PC Minutes 7-20-20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 20, 2020 at 7:00 PM as a Virtual Meeting using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19. The Meeting Session was conducted with Acting Chair (Vice Chair) Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Roach, Ms. Malone, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Welsh, Dr. Jones (joined at 7:10 PM) and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Adams was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Gregg Moore, Mr. Jonathan Street and Mr. Bill Krapf. Speaking from the public were Mr. Scott Rathfon, Mr. Thomas Brooks and Ms. Karen Vicks. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hartman moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Roach and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Adams and Dr. Jones absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2020 SESSION 1 Mr. Hartman moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2020 Session 1, second by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Dr. Jones and Mr. Adams absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2020 SESSION 2 Mr. Hartman moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2020 Session 2, second by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Dr. Jones and Mr. Adams absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2020. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on June 8 and 9, 2020, June 22 and 23, 2020 and July 13 and 14, 2020. Mr. Hugg stated that Ms. Edwards’ term expired and she decided not to seek re-appointment. Mrs. Holly Malone agreed to serve as a member of the Planning Commission and her appointment is effective immediately and she will be starting her term tonight. Mr. Hugg stated that the Planning and Inspections Department is severely understaffed as a result of illnesses, surgeries and people transferring to other positions. Our priority right now is on tall grass and weeds and trash. As we build the staff back, we will begin to take on some of the other responsibilities including vacant and deteriorating buildings. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 Dr. Jones joined the meeting. SPECIAL RECOGNITION 1) Resolution honoring Frederick Tolbert for his service on the Planning Commission. Resolution Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. became a member of the City of Dover, Delaware Planning Commission in May 2004 and served until his passing on June 11, 2020 with diligence and distinction in this capacity as an advocate for sound land use planning in the public interest; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. has played a key role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the planning and development of the Capital City through his service on the Planning Commission and also on the Board of Adjustment; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. has provided leadership on the Planning Commission through his role as Vice Chairman of the Commission from April 2012 to July 2015 and then as Chairman of the Commission from July 2015 to August 2019; and was known for his advocacy for cooperation between applicants and Planning Staff; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. has influenced the pattern and appearance of development in Dover through his contributions to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan; his efforts to ensure compliance with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended); his participation in the development of amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance regarding various zoning districts, development design requirements, and manufactured home communities; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. was an active Commission member expanding his knowledge by attending local planning and land use training activities including preparations for the Commission’s first Virtual Meeting in May 2020; and Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Planning Commission extends their deepest sympathy and condolences to his family and friends as Frederick Tolbert Sr. will be greatly missed for his faithful and exemplary service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as an active member of the City of Dover Planning Commission. Dr. Jones moved to approve the Resolution honoring Frederick Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by a roll call vote with Mr. Adams absent. Mr. Roach voting yes; that we add his advocacy to make sure that any new buildings coming into the City do not have flat roofs. Mrs. Malone voting yes; she knew Mr. Tolbert really well and this is a great loss for the City of Dover. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he does remember him as a very helpful and thoughtful man and just watching him over the years has taught him a lot. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he admired him for his meticulous efforts to make sure that everything was going right. Even to the point where he wanted to change our dress code so that we would look more dignified in the meetings. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes; he was not only a 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 colleague but a friend and she admired him for his many years of service and interest in the growth of the City of Dover. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; he dedicated a lot of time and effort to the City of Dover to help make it the city that it is and he will be missed. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the virtual meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Development Applications: Submission of Requested Information a. S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan – Receipt of Submission of Maintenance Plan for Wetland Mitigation Area associated with the Site Development Master Plan Application conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2020 to permit redevelopment of the school property in a series of Phases. Phase 1: construction of a new 238,500 SF middle schools building, parking, and other site improvements; Phase 2: Sports Fields and two associated 2,300 SF buildings; Phase 3: 19,500 SF future building addition; and Phase 4: two 33,800 SF future building additions. The proposal involves a series of land tracts totaling 44.71 acres +/- and are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The land tracts are located on the north side of Walker Road and east of Schoolhouse Lane. The property is adjacent to Silver Lake. The owner of record is Dover Special School District. Property Address (all parcels): 1 Pat Lynn Drive. Tax Parcel ID (all parcels): ED-05-067.11-01-68.00-000. Council District 4. Representatives: Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group Mr. Roach recused himself from this application because his job takes him into the Capital School District on a regular basis. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the application for the new Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the Session 2 Meeting held on May 18, 2020 and it received conditional approval at that point. The Planning Commission required submission of a Wetland Area Maintenance Plan within thirty days to outline the maintenance of the wetland area and for erosion control along its boundary with the adjacent neighborhood. In the packet for the Commission members, they included the Site Master Plan Cover Sheet for reference. There is a copy of the Notice of Decision Letter that was issued by Staff on behalf of the Planning Commission that outlines basically the Dover Middle Schools project. It is a site with several phases of construction anticipated and then as noted in the Notice of Decision Letter, there was the requirement for the applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Commission regarding the wetland area. The wetland area that was of concern is at the intersection of Pat Lynn Drive and the road that goes into the neighborhood of Woodcrest. It’s in the southern portion of the site near Walker Road but not immediately adjacent to Walker Road. Included in the packet was the Wetland Area Maintenance Plan that was submitted by the Capital School 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 District. Initially, it was received via email on June 5, 2020 from Mr. Elliot Harding who is the Building and Grounds Supervisor and then it was subsequently revised on June 9, 2020 and then an update to it occurred on July 6, 2020 when additional funding was allotted to help with maintaining the area which will allow for a more regular grass cutting and also for enhanced mosquito control activities. This information is detailed in the memo entitled “Comprehensive Environmental Service and Scope of Service for the Stormwater Conveyance System”, that meaning the wetland area since it is part of a stormwater system. Also noted by Staff is that the Fence Permit application was received in early June 2020 which consists of the removal of the existing chain link fences along segments of the east and west property lines and that that fencing is to be replaced by a six-foot tan vinyl privacy fence which is actually required anyway for the opaque barrier with this application. That Permit was approved and was at the time, ready to be issued for construction. It was her understanding that construction activity of the fence is going to begin shortly to comply with requirements of site development but also to provide opaque screenings for once construction activity would commence on the site when Final Plan Approvals are in place. Mr. Moore stated that the Capital School District has hired an outside company, Envirotech, to do the maintenance on the stormwater area as well as do weekly grass cuttings in that area so that the neighbors do get the grass cutting that they were complaining about at the last Planning Commission meeting. They thought that it was best that the same company be responsible for both that way they have full authority over the way that pond looks. Mrs. Melson-Williams also commented that the Fence Permit had been issued. The fence construction has actually started and cutting of the area has begun and the fence that was there for forty years or more is now starting to come down and the new PVC vinyl fence will start going up next week. That will screen not only the wetland area from the neighbors but it will screen the entire construction project from the neighborhood. It will provide the opaque barrier so he does think that it will offer a great separation from the construction. He doesn’t know if there is any questions about the maintenance. They met with City Council and Mrs. Melson-Williams and Mr. Hugg were a part of that. The new Superintendent, Ms. Sylvia Henderson was there and she has agreed to go in and join the City of Dover as well as some of our Legislators to write a letter to the Federal delegation in hopes that they can intervene and push the Corps of Engineers to allow this pond to be filled. So the Capital School District is working with the City on that behalf. They hope that it can bring an approval to allow that to be filled but they do have to wait and see if it works. Mr. Hartman questioned if there was a timeline for contacting the Federal delegation for requesting to fill in that wetland? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Moore stated that the purpose of last week’s Council Committee meeting was to agree on a letter. There was a letter authored by the City and it will be co-signed by the Capital School District. He thinks that it is in the process of getting final signatures as we speak; so, it will go out eminently. Mr. Moore stated that it is their understanding that by submitting the report and if there is no questions on the maintenance report, he is not sure if there is a vote tonight. But he can tell them that from the Capital School District, they are excited to proceed with the project. They are going to begin construction in the Fall. They told their neighbors that they would put the fence up well in advance so that they would not have to see that construction. They are on schedule to begin 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 the construction in the Fall and they look forward to the Planning Commission blessing this Maintenance Plan so that they can proceed to do that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she does think that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to take some action even it is just to accept to submission of report since it was an item that the Commission had requested that come forward from their action on the formal application. Dr. Jones moved to approve the submission of the Maintenance Plan for Wetland Mitigation Area for S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was carried 6-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach recused and Mr. Adams absent. Dr. Jones voting yes; she thinks that the concerns of the neighbors have been addressed and it sounds like we are working towards a happy medium to get the project going. Mrs. Malone voting yes; with the same comments from previous Commissioners. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he would like to encourage the Capital School District to continue to work with the neighbors to try to be good neighbors in this area and hopefully they can remove that pond all together. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; she echoes Mr. Hartman’s comments about the school continuing to work with the neighborhood and addressing their concerns. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road: Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to revise the Phase 2 area of the site by replacing the multi-tenant retail building on the north with a 20,000 SF office building, by adding an 80-unit apartment building, and retaining the two restaurant sites. The proposed office building is a permitted use in the zoning district; however, the apartments require a Conditional Use. The area for Phase 1: Office Building of 62,900 SF is already under construction. The total site area is 12.9366 acres +/- and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The property is located on the southwest side of Bay Road and across from the intersection with Blue Hen Boulevard. The owner of record is Bayroadcap, LLC. Property Address: 600 Bay Road. Tax Parcel ID: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request to Reconfirm: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer. For Reconfirmation: Tree Mitigation Plan. For Consideration: Active Recreation Plan and Request for Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction. Application S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building – Update to Bay Road Commercial (Phase 1) was previously approved by the Planning Commission in September 2019 and received Final Plan Approval on March 6, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Bill Krapf, Owner’s representative Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that the property in question tonight is located at 600 Bay Road and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The proposal is to revise Phase II of S-17-20 Bay Road Commercial. Phase I of this project for the Delaware State Police Administrative Building which is located on the west side of the property, has been approved as part of S-19-20 and is currently 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 under construction. The revisions included on C-20-02 Landing Square, previously known as Bay Road Commercial, are the replacement of a multi-tenant retail building located along the north portion of the property with a 20,000 SF office building and the addition of an eighty-unit four story apartment building with a footprint of approximately 31,000 SF. There are no revisions proposed to the two restaurant pad site. The one to the north being 6,400 SF and the one to the south being 4,200 SF. An apartment building in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) is not permitted without an approved Conditional Use by the Planning Commission. As part of this residential portion of this development, the applicant is required to provide 275 SF of Active Recreation Area per dwelling unit. The proposed recreation area for the apartment building is to include a 3,336 SF Clubhouse area with a coffee bar, activity space, computers and game like pool and shuffle board as well as a 2,610 SF sun deck with seating areas on the fourth floor facing west. The total Active Recreation Area proposed is 5,946 SF which is a deficit of 16,054 SF of the required Active Recreation Area. The applicant has selected to pay a Cash-in-Lieu donation for the Active Recreation Area construction for the deficit which was calculated using the appraised value of the entire parcel. The suggested donation amount of the 16,054 SF came out to be $98,387.52. Staff made several suggestions the applicant about how the Active Recreation Area could be improved including bike parking adjacent to the apartment building as well as additional pedestrian connectivity throughout the site. The Parks and Recreation Community Enhancement Committee met on July 14, 2020 and made a motion to approve the Staff recommendations presented to them for the Active Recreation Area as well as the cash-in- lieu of active recreation area construction donation amount. In addition to the Conditional Use Application, Active Recreation Plan and Cash-in-Lieu of Active Recreation Area construction amount, the Planning Commission is tasked with taking action on the waiver request to reconfirm the reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer and the reconfirmation of the Tree Mitigation Plan; both previously approved with the Site Plan approval S-17-20/S-19-20. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as Mrs. Bulkilvish noted, this has partially been seen before. For the Planning Commissioners, there is the full DAC Report and then the comments from the different regulatory agencies that are also entered into the record. This evening, there are two waiver requests to basically reconfirm for the Arterial Street Buffer and the Tree Mitigation Plan. With this project, there are no changes those requests and then the consideration this evening in addition to the Conditional Use for apartments, is related to the Active Recreation Area Plan and the Cash-in-Lieu. Mr. Street stated that it is exactly three years to the month that this project started. They submitted three years ago for the original go around at this and he likes to consider this as take three. This project has morphed from a retail and grocer with some pad sites for restaurants into was is now a true mixed use site development. They have office space; one is currently under construction as a 60,000 SF office for the Delaware State Police Administrative Offices. Another approximately 20,000 SF building that they are proposing to build in lieu of the retail that was there and they are adding another eighty units of apartments to kind of complete the mixed use for the site. The two retail (restaurant) sites are virtually untouched; they have done some shifting and adjusting but nothing of any significance. The mixed use type of development lends itself well to the area. If you know the area, across the street you have the Kent County Administrative Offices. Just to the south is DelDOT’s entire complex. Of course they have the State Police and a new long time user on our complex itself so we have some definite 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 opportunities to live and work in the same vicinity. In addition, they understand that they are not meeting the current code for the Active Recreation Area but if you know the area, you know that they will be completing with construction, the shared use path on Route 13 (Bay Road) in addition to the right turn lane improvements with the DelDOT project that will take place with the project. There is roughly 5.5 to 6 miles worth of pathways and trails anywhere from across the street with the Kent County building in addition to everything south that runs all the way down through Route 10. There is an extensive trail system that’s right south of us and they are connecting to that with their construction. They have read the Staff Report and he doesn’t have many comments on it. The one about Conditional Use apartments and the pedestrian connectivity which is for the recommendations on the approval, they have actually provided the plan in front of you with some blue highlighted areas which kind of speak to some of Staff’s comments about additional connectivity to the shared path out in the front. They have also had additional conversations with DelDOT on that. There aren’t any real changes that we are doing to the approved construction plans for the DelDOT suff out on Route 13 (Bay Road) but they still wanted to reach out to DelDOT and have the conversation about the additional connection. A submission to them will be forthcoming depending on what they decide or what they work out as far as any changes. The open green space, while it does look like a lot of parking, it should be a little slightly less pavement than we had before. The addition of the apartments in the middle of what used to be a large expansive parking area actually break that up quite a bit as we’ve got some green open space around the Apartment Building itself. He knows that Staff and possibly others might want a little bit more but we are trying to not only meet the demands of the residents that will be in the apartments but we are also trying to meet the demands of the two long term leasees that are in the 63,000 SF State Police Building and the new 19,000 SF new office building. In regards to the comments on parking, he thinks that with the first two renditions as we spoke about it the last few times, there is an absorbent amount of parking proposed for the plan. He knows that Staff notes an extra 100 plus parking spaces and he knows that both Staff and the Commission understand that they are not providing the parking just because they want to pave the area. Every additional parking space is not only a cost in materials but it’s a cost for the client to have them because they have to manage it. With every parking spot that’s paved, it’s a challenge to do so, especially in the more regulatory environment that we are faced with in the last couple of years. With regards to the opportunities, he knows that they have talked about it previously and it’s been described as they will work with Staff on any reduction that they need to do by Code and/or to keep them within 77.9% impervious surface. They may have some spaces to give and take there but they are not going to have any large swath of spaces. They have two end-users or long term leasees that have also signed on the dotted line and have their own requirements on top of the City’s Code requirements which pushes them over that parking limit. One thing that he believes was mentioned was that the forty-three parking spaces which will be at the back of the Apartment Building and kind of sandwiched in between what is now an attorney’s office (and is the only little parcel that cuts into the big thirteen acres of this development), would be removing those. While he sees where Staff is going with trying to make that a throughway, those spots would be prime spots to the residents. In discussion with the owner, it’s one of those things where we can give and take on some spots and kind of rearrange a few things. But those in particular are prime parking spaces right up next to the building where the residents are going to want to park. He knows in the comments, they are noted as suggestions but they would like to 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 keep them as suggestions. They pride themselves in trying to work with Staff as much as they can and they always look to continue that relationship. The Plan that you have in front of you, obviously makes some notes on additional connectivity that they are going to be looking at doing regarding the crosswalks and that main aisle sidewalk connection to Route 13 (Bay Road). In addition, he knows that they have talked about bike parking around the building which is required by Code and the distribution of bike parking throughout the site can definitely be talked about. Of course, they would be providing bike parking up against the building. They have also looked at covered bike parking spaces to add to the amenities. They have a Revised Elevation that was discussed at the DAC meeting. The front elevation on the top actually faces inward towards the State Police Building and one of the comments was that they can’t tell where the rooftop or fourth floor deck area is. You can see that it kind of blends in with the face of that building but you can definitely see that distinction of where that rooftop area is. He believes that they have elevations of the office itself as well. Mr. Hartman stated that this appears to be vastly out of harmony from what’s around it. He knows that Mr. Street is describing it as a mixed use but it appears that it is just an apartment building that has been plopped down in a parking lot. It doesn’t appear to be livable to him and he is asking Planning Staff how it got this far? Don’t you consider this out of character with where it is proposed to be? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the zoning of the property allows for apartments to be considered through a Conditional Use process. So, when the applicant brought this concept to us that they were looking to make revisions to, at that point an approved Final Plan, to now introduce the apartment complex, they advised them as to the Conditional Use process and the types of things that they needed to accommodate for a residential component and that is the Recreation Area. Apartments have their own parking calculation. They had conversations with them about the key aspects of the project but the design is theirs. They have expressed and continued to express concerns about certain aspects of the project and those are what you see on Page 11, the recommendations suggested as conditions of approval. They think that there is still pedestrian connectivity issues. The green space open spaces is extremely limited. There was some concern by the Parks and Recreation Committee about that. Even with this Revised Plan that they received this afternoon, the green space really isn’t abundant on this property. For parking, Staff still thinks that there are better options for design and they can’t speak to what the applicant has agreed to on long term leases, they can just look at what the Code’s minimum requirements are. Our Code does not have a maximum parking limitation anymore. There is only so much that Staff can do. A Conditional Use is something that the Planning Commission has the ability to decide yes or no on or maybe yes with a little work. It is an opportunity for a mixed use development. We have not truly seen that on the same parcel. They have seen things next to each other; an office with commercial and commercial next to residential but we have not seen it all on one parcel of land so this is new to all of us. She thinks that Staff’s general comments are that they like the idea of mixed use development; they just think that there are a lot more opportunities to make it more livable, especially given the pathway network and amenities that are within this vicinity and what the abilities for pedestrian or multi-modal transportation could be to those who live in the apartments. 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 Mr. Hugg stated that he thinks that Mrs. Melson-Williams covered them quite well. This is an unusual application and the closest thing that we have that immediately comes to mind are the Blue Hen Apartments behind the old Blue Hen (Corporate Center) Office Complex and they are actually on an adjacent site although they do back up to the commercial. They do have concerns and he thinks that they have been expressed in the Report about the absence of green space and how this whole thing lays out, including the layout of the parking areas for both portions of the site. To reiterate, it is the applicant’s option to request a Conditional Use to build apartments in this zoning district. They have the opportunity if they wish to come forth and make a proposal and have that proposal considered by the Planning Commission in terms of a Conditional Use Site Plan. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that the application meets some of the technical requirements of the Code but it doesn’t speak to the livability of this supposedly residential area proposed for this project. There is no place for children to play and there is no place to walk your dog. There is not even a safe place for children or dogs to walk. This is an apartment in the middle of a parking lot. The applicant is willing to pay almost $100,000 for Parks and Recreation to provide green space somewhere else but this is not going to help the eighty residences in this particular place. He thinks that we are really asking for trouble to allow construction like this in this area not to mention the adjacent businesses and the professional offices that have concerns with this project. These are places that have spent millions of dollars to locate here based on the current zoning and now they are faced with a change in zoning. He just doesn’t understand how the Planning Office could forward this to the Commission and he plans on voting no for this application. Mrs. Malone stated that she is happy that something is going in here because it has been dormant for many years and has been overgrown and everything. She is very happy that maybe two restaurants and some retail stores will be here because she works right across the street and that would be great to walk there to have lunch. When she was first given the information and plans for this project, it reminded her a little bit of the Blue Hen Apartments that are behind the Kent County Building except it doesn’t have retail. She has a concern because the retail strip that is next door where Buffalo Wild Wings is has so many vacancies. It is finally being fixed up but the vacancies concern her a lot. Another thing that concerns her is that back in the 1980’s the City got into a real issue with this Cash-in-Lieu of land. They kept taking money from the developers and then what happened is that everyone started screaming that there was no green open space in the City. When she saw the Cash-in-Lieu, a red flag really went up because she is a real advocate for parks and recreation and green space. She is concerned about that although she does know that Parks and Recreation is probably one of the last areas that ever gets funding because they are really at the bottom of the totem pole. Those are just her concerns. She does see some benefit to it because hopefully it will look nice and draw the right type of people but she really has mixed emotions about the Cash-in-Lieu of land. Mrs. Maucher questioned what the plan was for maintenance of the common areas inside the apartment building? You mentioned planned activities; will there be someone on-site at all times to ensure that the areas are clean and taken care of? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Krapf stated that there will be someone on staff, not 24 hours a day, but there will be a manager and a 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 leasing assistant. Mrs. Maucher further questioned if they would keep the common areas clean? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Krapf stated yes. It will be a four story product with interior halls. He believes that those halls get shampooed or deep cleaned once every two weeks. They are constantly vacuumed and the common areas are maintained on a daily basis. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams read in letters that were received regarding this application. They were forwarded to the Planning Commissioner by email today. The first one is dated July 20, 2020. It comes from Mr. Scott Rathfon who is the Executive Vice President of Century Engineering. They happen to be the neighboring office building to the north and Mr. Rathfon is also on the line with us tonight. Mr. Scott Rathfon – Century Engineering at 550 Bay Road Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Rathfon stated that their office is located at 550 Bay Road, just to the north of the proposed apartment complex. They are in opposition of the Conditional Use Site Plan of a proposed eighty unit apartment complex. They do not believe that the proposed use will be in harmony with the development of the zoning that is proposed and they believe that it will be detrimental to the development of the adjacent properties in accordance with the zoning classifications. As you are aware, Century Engineering in an upscale new office building at 550 Bay Road and they are also in the process of developing two additional parcels in front of our current building that will be located on Bay Road. It is anticipated that these parcels will be developed into professional offices in keeping with the existing zoning and the theme for this surrounding area. In addition to that, they have several additional bullets that he can read through them if you would like. Responding to Mr. Rathfon, Mrs. Melson-Williams asked him to summarize the key points. Mr. Rathfon stated that the apartments are out of character for the area. They are surrounding corporate government campuses with high class buildings and the area is turning toward high end corporate development. The interests that they had received in their other parcels in front of their property are also corporate professional services. There does not seem to be any slacking in demand for commercial space in this area. None of the corporate campuses encourage or provide services that are geared toward public use. Locating residences within this corporate area only means the residents need to walk outside of the corporate area to get to any of the services that they need. The aesthetics of the apartment that was provided does not match the high-quality character of the area. The City should encourage development to a minimum standard if they want to attract high-end businesses and corporations. Apartments are not the highest or best use to this area. The zoning in which the apartments are provided, allows for many higher and better uses. The apartments are not well integrated into the site. The design does not provide any green space or recreational area around the apartments for residents to use. The apartments are simply placed in the middle of a parking lot and will be surrounded by office buildings on two sides and restaurants on the other side. Any design with residents should be required to provide green space or recreational area onsite. The location does not provide connectivity to the larger pedestrian network or to transportation facilities. Again, if permitted, the apartments would be better suited on the south side of the site where they could be directly served by a bus stop. If 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 permitted, the apartments should be required to meet some of the requirements in residential zones such as landscaping and opaque barriers between the residents and commercial zones. There are inherent issues and concerns with the apartments as proposed. There is a concern of increased cut-through vehicle traffic onto the Century site compared to the original plan that was approved. There is concern with after-hours safety and security. For the residents with small children, there is concern with the safety around the existing stormwater management facilities. The proposed fire lane from the Century site to the apartment complex site has a 90 degree bend. Does this have adequate turning radiuses? Also, the fire lane is immediately adjacent to the retail building with no separation between a building and a fire lane. The proposed materials for the apartments do not fit the surrounding area and appear to be high maintenance. The concern with items hanging from the balconies and the visual appearance that creates when usage starts. This summarizes their concern and opposition to the Conditional Use Site Plan for the eighty unit apartment complex. The only other comment that they have is for the retail space that is running parallel to their property line that backs right up to their property. Just what the back of that property is going to look like? They have not seen any renderings for that property but if it’s like the side wall of the State Police Facility that is facing us, it is just a painted block wall which is kind of out of character for what they are building on their high-end complex that they have. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they have another letter from Bay Road One, LLC. Mr. Thomas Brooks is on the line on behalf of that ownership group. They also submitted a multi- page letter dated July 20, 2020 regarding this application. Bay Road One, LLC is also in opposition to the Conditional Use Site Plan. They are noting that the proposed development is not in harmony with the first class office development already committed on the neighboring properties. He makes the statement that the resulting effect of blending residential in an already uplifted business neighborhood would be detrimental to the development of adjacent properties. He makes note of Century Office Building because Bay Road One, LLC is the owner of that property and there is also additional sites that they are working to fill. He makes note of the extensive search that they did to relocate the Century Office Building there and make that real estate investment. Mr. Thomas Brooks – Bay Road One, LLC Mr. Brooks stated that they developed the site next door and the Century Engineering building. Century Engineering is their tenant and also their engineer. They have the same concerns and they are what were outlined in the letter. They looked very hard and for a long time to find a suitable site in the City of Dover and ended up on the City of Dover site that was a trailer home park site before they bought it. They have made a significant investment, not only in the Century Building, but in also the remaining pad sites. While they appreciate the owner’s right to develop this site under a Conditional Use approval of some sort, they do have major concerns about the fact that this is hit them kind of all at one time. It’s a residential project has Mr. Hartman said and it appears to be just an eighty unit apartment building plopped down in the middle of a parking lot between a bunch of office and retail buildings. As an owner and developer, they are trying to protect their asset. They have built a pretty nice project next door and they would like to see the development around it mirror what they have done and would just like more information about what it is really going to look like and what it’s really going to be at the end of the day 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 when it gets developed and is in the leasing process. He thinks that Mr. Rathfon did a pretty good job outlining his concerns and they outlined their concerns in the letter. He would also have to agree with Mr. Hartman as it just doesn’t appear to be the right place for a residential unit. Ms. Karen Vicks – 580 Bay Road Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Vicks stated that she pretty much has the same concerns as Century Engineering. She opposes the development of an apartment complex right in the back of her law office. She located her law office here with the same concerns like Century Engineering had. She was located in an area where there was going to be commercial development; not thinking that there was going to be an apartment building right behind her law office. She is concerned for the value of her property and concerned about the proximity of an apartment complex to her law office. She is definitely in opposition to the change in use. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to deny C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road based on Article 10, Section 1 of the Dover Code in due consideration of the public health, safety and welfare and comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular in that the proposed apartments are not in harmony with the zoning in which they are proposed, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on reasons stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he thinks that an apartment building is out of place in this current location. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; based on the fact that the DAC Report made reference to providing green space for the area under the Conditional Use request and she would have expected to see something along those lines tonight for what the applicant was proposing for that if they were planning to do something to increase the green space. Dr. Jones voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; he is usually a very big advocate for housing but in a situation where you have so many other entities within that area and he does feel as though it seems a little out of place in regards to where they put it. He does hope that with some planning and working with the Planning Staff, they can try to come to some type of resolution because he loves the renderings and everything like that. Mrs. Malone voting yes; because of the issue regarding the Cash-in-Lieu of land and what she mentioned earlier. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. She does like the mixed use concept but right between a commercial building and all of the restaurants seems ill placed and there were some suggestions to perhaps make it work in that area. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is no prohibition in the Code for the applicant to return to the Planning Commission. They could rework their application and come back to seek and alternative plan. Mr. Street questioned if this denied the approval of the office building as well? Responding to Mr. Street, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated it was a Conditional Use Site Plan. It is not clear on that aspect. Certainly, the use as apartments has been dispensed in the motion to deny. Mr. Hartman stated that it was his understanding that the Conditional Use was specifically because of the apartments and the office space was not a conditional use. Responding to Mr. 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the office was not a Conditional Use but because of the revision to the plan, the current (and Final) plan that was approved for this site does not include an office building in that shape. There is a multi-tenant building there but it’s in a slightly different configuration. Mr. Hartman stated that the motion that was approved specifically addressed the apartment building and nothing else. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they could entertain a motion in regards to other aspects of the plan not related to the apartments. Mr. Hugg stated that Mr. Hartman’s (motion) was clearly related to the apartments. He would take the position that only the apartment project portion of the request was denied and frankly the rest of it is still open for discussion. Mrs. Maucher stated that it would obviously change the parking configuration and all of that. Would you then ask for a motion of approval for the office building and the two proposed restaurant pads? She believes that the reduction to the Arterial Street Buffer and the Tree Mitigation plans were already approved and they would not need the Active Recreation Area Cash-in-Lieu. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is correct. There are some changes to the north restaurant site. The two restaurant sites do exist on Site Plan that has Final Plan approval. The real difference is the sizing change for what is the North Office Building which was previously the North Retail Building. Mr. Hugg stated that he supposes that the Commission could simply defer action on the rest of the elements of this plan pending some response back from the applicant in terms of how they might like to proceed. That would put the matter technically on hold but wouldn’t deny it. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that that seems to be a reasonable option if they wanted to pursue that office building to kind of bring back a plan that focuses on that and removes the apartment complex. Mr. Krapf stated that he is not sure that he exactly understood what Mr. Hugg said. He thinks that he likes that idea. He thinks that it is basically deferring approval of the Plan until they come back and rework it. Is that what was said? Responding to Mr. Krapf, Mr. Hugg stated that is the essence of his suggestion, that since obviously tonight the Commission took a negative view of the apartment portion of this project. It would seem to him, to be fair, to give you the opportunity to relook at what you’re proposing and not take action by the Commission. To give you some time to figure out where you want to go forward. Mr. Krapf stated that is what he would like from the Commission. Obviously, this comes as a little bit of a surprise since there was support by Staff and approval by Parks and Recreation (Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee). Let us “talk amongst ourselves” as they say and figure out how they would like to address the concerns heard this evening. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they should procedurally have a motion to defer action on the 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 remaining aspects of the Site Plan. Mr. Hartman moved to defer action on C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road for the approval of all aspects of the plan dealing with the parking lot, the restaurant and the office space, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; he hopes that the applicant is able to speak with the other surrounding entities in regards to that area to be able to have this project come to fruition. He thinks that it would satisfy both parties. Mrs. Malone voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. NEW BUSINESS 1) Nomination and Election of Officers (Chairman and Vice-Chairman) due to Vacancy and Annual Meeting of Planning Commission Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet were the By-Laws of the Planning Commission. July is typically the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission, as it’s the first meeting after appointments have been completed for the Planning Commission. At this point, they do have Mrs. Holly Malone who is the new appointment instead of Ms. Edwards and there was the reappointment of Dr. Jones. We still have one vacancy and that is Mr. Tolbert’s seat as it was up for re-appointment at the time of his passing. At the Annual Meeting, the election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman is to occur. Just a reminder that the Chairman presides at the meetings and the Vice-Chairman is then the presiding officer in the absence of a Planning Commission Chairman. Typically for the election, they loosely follow nominations and the per your By-Laws, if we are in person, balloting is by a secret ballot that was put in place a number of years ago. We can certainly proceed this evening with elections or if you wish to defer that matter until you have a full complement of membership, you can do that as well. She does not know a timeframe for filling the last vacancy that you do have at the present time. Mrs. Maucher questioned if Mr. Tolbert’s seat was a Council District seat or an At-Large seat? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it was a Council District seat so they will be looking for a member from the 3rd District which is kind of north of the Division Street area and then it extends to the northeast area of Dover crossing over Route 1. Mr. Roach questioned who the Acting Vice Chairman is at this time? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Maucher stated that it was her. Mr. Roach asked if they really wanted to defer it because what if Mrs. Maucher misses a meeting. How would that work? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it has happened before, believe it or not. They would go to the senior most ranking member that is present at the meeting. Mr. Roach moved to defer the election of Officers until at least the August meeting to see if the vacancy has been filled, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 7-0 by voice vote. 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2020 2) Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is again, one of those Annual Meeting tasks. The Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee is actually described in the Code and they have actually included that in the packet. It consists of the Mayor or the Mayor’s Designee; two members of the Planning Commission (and those that are currently seated are Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Maucher); and then two members of local design professionals. Currently, we have Ms. Sarah Keiffer and Dr. Chandler who are serving in that capacity. If you are deferring action on your leadership, you may wish to also defer this because that may make a difference as to who is potentially serving on this Subcommittee. In the meantime, Staff could reach out to the two design professional members to see if they wish to continue to serve. This Committee only meets when something is deferred to it, which has happened only a couple times in the last eighteen years. Mr. Roach moved to ask Staff to reach out to the design professional members of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee and would defer this until the August meeting to allow the Commission to make a full decision on its Committee members, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 7-0 by voice vote. Meeting adjourned at 8:58 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 15