setback is 10 feet or equal to the building height. Please verify the height of the building and adjust the depth of the rear yard setback if needed. b. Please note the surface width of all proposed and existing sidewalks. c. In the parcel data column, please confirm both the building total floor area in feet and the Floor Area Ratio, and include: i. building height ii. impervious lot coverage percentage (limitation and as proposed) iii. bicycle parking calculation iv. loading space calculation 11) In the Notes Section, please include details as to the determination of the Planning Office with regards to the SWPOZ requirements. 12) In the Notes Section, please also note any action taken with regards to waiver requests. 13) Please note that any tenant or use of the proposed office or retail space must comply with the regulations and restrictions of the SWPOZ as stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §29. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.2, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon Site Development Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 9 of 10 public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed in subsections 2.21 to 2.28. 1) Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer: In accordance with subsection 2.25 related to landscaping, Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the waiver request to reduce the width of the required Arterial Street Buffer from 30 feet to 12 feet. Staff believes that this lesser buffer would be in character with the immediate area, as it allows for a transition zone between the narrow buffer of the Blue Hen Corporate Center to the north and the wide buffer of the American Legion property to the south. Staff also recognizes the 56 feet of grassed area located in the right-of-way between the edge of paving of South Bay Road and the front property line. The proposed Buffer Area includes landscaping consisting of seven (7) trees between the front property line and the edge of the parking lot. The full width for the Arterial Street Buffer of 30 feet is achieved at the corners of the property (a total length of approximately 85 feet) which is about 24% of the frontage length. Finally, Staff recognizes that requiring the full buffer would eliminate much of the capacity for the site to accommodate the parking requirements below the minimum required 93 in the create site design. There are limited options for the relocation of these 28 parking spaces (the row along Bay Road frontage). X. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 2) The engineer and landscape architect sealing the plan are required to have a current City of Dover Business License. For licensing information contact the Permitting & Licensing Division at (302)736-7010. 3) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff and directly to other agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement. 4) In the event that major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of the Site Plan, please contact the Planning Office. Examples include reorientation of the building, relocation of site components or site entrances, and increases in floor area count. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations regarding the plan. 5) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and City of Dover Fire Marshal

S-19-14 Revised Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard DAC Report of November 6, 2019 Page 10 of 10 for these requirements. The resolution of these items may impact the site design including such items as building dimensions and height, building openings, and fire protection needs, etc. 6) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections, Pre-Construction meetings (including a City of Dover Pre-Construction meeting), and permits are required. 7) Construction may affect adjacent property owners and nearby travel lanes. Any work requiring the closing or rerouting of potential customers or visitors to adjacent properties should be coordinated as to offer the least amount of inconvenience to the adjacent property owners. 8) Due to proximity to the Dover Airforce Base, the applicant should be aware that any potential use of construction cranes must comply with Federal Aviation Agency guidelines so as to not to interfere with Base operations. 9) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit, Demolition Permit, and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of these Permits from the City of Dover. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: OCT 30, 2019 APPLICATION: Northgate Center Lot 1 Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard FILE #: S-19-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

Northgate Center Lot 1 Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard File #: S-19-14 October 30, 2019 Page 2 of 4 WATER 1. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. b. Any existing water lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Works Construction Manager at (302) 736-7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Public Works must observe and approve all City owned water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the water connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. 4. Water usage projections (peak demand or plumbing fixtures) must be submitted to our office to correctly determine the size of the domestic and irrigation (if applicable) water meter for the proposed building. These projections must be submitted prior to approval so the meter size can be placed on the final site plan. The proposed water meter must be installed in a pit per City of Dover requirements and manufacturer’s recommendations. Also, a dual check valve is required downstream of the meter. 5. The domestic service, fire main connection and valves must be clearly shown for each building. A valve must be installed at the tee to isolate combined fire and domestic water service to the building from the water loop. Typically this valve is installed at the tee or an acceptable distance from the building. A valve must be provided on the domestic water service, which must be tapped off of the combined eight-inch (8”) fire/domestic service outside of the building. The domestic water tap and valve should be as close to the building as possible. Typically, the domestic tap and valve are located within five feet (5’) to ten feet (10’) of the building. A blow up detail of this layout is recommended. 6. Provide a construction detail for the proposed restraining system for the fire main located within the buildings. The Department of Public Works will test and inspect all fire mains to a blind flange located inside the buildings. The blind flange with tap is used for hydrostatic pressure testing (200 psi for two (2) hours) and dechlorination. The flange must be restrained in the direction of the pipe entering the facility. A pipe entering horizontally through a wall sleeve shall be restrained with rods through the wall. A pipe entering vertically through a slab shall be restrained through the floor to the ninety degree (90) bend and thrust block. All rods shall be a minimum of ¾” all thread. All pipes through walls and slabs must be Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. Confirm particulars to meet this requirement with mechanical designer. WASTEWATER 1. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Any existing sanitary sewer lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. b. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Sec. 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes,

Northgate Center Lot 1 Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard File #: S-19-14 October 30, 2019 Page 3 of 4 exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created with the site improvements. 3. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures, including cleanouts. 4. Cleanouts must be installed on sanitary sewer laterals within five feet (5’) of the building, one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way and at all bends. Any cleanout located within a traffic bearing location shall be installed with a heavy duty cast iron frame and cover to prevent damage to the cleanout and lateral. 5. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer laterals (other than for single-family dwellings) showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. 6. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 7. If kitchen facilities are proposed a minimum 1,000 gallon, two chamber grease trap, meeting all Kent County ordinance requirements, must be provided. A construction detail for the proposed grease trap, as well as the proposed location, must be provided on the plan. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District is submitted to our office. 2. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all stormwater structures. STREETS 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. SANITATION 1. Every commercial customer shall provide such premises with a sufficient number of solid waste containers to provide adequate capacity for the solid waste placed out for collection without overloading the capacity of the containers. The City of Dover shall provide institutional customers with a maximum of two (2), 90-gallon trash containers and two (2) 90-gallon recycling containers. 2. Trash collection site shall be oriented for side-loading pick-up if customer is utilizing City of Dover sanitation services. 3. Any commercial customer requiring more containers, or larger containers, than provided above, must utilize private service. GROUNDS 1. None GENERAL 1. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to final grade in accordance with current City of Dover requirements and practices. This must be included as a note on the plan. 2. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2004 (.dwg format). b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/.

Northgate Center Lot 1 Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard File #: S-19-14 October 30, 2019 Page 4 of 4 WATER /WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None STREETS 1. Provide a striping plan for the eastbound lane of Stover Boulevard, there shall be striping to indicate a left turn into this property. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. City of Dover will need proposed load sheets to validate current electrical equipment is adequate. Load sheets can be found on the at the following location: https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13110.pdf 2. Clarify the intent of the 6th Note on Drawing # 2916-S01; “New utilities are not intended to be dedicated to the City of Dover”. WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Water impact fees will be required for this proposed site plan. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the sanitary sewer system plans may be required to be submitted to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. Wastewater impact fees will be required for this proposed site plan. STORMWATER / GROUNDS / STREETS / SANITATION 1. None. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

C F S-19-14 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 10/30/19 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Northgate Center Lot 1 Office and retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard FILE #: S-19-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is mixed use business and mercantile 2. Building Access shall be no further than 50 feet from a primary entrance Where buildings are provided with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, access shall be no further than 100 feet from the primary entrance. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 3. Parking shall be prohibited in front of the primary entrance for a width of not less than 1.5 times the width of the door(s) or for 10 feet, whichever is greater. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.2) 4. Perimeter access shall be 50% and clearly shown on the plans. Perimeter Access minimum width shall be 15 feet measured from the face of the building at grade with a maximum slope of ten percent (10%). Plantings and utility services (includes condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall be permitted within the perimeter access, and shall not interfere with emergency services fire ground operations. If a physical barrier (fence, pond, steep slope, etc) prevents access, that portion of the building perimeter shall not be included in the calculation of Percent of Perimeter Access. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 5. Fire lanes shall cover 25% of the proposed building. Fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and run along the front of the building as determined by the primary entrance(s). In cases where there is more than one primary entrance(s), each shall be served by a fire lane even if this exceeds the percentage as required. The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the exterior wall and the closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 feet from the exterior wall if one

or two stories in height; 40 feet if three or four stories in height, or 30 feet if over four stories in height. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5) 6. Where parking is located between the building and the fire lane, parking shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the exterior wall. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.4.1) 7. All Fire Lanes shall be marked as follows: both the inner and outer edges of the fire lane shall be marked, where curbs are present, the top and face of the curb shall be painted yellow, where no curbs are present, a four inch (4”) solid yellow demarcation line shall mark the edge(s) of the fire lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 8. The specific color yellow shall be the uniformly accepted yellow as utilized by State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Only vivid and durable paint shall be used and shall be suitable for street surfaces 9. Fire lane signs shall be located as follows: see Figure 5-16 – Approved Sign For Marking Fire Lanes, fire lane signs shall be spaced at 150 foot intervals maximum, all fire lane signs shall be located no less than six feet (6’) and no higher than eight feet (8’) above the pavement, signs shall be placed at each end of the fire lane, and signs shall face all oncoming traffic. Where parking is not restricted roadway markings shall utilize the words "FIRE" and "LANE" in lieu of fire lane signs and shall conform to the specifications of 7.6. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 10. Where overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building or site features must project over any fire lane, an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6” above the fire lane shall be provided and the portion of the building perimeter which contains overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building features shall not apply towards the fire lane accessibility requirements of Section 4.0, Table 5-1 in this chapter. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.8) 11. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment. 12. Street width shall be in accordance with City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article VII, Section A. 13, Residential areas 24 feet wide with no parking, 30 feet wide with parking on one side, or 36 feet wide with parking on both sides Commercial areas 26 feet wide with no parking, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides

Alley 12 feet wide Any dead-end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turnaround or cul-de- sac as outlined in the 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, chapter 5, 2.3. 13. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 14. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the system. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6) 15. All fire hydrants shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All fire hydrants shall have minimum of four-inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, where fire hydrants are located along a curb line with permitted parking, the area between the fire hydrant and the street or fire lane shall be stenciled with four inch (4") demarcation lines and the words "NO PARKING", demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the fire hydrant and extend for a distance 15 feet on both sides. Where fire hydrants are located in parking lots or other areas susceptible to blockage by parked vehicles they shall be treated as follows: fire hydrants shall be protected in all directions for a distance of seven feet (7') with barriers or curbing, Minimum four-inch (4") diameter steel bollards filled with concrete and marked yellow shall be installed at the outermost corners of the fire hydrant demarcation area. The minimum height of the bollard shall be 36 inches above the finished grade of the adjacent surface, and the steamer connection of all fire hydrants shall be positioned so as to be facing the edge of the street, or traffic lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 2) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 16. Hydrant barrels shall be provided with reflective material, such as paint, durable for highway/roadway markings or a reflective tape of a minimum of 2” in width around the barrel under the top flange, hydrant bonnets shall be color coded based on the following criteria: class AA 1500 GPM - painted light blue, class A 1,000 GPM -1499 GPM - painted green, class B 500 - 999 GPM - painted orange, class C 250 - 499 GPM - painted red, class D under 250 GPM - painted black.

(2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 703, Chapter 3. 4) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 17. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements. Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 18. Sprinkler system required. System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. This chapter shall apply to all buildings, structures, marine vessels, premises, and conditions which are modified by more than 50% after the effective date of these Regulations. The 50% figure shall be calculated utilizing the gross square footage of the building, structure, marine vessel, premises and conditions as to arrive at the correct application. Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for review and approval for a building rehabilitation as defined in the 101 Life Safety Code, for less than 50% of the gross square footage of a non-sprinklered building, may not have another such project for the same building submitted for review and approval any sooner than three (3) years after the date of the final inspection unless sprinkler projection is provided throughout the entire building. In all buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of aggregate, gross floor area. In all buildings in excess of 40 feet in height or more than four (4) stories in height. In all buildings or areas thereof used for the storage, fabricating, assembling, manufacturing, processing, display or sale of combustible goods, wares, merchandise, products, or materials when more than two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. In all basement areas exceeding 2,500 square feet floor area. In residential occupancies when of: Type V (0,0,0) or Type III (2,0,0) construction and exceeding two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. Type V (1,1,1) and Type III (2,1,1) or Type IV (2,H,H) construction exceeding three (3) stories or 3In all residential apartment buildings storage areas except individual unit closets that are located within individual residential living units. In all buildings used as health care occupancies as defined in the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. In all buildings or areas classified as "high hazard" under the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, or "extra hazard" under the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations.

All buildings used as dormitories, in whole or in part, to house students at a public or private school or public or private institution of higher education. (16 Del.C. Ch. 88) This applies to all such dormitories regardless if new or existing. (2015 State of Delaware fire Prevention Regulations, 702, Chapter 4) Places of assembly shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Any interior renovations of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 150 persons. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly that would create an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Places of assembly where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any interior renovation of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 100 persons and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly which would create an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. New educational occupancies of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162) 19. Fire Department Connection is to be a 5-inch stortz connection on a 30-degree elbow located within 50 feet of main entrance. Access to the Fire Department Connection must be clear unobstructed access as defined by the AHJ. 20. Parking and/or obstructions shall be prohibited in front of fire department connections for a distance measuring from the center line and extending four feet on both sides. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.4) 21. Fire Department Connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment. 22. If there is any type of rack storage, the following will be required: 1) a diagram showing the layout and type of rack system 2) a list and quantity of items being stored 3) a letter from an authorized/licensed fire suppression contractor stating that in rack sprinklers are or are not needed. If in rack sprinklers are not needed, a letter may be requested from an authorized/licensed fire suppression contractor to ensure that the sprinkler system is adequate for the storage presented. 23. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms.

Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 24. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344)

25. A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection. Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings. Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level 26. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non-slip surface and leading to and terminating at a public way. 27. All new passenger elevators in a building shall be provided with a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches (609 mm) by 84 inches (2133 mm) in its horizontal open position. Where two or more new passenger elevators are located in a single hoist way and serve all or the same portion of the building, only one elevator car that provides a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches by 84 inches in its horizontal position for each hoist way shall be required. Elevator cars required to comply with 15.1 or 15.2 shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist way door frame. Firefighter recall keys shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the local fire department. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 1, 15) 28. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done by Delaware State Communications prior to Final CO. This must be scheduled in advance with Delaware State Communications. 29. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan.

30. Full building and fire plan review is required. 31. Separate building permits/plans submission will be required for each building and/or tenant fit out. If the permit submission is for a “shell” a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Separate plans and permits submissions will be required for each “tenant fit out” at which time a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued upon compliance/completion of each “tenant fit out”. Each “shell” will require a fire permit for sprinkler and fire alarm if applicable. Those systems (for the “shell”) must be accepted into service prior to any “tenant fit out” fire permits being issued. 32. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 33. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, exhaust ducts, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire Marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved. 34. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Please confirm that there is 15’ perimeter access on 50% of the building. It appears that only 25% (the front) of the building has the 15’. 2. No fire hydrants are shown. A hydrant must be provided and be in compliance with #’s 15, 16, and 21 listed above 3. FDC location is not provided. This must be shown and be in compliance with #’s 19, 20, and 21 listed above 4. The dumpster appears to interfere with the drive aisle APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: October 30, 2019 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Northgate Center Lot 1(101 Stover Boulevard) FILE#: S-19-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The parcel will be required to obtain a minimum of a Letter of No Objection for the Site/Record Plan from DelDOT for the proposed development. 2. The access to the proposed development is from a privately maintained road. No direct access to KCR 007 Bay Road will be permitted. 3. The developer and the engineer shall submit a pre-submittal meeting request through the PDCA to begin the plan review process.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY July 2019 APPLICATION: Northgate Center Lot 1: Office and Retail Building at 101 Stover Boulevard FILE #: S-19-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jessica L. Verchick, EIT PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 5,000 square feet, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. The review fee and a completed Application for a Detailed Plan are due at the time of plan submittal to our office. Construction inspection fees based on developed area and stormwater facility maintenance inspection fees based on the number of stormwater facilities are due prior to the start of construction. 2. The following notes must appear on the record plan: • The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to enter private property for purposes of periodic site inspection. • The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to add, modify, of delete any erosion or sediment control measure, as it deems necessary. • A clear statement of defined maintenance responsibility for stormwater management facilities must be provided on the Record Plan. 3. A soils investigation in the proposed Stormwater facility area(s) is required to determine impacts of the seasonal high groundwater level and soils for any Best Management Practice (BMP) design. 4. A SAS (Stormwater Assessment Study) submittal and pre-application meeting are required unless waived. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. Current regional pond for Stover Professional Campus is designed for 90% impervious in this drainage area. Any additional impervious will need to be managed on-site. 2. Green Technologies (infiltration, bio retention, bio swales, filter strips etc.) must be implemented to comply with the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations. 3. The preferred methods of Stormwater management are those practices that maximize the use of the natural features of a site, promote recharge and minimize the reliance on structural components. 4. It is recommended that the stormwater management areas be incorporated into the overall landscape plan to enhance water quality and to make the stormwater facility an attractive community amenity. 5. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management plan has been approved.

Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan Update for November 18, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting • Release DRAFT Plan (dated 10/1/2019) o The Release DRAFT Plan was submitted to PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Services) Review process on October 1, 2019. Planning Staff participated in the PLUS Review Meeting on October 23rd. o The Release DRAFT Plan is posted on the City’s Website on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Webpage. o See the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Webpage for project information and the links for documents and maps issued. ▪ https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan • Update on Public Outreach Events for 2019 Comprehensive Plan: ▪ Open House Event – October 23, 2019 ▪ Visitation Event – October 24, 2019 • Update on Next Steps o The PLUS Review Comments were received on November 8, 2019. Planning Staff is reviewing these comments for action. o Formal Review Process and Public Hearings: ▪ A Final DRAFT Plan (document and maps) will be prepared and issued. ▪ A summary of any specific Requests/Comments to the DRAFT Plan will be compiled for review. ▪ Formal Review and Public Hearings to be scheduled: • Planning Commission – December 16, 2019 • City Council – in January 2020