PC Minutes 8-17-20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 17, 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. Adams, Mr. Roach, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Welsh, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher. Mrs. Malone was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Doug Liberman, Mr. Ed Gilmore, Mr. Mike Riemann, Mr. Jonathan Street, Mr. Bill Krapf, Mr. Steven Spence, Mr. Roderick Morris and Mr. Alex D’Alessandro. Speaking from the public were Mrs. Abigail Blair, Ms. Paris Mano and Mrs. Jean Benzin. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Adams moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mrs. Malone absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2020 Mr. Hartman moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2020, second by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mrs. Malone absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2020. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on July 27 & 28, 2020 and August 10 & 11, 2020. Mr. Hugg stated that they are in the midst of interviews to hopefully fill one or more of the Code Enforcement positions. They have a number of them vacant and we have a couple of employees who are still out for various medical leave situations. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that parts of our Planning and Inspections Department for the last week and a half and probably continuing, have been involved in the storm response. Some of our Planning Commission members may have seen our Fire Marshals and Code Enforcement Staff out in the field as their neighborhoods were impacted. They continue to work with people as they regather their lives. There has been a lot of kudos expressed with the various City Departments over the last few weeks, including the Electric Department, the Police Department and the Dover Fire Department. Team Dover certainly rose to the occasion to help our community and those in our electric service territory. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is a training and education opportunity. They always try to present these to the Commission members. There is one that you have the opportunity to attend this week. It is one of those training sessions that is put on by the Institute for Public Administration at the University of Delaware. This one focuses on housing needs in the community during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Planning Staff did participate with a housing one that they put on a couple of weeks ago. Some of the same speakers will be on this one. It is free and it is a Zoom Webinar. If you are available on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at lunch time, certainly take the opportunity to join in with that. You do have to register ahead of time and they will send you the direct link to that Zoom Meeting. SPECIAL RECOGNITION 1) Resolution honoring the Service of Deborah Edwards on the Planning Commission. Resolution Whereas, Deborah Edwards became a member of the City of Dover Planning Commission on June 26, 2017 and has served with diligence and distinction in this capacity as an advocate for sound land use planning in the public interest; and, Whereas, Deborah Edwards has played a key role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the planning and development of the Capital City through her service on the Planning Commission; and, Whereas, Deborah Edwards has influenced the pattern and appearance of development in Dover through her contributions to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project; her efforts to ensure compliance with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended); her participation in the development of amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance regarding various zoning districts and development design requirements; her eagerness to learn; and her advocacy for local businesses and her passion for Economic Development; and, Whereas, Deborah Edwards completed her term of service on the City of Dover Planning Commission on July 13, 2020. Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Planning Commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Deborah Edwards for her faithful and exemplary service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as an active member of the City of Dover Planning Commission and extends its very best wishes to Deborah Edwards for a bright and prosperous future. Mr. Adams moved to approve the Resolution for the Service of Deborah Edwards, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the virtual meeting using the WebEx system. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Revisions to Applications: S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road: Update on Revisions to Site Development Plan Application associated with plan to demolish the existing structures and then construct a one-story 4,504 SF Car Wash (Service Establishment) with associated site improvements. Revisions involve site access/entrance improvements to Saulsbury Road and interconnection to adjoining properties at 987-991 Forest Street (Subway Restaurant site). The subject properties 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. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of Site Plan S-19-22 on October 21, 2019 and accepted an update report on Revisions on May 18, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Doug Liberman; Larson Engineering, Mr. Ed Gilmore, Developer Mrs. Melson-Williams that this application was originally presented to the Planning Commission back in October of 2019 and a public hearing was held at that time. Since October 2019, the application has been working to what they call “complete the Check Print Review process” to move towards Final Site Plan approval. This is for the development of a series of parcels of land into a Car Wash facility with some other areas that would remain for future potential development. Back in May of this year, they actually looked at an updated revision which dated to March and that dealt with a series of design refinements that were related to the consolidation of lots on the property and also to enlarge what would be the stormwater management facility in the southeast corner of the property near Carver Road. Since that time, the applicant has continued to work with agencies and in particular tonight, they bring a second update revision to you. That deals with the site access from Saulsbury Road. In working with DelDOT in designing this entrance, there have been a couple of things that DelDOT is requesting. One is the need for a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site and in constructing that potential turn lane, DelDOT has recommended that the direct site access onto what is known as the Subway Restaurant parcels be closed and then an alternative means from Saulsbury Road be established for that access to that restaurant parcel. The restaurant parcels are separate from the piece that is to be developed as the Car Wash. Tonight, they are basically showing you the entrance to the site from Saulsbury Road. That has pretty much remained in the same location as it was presented back in October 2019. The only thing that is new is that now there is a connecting drive aisle that goes from that entrance drive to the south to then connect with the parking lot area for the Subway Restaurant. With that, there is some slight curb work and parking revisions on the Subway site 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 that will be part of the implementation in closing off their direct access to Saulsbury Road. The Site Plan shows this access entrance change from Saulsbury Road and the connecting drive aisle. With the project, they will actually have to work on stormwater management to service those areas and they are planning to accommodate that in their stormwater planning for the overall Car Wash property. Then there are some obvious changes to landscape planning for the project area in where trees and other shrubbery will be located. They submitted to us for reference tonight, a Revised Site Plan that shows that entrance and then also a Landscaping Plan. This is really just brought to the Planning Commission as an informational item. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the Check Print Review process, ensuring that even with these changes that it continues to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. They did include in the packet, a letter that introduced this concept to you as well. We do have project representatives with us this evening that can add any additional information. As stated before, it’s really just an informational update that Staff felt was important to share with the Commission. It is not subject to public hearing as that was completed with its initial Site Plan Review process. Mr. Liberman stated (through the Chat option) that the biggest change for the project really is a change in the number of entrances along Saulsbury Road from what is currently existing conditions with the site, a change of going from three entrances down to one. There are two parcels in addition to the restaurant parcel of the Subway that have access currently to Saulsbury Road. So with this project design, they are going down from three existing to one entrance that will be shared amongst multiple properties. They are also working to accommodate the future DelDOT safety project that’s in the works for that intersection of Route 8 and Saulsbury Road. The existing Subway entrance was too close to the intersection so the new entrance has better safety for all patrons using both sites. As part of this, the Subway site will actually be able to gain five parking spaces and better flow for traffic on their site with this new entrance and drive aisle connection scenario. Mr. Hartman questioned if with the interconnectivity of the Subway now, do we expect the traffic on the east side of the site to increase at that exit near the schools? He knows that when they first approved this, there was concern about when school let out and the children that would be in that area. The applicant even went so far as to say that they would have people out there to direct traffic at those times. He is just wondering if the interconnectivity of the Subway, which seems like a very good idea, if that is going to increase traffic on the east side. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it could certainly change access points but Mr. Liberman is noting that they expect the Subway traffic to use the Saulsbury Road entrance primarily. The Subway Restaurant continues to have a rights-in entrance off of Forest Street so that entrance to the Subway site is not going away. Mr. Liberman is also noting that they would likely follow their existing usage patterns. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road to accept the updated revision to the parking and entrance for the project, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she believes that the change to the entrance is much safer and it will work much better with the traffic and to remove the second entrance on the Subway site from close to Forest Street and provide much more safety off of that road. Dr. Jones voting yes; the revision appears to address some of their concerns of the traffic patterns. Mr. Adams voting yes; for the reasons previously 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; he thinks that it’s a great addition to the Site Plan and he hopes that everything works out. Mr. Hartman voting yes; it appears that it will improve the safety on Saulsbury Road. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; this new design appears to improve efficiency and safety of both properties. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. 3) Pending Development Application: Continued Review Pending Submission Update C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road (Commercial) at 600 Bay Road: Continued Review of a portion of the Conditional Use Site Plan Application to revise the Phase 2 area of the site. The initial plan proposed replacing a 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 Planning Commission on July 20, 2020 denied the Conditional Use to establish the 80-unit Apartment Building and then deferred action on the remaining site development revisions. 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 Kent County Levy Court Administration Building. 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. Items for Consideration (Denied with Conditional Use): 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 Approval on March 6, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Mike Riemann, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Bill Krapf, Owner’s representative; Mr. Steven Spence Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is not subject to public hearing. The public hearing with this is application was completed at last month’s meeting. As noted, the Commission took action to deny the Conditional Use portion of this application which was for an 80-unit apartment building and then in a separate motion, deferred action on the remainder of the Site Plan which was for this Phase II area consisting of an office building, two restaurant sites and also the development of the balance of the property with parking and landscaping. Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that this is the Revised Plan that was submitted last week and the apartments have been removed as that Conditional Use was denied at the previous meeting. Basically, the remainder of the buildings are the same in their layout. There is an almost 20,000 SF office building to the north and two restaurants fronting on Bay Road; a large restaurant to the north and a smaller restaurant to the south. The remainder is pretty much parking and nothing too much has changed with that accept where there was an apartment building, there is now just parking. The sidewalk network is the same, placement of dumpsters is the same and they have not received an updated Landscape Plan so right now that is also the same as what was submitted with the Conditional Use Application. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with this application, they did receive a series of four Revised Plan sheets dated August 7, 2020. In response to that, Planning Commission members received a Memo Update last week that Planning Staff did once they had an opportunity to look at this Revised Plan update. That was a Memo dated August 13, 2020 that highlights some of the things that they noticed with the Revised Site Plan. There is a lot coverage that they have concerns about. This project originally started with a plan from 2017 that was approved for development in July 2017. With that application, there was a total impervious of 88.9%. About that same time, there were changes in our Code that then established a maximum impervious cover for properties in the C-4 at 75%. Because that project was in process, it was allowed to basically be established at that nonconforming level of impervious surface coverage. The 2017 Plan basically got approved and within a month of its Final Plan Approval, there was a new application filed. S-19- 20 for this project established the Phase I Building on the far western portion of the site as an office building rather than a grocery store with multi-tenant retail. With that S-19-20 Plan, it basically revised the site and ended up with an impervious surface coverage of 77.9% and ultimately in adopting the plan, that’s what the Planning Commission saw. Then when S-19-20 achieved Final Plan Approval, it superseded the previous Site Plan from 2017. Staff interpreted it to reset basically, the allowable impervious surface coverage at 77.9%. With the Revised Plan to C-20-02, they are showing a slight increase in that lot coverage percentage so Staff has identified that they basically have a couple of options. If they would like to continue the percentage of impervious cover at the 80.8%, then they would require action by the City’s Board of Adjustment. Or the Plan can be revised through the Check Print Review process to have a lot coverage of the 77.9% or less which is what Staff interpreted that the site would be eligible for. You could continue review of the Site Plan this evening; however, in order to achieve Final Plan approval, the Plan could resolve the site impervious surface issue as part of the Check Print process. They do note that they re-presented the parking calculation for the site now that we have some slightly different combinations of uses. Our Memo includes a table that shows based on the uses, the total number of parking spaces required is 444. Their site proposes 881 parking spaces. There is no longer a maximum number of parking spaces that a project can have but Staff has some concerns about that overall number. Staff believes that the changeover of some of those parking spaces to green space allows them to meet their impervious surface coverage of that 77.9% that was previously established for the site. There is also a couple of places where the current parking layout requires parking in a particular location to potentially have to back out into a main circulation aisle on the site. They think there could be some improvements to eliminate that type of situation. They also note what the dumpster calculations would be for this type of (use) scenario. There appears to be enough dumpsters on the site; there may just need to be some placement juggling. Regarding objectives for looking at Site Plans, this is clearly a site that has opportunities for multi-modal and we think that it should be taken full advantage of. Even for an office setting, they do think there are some opportunities for making it more enjoyable for those that may visit or work there. That may include additional green space or site amenities to take that break outside during the normal work day. For other elements of the Site Plan, as Mrs. Bulkilvish noted, they did not receive an updated Plan but obviously through any kind of Check Print Review process, they would be having to review that anyway for required tree planting compliance. The architecture of the building was previously presented to the Planning Commission. They do note that a lot of the content of the DAC Report would remain as relevant 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 to the Site Plan aspects of this Phase 2 area; both comments from the Planning Office and the other regulatory agencies. There are a number of comments that relate specifically to the residential use that can be disregarded because that type of use on the property was previously denied. They do want to note for the Planning Commission that there are a couple of waivers that they will need to take action on this evening with the Site Plan. The first is the reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer. The previous plans have reduced that Street Buffer from thirty feet to twenty feet. That waiver was previously approved by the Planning Commission but should be reconfirmed with any action taken on the Site Plan this evening. In addition, there is Tree Mitigation Plan which in the case of this project, allows for tree plantings to occur just to the south of the subject property on the adjacent property in order to create more of a tree lined entrance on the Bay Court entrance drive that this location shares. While there is some open space on the north side of that property line it is impacted by utilities in that area. This would still achieve tree planting in that general vicinity but it just happens to be located on the adjacent property. That was previously approved with earlier plans and we would look for reconfirmation of that this evening. The two other items of waivers for consideration that were associated with this plan C-20-02 are related to the residential area that was proposed. That was the Recreation Area Plan and the Cash-in-Lieu; so, those are no longer necessary to be considered since the project does not include the residential component. Mr. Street stated that the application before you is not a whole lot different than the one that we saw last month. One thing that he wants to point out is with the change from the first plan. This has been three years of constant updates to the development. It started out as a grocery store and a retail space and it’s kind of transformed into offices with some leftover restaurant pads out front. This is new to the developer of changing hands with his leasees and getting firm long term leasees now for both of these buildings. The main difference between this plan and the previously approved plan is the 24,000 SF retail space where the office is now. That building shrunk at the top of that site where they were able to gain fifty or so parking spaces. In addition to that, they removed the building that was denied last month and they infilled that with parking as well. As previously discussed last month, the two end users who are the long term leasees of these buildings, one of them is the State Police. Some of their admin offices are going there and they have their own parking requirements for their building and for their employees and what they are going to do out of that building. The State Police are also going to be in the other 20,000 SF building and they have parking requirements as well. He knows that they have shot up at least one hundred parking spaces since the last plan. Building Staff comments about the previously approved 77.9% versus the 88.9% which is where they were with the maximum coverage previously. He thinks that they would argue that the 88.9% expired with the previous plan and right now they are at 80.8% he believes. We are talking about 1 SF here and they would really like to move forward with the 20,000 SF building option because they have a long term leaser. The Landscape Plan, of course with whatever Final Plan they come up with between themselves and Staff, will be updated to reflect the appropriate and Code compliant tree plantings, cross access easements, and the like. Mr. Riemann stated that essentially where this plan is, is very similar to the DSP Plan that has already been approved but for the fact that the building has reduced in size to 20,000 SF. As it relates to the Staff Report, they reviewed it and they don’t have any major concerns. They do have a slight disagreement on the validity of the impervious coverage and there is a little bit of 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 history associated with that. With this site, one of the first approvals that was gained a number of years ago as part of the start of developing this property was a Tree Mitigation Project. It actually reforested about five acres of ground within the City. That was associated with the original plan for development. That was one of the first steps. The original of what they call the Shop Rite Plan is also referred to as the 2017 Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. It had a lot of square footage on that plan and that plan was 88.9%. And while that plan was in the works, the City changed the Code to limit the maximum impervious coverage to 75%. During that same time frame, the State Police had come along as a tenant there; they are consolidating a lot of their facilities in that building. It’s already under construction. So it’s great for the City in terms of locating some jobs in the City and great for the State Police on consolidating those users. That plan did have an impervious coverage of 77.9%. It’s important to point out that on that plan that was approved in March 2019, there was a Note #12 that was added to the plan. The note basically says that project S-17-20 was granted conditional approval by the City of Dover Planning Commission in July 2017 which grandfathered the total impervious coverage of 88.9% which they understood. They think it was important that the note was added to what he calls the State Police Plan because it was important that they maintain the grandfathered status of the impervious coverage for the project. That being said, it’s really important that we move forward this evening with the new tenant that we have which is the GSA Fleet Services. We have a great tenant there; it’s already an executed long term lease so they do need to move forward on that. This plan shows about 80.8% compared to the 77.9%. In our interpretation, we are under the 88.9% which is what they were grandfathered to have and therefore we think we are on solid ground. That being said, we are comfortable moving forward working with Staff but we do believe that the 88.9% is the target. They are clearly not trying to get to the 88.9% at this point but they do believe that it is valid. As it relates to the comments about green space and those things for employees, they worked closely with the tenants. This is a particular case because they have tenants that are on board as part of the development and design process. They have worked closely with them in terms of the amenities and things that they believe they need to support their staff and they have signed off on the plans that are seen here. Again, we are comfortable moving forward and working with Staff on the 77.9% coverage, but they do believe that the project in total still remains as a grandfathered status up to the 88.9% coverage. Mr. Adams questioned if Mrs. Melson-Williams could provide the City’s position as it relates to the fact that there needs to be conformity with the current guidelines of the plan, not the pre- existed or the approvals that pre-date this current Site Plan? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that a little bit of that is actually in the Memo that they distributed this week with their review. Even if you go into the DAC Initial Report from early July for C-20-02, they are noting what the lot coverage established for the site would be. This property, as Mr. Riemann mentioned, has been through a number of plan reviews and approvals over the years. In recent history, there was S-17-20 that was a plan that came forward, went to the Planning Commission and ultimately achieved Final Site Plan approval with a maximum coverage of 88.9%. Staff allowed that impervious coverage to be at that amount because at the time of initial start of review for application S-17-20, there was no maximum impervious coverage requirement or limitation in the Zoning Ordinance. At the same time as their project was moving through, there were Code changes that were adopted into the Zoning Ordinance that for the C-4 zoning district established a maximum lot coverage of 75%. Staff at that time, interpreted them to have a grandfathered status and allowed that nonconforming maximum impervious surface coverage to 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 be the 88.9%. That plan got Final Plan Approval and then come July 2019 there was a new Site Development Plan that was presented. That is the one that they refer to as the Delaware State Police Building and it really focused on their key thing of getting approvals for what is Phase I of this project that you now see under construction. Their Site Plan revised a number of things and established an impervious surface coverage of 77.9%. Yes, while it was under a previous grandfathered amount of the 88.9%, this went through a Planning Commission hearing and then ultimately achieved Final Site Plan approval with an impervious surface coverage of 77.9%. When the plan from 2019 achieved Plan Approval, our Final Plan Approval letter noted that impervious surface coverage amount and also noted that the plan superseded S-17-20. With that, Staff interprets that the maximum impervious surface for the site was reset at 77.9%. Still nonconforming to what the Code says today but closer to what the Code says today. Mr. Riemann stated that everything that Mrs. Melson-Williams just stated is completely accurate in terms of the timing and the sequence of events. He thinks that where the disconnect is, is that when they got the DSP Plan approved, they did reduce the impervious coverage from 88.9% to 77.9% which did not seem like a big deal at the time. The note was added; however, talking about the grandfathering revision of 88.9% on the plan as Note #12. In the data column of that approved plan, it specifically references the previously approved 88.9%. It was their understanding at the time of that Plan approval that the 88.9% was still the benchmark even though they weren’t necessarily trying to achieve that. They thought that it was documented as such. Had they not realized that, it may be that the plan would have been created at the 88.9% to ensure that we could maintain that grandfathered level that existed before the Code had changed. Moving forward tonight, they are okay with working on this plan at 77.9% which is what he believes Mrs. Melson-Williams has stated in her Memo. They do believe though that they still have rights to the 88.9% coverage if things for whatever reason need to change but they are happy to work with Staff towards the 77.9%. The plan that is before the Commission is only at 80% so they are not that far off. The other point that he wanted to make is that their stormwater system is designed for the 88.9% so they are good there. What’s important for them is that they have GSA as a tenant; a great tenant and they need to deliver this building to them. They had a curve ball last month and they are back here to finish up this piece of it. They are happy to work with Staff on 77.9% but they do believe that they do still have that grandfathering right to the 88.9% and they just really wanted that noted for the record. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff has made an interpretation on. How the Zoning Ordinance looks at things where there is a disagreement on interpretation by an Administrative Official, the Zoning Ordinance specifically in that type of manner, (notes) the appeal of an interpretation of an Administrative Officer is to the Board of Adjustment. There is a process should they ultimately disagree with Staff’s finding that the 77.9% is what Staff is interpreting as their maximum impervious coverage. We are happy to continue to work with them to assist in review of plans that would ultimately achieve that to keep their project moving. Mr. Roach stated that Mr. Street spoke about the tenant basically having their own requirements as it pertains to parking spaces versus the requirements that the City has. If you all are able to work with City Staff to reach that 77.9% and that reduced amount of parking spaces, would that 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 be in compliance with what your tenants would need versus want at this point in time? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Street stated that obviously if we are going to be reducing square footage they will have to go to both tenants about it but they would be happy to work with Staff on it. They have history of working with Staff and they would just have to work with their tenants on what they need versus what they want. Mrs. Maucher questioned how long the long term lease is? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Krapf stated that he is on the developing side and not on the leasing side so unfortunately he cannot answer that. He believes that they are ten year leases with four five year extensions. He can text his Director of leasing to see if he can get an answer in the next few minutes. Mrs. Maucher further questioned if that was for both tenants? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Krapf stated yes, they are standard State of Delaware leases. Mr. Adams moved to approve C-20-02 Landing Square Bay Road Commercial for the office construction as presented to include the Arterial Street Buffer and the Tree Mitigation waivers and to include reconfirming the waiver request that we detailed. He would make that motion contingent upon the applicant agreeing to the 77.9% impervious coverage cap as discussed tonight and moving forward from there with any objection going to the Board of Adjustment, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Adams voting yes; he is excited for the redevelopment of this property and he feels as though the developer and their engineering firm has done a nice job at putting together a site that intends to conform with the City’s overall plans. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he would also like to thank the developer and the engineers for this recent submission. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes, for the reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. NEW APPLICATIONS C-20-03 Love Drives Child Daycare at 151 Greenhill Avenue: Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Application to permit the establishment of a Large Family Daycare Home (not in an occupied residence) in an existing one-story building at 151 Greenhill Avenue to serve 12 children, to be known as Love Drives (Capital Campus). The subject property consists of 0.16 +/- acres and is zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Adam D’Alessandro and the applicants (lessees) are Melodie and Roderick Morris. Location Address: 151 Greenhill Ave. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.18-02-10.01-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Sidewalk, Elimination of Bicycle Parking, and Elimination of Curbing. Representatives: Mr. Roderick Morris and Mrs. Melodie Morris of Love Drives Child Daycare; Mr. Alex D’Alessandro, property owner Mrs. Harvey stated the Conditional Use Site Plan Review is to permit the establishment of a Large Family Day Care Home not in an occupied residence, in an existing 1,000 square foot building at 151 Greenhill Avenue to be known as Love Drives Child Daycare Capital Campus. The property for the proposed development is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 property is located on the east side of Greenhill Avenue. The owner of record is Adam D’Alessandro and the lessees are Melodie and Roderick Morris. The project proposal for twelve children at the day care would be classified as a Large Family Day Care Home by the Zoning Ordinance as it provides care for more than six children but less than thirteen children. The Plan shows an outdoor play area on the east side of the site to the rear of the existing building and fencing for the play area is also identified on the plan. The Plan shows a total of four existing parking spaces. The number of required spaces shown on the Plan is based on the requirements for child day care facilities in Article 5, Section 14.3 which requires one space per ten children plus one space per adult attendant. This facility proposes twelve children and two adult attendants so the parking complies with this requirement. The site is required to provide bicycle parking and the bicycle calculation is one per every twenty parking spaces. Based on the number of parking spaces, one bicycle parking space is required. Bicycle parking is not identified on the Site Plan. A written waiver request for the elimination of bicycle parking has been submitted to the Planning Office for consideration by the Planning Commission. Sidewalk is required along all street frontages. There is not a frontage sidewalk along Greenhill Avenue. A written waiver request for the elimination of sidewalk on the street frontage along Greenhill Avenue has been submitted to the Planning Office for consideration by the Planning Commission. The parking areas and access drives are required to be curbed as outlined in Article 6, Section 3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. All permanent parking areas shall be composed of upright curing at least six inches in height. Road curbing is provided along Greenhill Avenue. A written waiver request for the elimination of curbing has been submitted to the Planning Office. Staff recommends approval for the three waiver requests submitted for the reasons outlined in the DAC Report. Mr. Morris stated that he is here with the property owner Mr. D’Alessandro and his wife Melodie Morris who is a co-owner of the Day Care. They are requesting to open a Large Family Day Care at 151 Greenhill Avenue in Dover. The Large Family Day Care will consist of twelve children. They do have another Large Family Day Care that they had to go through the same approval for in Sussex County in Lincoln. They also have a Day Care that they ran out of their home which was located in a neighborhood. They started that Day Care in 2015. To date, they have never had any complaints from any neighbors about any of our facilities. They have never caused any commotion in our neighborhoods that they are in that would warrant anyone being upset about a Day Care being there. As it pertains to the Day Care, they are just requesting to have twelve children from 7AM to 5:30PM. They are not open on weekends, only Monday through Friday. If there are any other questions or statements that he needs to make he will do so as this call progresses. Mr. Hartman stated that he lives in a neighborhood and they have at least four day care centers and they have never caused a problem at all but some of them actually have parking in the alley rather than in the front of the building. He was wondering if that was something that has been considered. Mr. Morris stated that is something that they have considered and they are actually making preparations to have parking in the back alleyway. Mr. Hartman stated that he thinks that would go a long way in relieving some traffic on that street because that street is pretty narrow. Some of your neighbors have been concerned about it. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that when they started planning out the fencing, originally that were going to try to bring it to the back but instead they kind of pulled it 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 up a little bit. So this way they could actually have that be for some of the parking and maybe even some pick-up and drop-off. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to start with some public comments that they received in writing and some of them may actually be callers that we have here tonight. These public comments were received in writing as of 2PM this afternoon. Staff did attempt to distribute them to the Planning Commission by email. The first is an Email dated August 13, 2020 that comes from Betty Anne Chapman and her comment states that “she opposes this as traffic would increase and any entity other than residential would decrease property values.” The second item of written comment that they received earlier today was from Mrs. Paris Mano who resides at 146 Greenhill Avenue. The Letter is about five pages so she is going to quickly summarize it. She (Mrs. Mano) notes that she is an original home owner that is across the street from this location and one of her concerns is devaluing her property, noting that not many people would want to buy a home next to a Day Care. It’s been a residential area since its inception in the 1950’s and she would be disappointed that the City of Dover would approve a business into a residential area, especially a Day Care. She goes on to talk about four areas of concern. Those being traffic and with that she notes that the street is narrow and there is parking that is limited to one side. What happens if there is a car coming and there is someone parked, you will have to wait your turn. The street has also become a cut-through short cut from White Oak Road when it gets congested. There is some concern that she has about speeding. She is also concerned about dropping off children even though there is “no parking” signage on that side of the street. It’s likely if the driveway is full, people will continue to park on the street to try to off load their children. She also notes the other types of normal traffic in the neighborhood from garbage trucks to recycle trucks, street cleaners and school buses. The next item that she has concern about is noise. She notes that children could be playing outside during the day and there might be people in the neighborhood who work nights and sleep during the day. The third concern is signage and she is concerned about a large sign. If it’s permitted to be in the yard that it could be an eye sore and deterrent to any potential buyer or renter in the area. She notes that four square feet for a sign is quite large. Her last concern is related to the limitation on the number of children. She does recognize the limitation to twelve children but there might be this constant flow of children coming and going as three leave, three new ones then appear and what that impact on traffic would be. Her closing statement is that she is very opposed to having a Day Care across the street from her and again notes her property value concern and that the area has been zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) for at least seventy years and that she doesn’t see why a business would be permitted. She does go on to note that Adam D’Alessandro, the owner property, at one point used it as his residence but has also rented it out. She does note that he is a realtor and that he does have the right to try to do something else, use wise, with this property. Her main concerns are really related to traffic and preserving the integrity of the area. She does note a thank you for taking the time to read her objections and take them into consideration. Mrs. Abigail Blair – 150 Greenhill Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Blair stated that she lives directly across the street from where the Day Care is going to be placed. She has had problems in the past with Mr. D’Alessandro parking on the wrong side of the street and blocking the road. You tell him that there is no parking on that side and he has to 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 park on the other side and he doesn’t. So if he as a property owner cannot park property, how is she supposed to expect his current residents to park properly? They are going to be parking directly in front of her house. Children are going to be getting out and running on her lawn and it is going to cause chaos in the mornings and the evenings. This also causes a problem with emergency vehicles. Her husband got injured and the ambulance couldn’t make it down the street because the street is blocked off by people parking on the east and west sides of the street when only the west side of the street is for parking. Her concern is with all of these kids being dropped off in the morning and if they are going to block her driveway then she and her husband will not be able to leave for work. Mr. D’Alessandro said that he was going to turn it into a Day Care and she expressed how she was not ecstatic about it. The next door neighbor to the south side of him works night shift and comes home at 7AM and needs to go to sleep. Now this Day Care will be right next to her bedroom and she is going to have trouble getting to sleep because children are going to be playing in the yard being kids and being noisy. She will have sleep deprivation which is going to cause problems with her work. He started remodeling the house getting ready for the Day Care to come in without even waiting for the approval. He just automatically assumed that he was going to get his way and that the house would get approved as a Day Care. If this turns into a commercial property, eventually you are just going to keep approving down the street and the next thing you know, her house is going to be across from a shopping center. How much of a property value loss is she going to have with commercial properties all along the opposite side of her street? If the property owner cannot park on the right side of the street how is she supposed to expect twelve potential sets of parents to do it? This is going to cause a lot of issues down her street and it seems like no one on this street wants this to happen. Mr. Alessandro was not considerate and did not ask the neighbors how this would affect them. They already had an issue with him not mowing the grass on time and if he has his brother come down to fix the house, people coming in and out. One of the vehicles backed up out of his driveway and slammed into her car that was parked on the street. She got a dent in her car and she has to deal with that. She understands that the business is going to be running Monday through Friday but what happens when they back into her car again. It’s just a guess of which one of twenty-four people that drop off these twelve children slammed into her vehicle. Ms. Paris Mano – 146 Greenhill Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Mano stated that she appreciates her written comments being read for the record. She does have one comment to make. In the letter that was sent out for the notice of the hearing, the access code was incorrect so there could be others that wanted to call in. She tried for fifteen minutes and her neighbor came over and found out the correct code. There is no sidewalk that goes to the front door for this property. She thinks that he does have stepping stones that are overgrown with grass and you can’t see them. But as far as being able to walk into the property without being in the mud, there is none. To her, it should have a sidewalk to get to the entrance of the home. Mrs. Jean Benzin – 150 Greenhill Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Benzin stated that when she purchased this home in 1984, she and her husand and one child lived there. They had to relocate over to his parents’ home to do elderly care for both of his senior parents so that is why they no longer reside in that home. Before the house was built at 151 Greenhill Avenue, the property was a vacant lot. The builder during the development did not build a cape-cod style home; he decided to put a ranch type of home on that property. It did not have a driveway that went next door to his property. The driveway was a single lane from the 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 street to the house. They went by there this evening and noticed that the person that is sending in this application as since doubled that driveway and they were not notified of these changes. They were also not notified of any changes to fencing. The porch had never been an enclosed porch. She noticed that there are new railings all around the front porch. When that house was built it was a three bedroom, one bath house with a living room and a kitchen. In her opinion, that property is too small to have twelve children occupying it as a Day Care center. The sizes of the rooms are too small. If you try to segregate the children by age groups, she really doesn’t see it happening. She also wants to make notice that her daughter-in-law Mrs. Blair spoke about the parking issue. They have been borrowing her vehicle and someone had backed out of the driveway and hit the door of her car. She has a great concern because it is a very narrow road and it allows parking on the west side. If you want to go south on Greenhill Avenue and there is someone coming north on Greenhill Avenue, you have to try to find an open area to a park to allow the other car to pass. There is not enough space for two way traffic and parking. There is no way that three vehicles could fit through that paved area. The condition of the street is such that there is no drop-off type of curb like you see in other developments. It’s more like a gully that goes from the property to the street. There is no sidewalk on either side of Greenhill Avenue. It’s a very big concern of hers since her son was three years old when they moved here. You had to walk in the street and when traffic is coming, people have to walk onto your property in order to avoid getting hit. She really is very concerned about the population that they are proposing for that small of a house. Summer is coming to an end and they aren’t going to have those children outside all day, they will be in the house. She doesn’t see how you could possibly cramp twelve children into that home along the Day Care provider and an assistant. She does feel very concerned about the fact that the setback of that house from the street is not even fifty feet. With a narrow property and then you have this house that is closer to the street than any other home of Greenhill Avenue, which is going to create more of an avenue for the consequence of having accidents. God forbid a child gets hit by a car. They had a small fire at their property at one time back in the 1990’s and the fire trucks had difficulty finding an area where they could fit the fire truck in and hook up to the fire hydrant. When they knew the previous property owners, everything was great. Now that it is being changed into a commercial use, she has a big problem with that. Her husband feels the same way. It’s not a conducive location for a Day Care. She agrees with what everyone else has said tonight. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman asked the applicant to go into a little more detail on the parking at the rear of the property. That seems to be a big concern of the adjacent neighbors. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that they pulled the fence back fourteen feet in width so therefore you can park cars right there alongside the fence and people will still be able to get through the alleyway. There will also be a gate back there so people can walk back and forth. Mr. Hartman questioned if they anticipated people dropping off their children back there? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Morris stated that what he was proposing was that the staff members would use that space since their cars will stay stationary and that is a smaller road space. The drop-off points would be in the front where the four parking spaces are located. He would like to mention that although they will be approved for up to twelve children, three of those children could be from the same family and out of the same car. It will not be twelve 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 different cars and it will not be like a rotating schedule of parents coming in and out all day. The way child care works is that they will have up to twelve students enrolled and they will normally be dropped-off and picked up once a day. It’s not like three kids will be picked up and then three more kids will be dropped off. That is not how a Day Care runs and he just wanted to make that note. Mr. Hartman questioned if they have considered trying to educate the parents about the parking restrictions? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Morris stated that they have a Parent Handbook that the State of Delaware Office of Child Care Licensing requires them to have after they plan this Day Care and get the required approvals from the City. Basically whatever guidance you have, they are not opposed to. Whatever you tell us that you think we should do, that is what they will do. Their Handbook will describe all of their drop-off measures and whatever they are asking the parents to do. He just wants to mention that they are not trying to come into this neighborhood and cause chaos. They are not millionaires trying to come and buy a property. They are Delaware born and raised and they are just trying to come into the neighborhood. Mr. D’Alessandro has already started to update the outside of the property. It is not going to appear to be a daycare; there is not going to be any large sign that people are referencing. It is going to look like a nice home and they are coming just to enhance the neighborhood. They are not coming to be loud or annoying neighbors. Like he was saying, the Parent Handbook will have all of that information in there for the parents and they will set that expectation because they know how the road is. They understand the conditions of the road and will try their best to stay out of everyone’s way as they have at their other sites. Dr. Jones questioned if it is possible to only have rear drop off? Is there adequate space for rear drop-off since this is going to be traffic that is moving and perhaps they could have the Staff park in the front? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Morris stated yes, that is possible. Dr. Jones questioned if the signage had been addressed yet? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the DAC Report does make a reference to signage. For any installation of signage, they first have to have appropriate address numbers on the building to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal but that doesn’t count towards their regular signage. Because it is a type of Large Family Day Care Home, the Ordinance actually limits them to a wall mounted sign that is limited to two square feet is size. That provisions is within the day care regulations. Normally, our Sign Regulations do allow for certain types of signs that don’t need a permit like things that involve hours of operation and things like that. They tend to see those more on commercial retail or office type of establishments and not necessarily a day care facility. Under Code, they are allowed two square feet in size that is subject to a Sign Permit application process. Dr. Jones questioned if in fact rear drop-off is possible for your clients, would this necessitate a change in the appearance of the rear to welcome parents? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that honestly as a rental, cutting down all of the trees and making sure all of the vines were down wasn’t really as important to him but now that it is going to be a Day Care, it’s been a lot more important so he has been trying to pretty up the property. They have had a couple of trees that have been growing vines and stuff like that and it’s been all over the neighbor’s fences. Now he has been trying to get permission from everyone to clean everything 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 up. Ultimately, the appearance is definitely going to be a lot better. Dr. Jones stated that she was speaking of an entryway. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that with that back part there, there is going to be a gate so they will probably just make that really nice and they will have the start of stepping stones. They will probably do decorative stones that go across through the backyard and go around to the end and then go around so that you can get to the side door. Mrs. Welsh questioned if there are other improvements that are going to be made to the property other than the parking and the entrance? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that they are redoing the deck; the rails were pretty old. His brother actually helped him out and tore them down and put new ones up. They will be re-staining the deck and pressure washing the house. There is a stump from the tree that he cut down at one point and they are going to grind that out so that the front yard looks a little bit cleaner. The walking path that they said was covered in grass is going to get cleaned up and it’s going to look a lot nicer. There’s a fence going around the house and they are going to be planting trees; basically, a lot of curb appeal. They are remodeling the inside of the house and making it really nice. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with a number of improvements to the building itself, in order to establish this type of child care facility, it is subject to a Building Permit application process should it achieve Conditional Use Approval. That involves ensuring adequate means of access and egress to and from the building and anything that the Building Code and Fire Code would deem necessary for this building to serve as a child care facility. There may be the need to have those sidewalks for access. There is one that appears to travel from the driveway to the front porch of the house and possibly something along the side of the house. Likewise, the changes to the fence would be subject to a permit and if they intend on paving any additional areas for parking, that is subject to a permit review process as well. Overall, there are some limitations to how much of the property can be paved hard surface being building, parking, any detached accessory structures and that is all reviewed through a permit process. Mr. Hartman stated that on the title page of the data sheet, the property is listed as 51 Greenhill (instead of 151) Avenue and he just wants to point out that typo for the record. Mr. Hartman moved to approve C-20-03 Love Drives Child Daycare at 151 Greenhill Avenue to permit the establishment of a Large Family Day Care Home with the waiver requests also approved for the elimination of the street frontage sidewalk along Greenhill Avenue, the elimination of the bicycle parking and the elimination of upright curbing. He encourages the applicant and the property owner to continue working with the residents when resolving any traffic concerns. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adams and it was carried 6-1 with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on previous statements. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous statements. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she believes that there is a need for good child care and since it is a Conditional Use situation, there would be opportunities for the review of the property should the applicant not be compliant with the Conditional Use and there be issues that can be addressed at that point. Dr. Jones voting yes; she concurs with Mrs. Welsh’s statements. Mr. Adams voting yes; he does believe that there is tremendous value in in- home day cares. Mr. Roach voting yes; at this point in time in-home day cares are definitely a 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 necessity and he feels as though it would be a great addition to that area. He would just suggest to the property owner and the owner of the day care to maybe go around to your neighbors and see if they can try to rectify some of the issues that were heard tonight because there seemed to be some concerns. As Mrs. Welsh said, with this being a Conditional Use they will be able to discuss those things later on in a review but he hopes that they work diligently with the neighbors to make sure that everything works well and good luck. Mrs. Maucher voting no; she understands that there is a need for additional child care services in the area but twelve children in that area will create twelve different vehicles and an in-home care center might be more (appropriate) where someone is residing and there is a secure number of children. Because there are no sidewalks and the roads are very narrow, access is always an issue. NEW BUSINESS Nomination and Election of Officers (Chairman and Vice-Chairman) due to Vacancy and Annual Meeting of Planning Commission: Deferred from July 20, 2020 Meeting Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they postponed action on establishing a new Chair and Vice- Chair at our last meeting which is typically the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission. You were provided a copy of the By-laws the Commission members themselves elect a Chair and Vice-Chair for their Commission; they serve in that office for a one-year term. Typically, the voting procedure is ballot type process but we are in a virtual mode. At this point, there is still one seat on the Planning Commission that has not been filled yet. Her understanding is that the Mayor is working on that. Once he has a candidate, it has to be reviewed and approved by City Council. Tonight, you certainly have the ability to elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. Currently, Mrs. Maucher is the Vice-Chair who is acting as the Chair, following Dr. Jones who left the Chair position to just retain her seat as a regular member. Mrs. Maucher asked if it was an option to wait until the vacancy was filled. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, that is entirely up to the Commission. Mrs. Welsh stated that she thinks it will be beneficial to wait until the vacancy is filled before electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. Mrs. Roach stated that if we did get another Commission member, how likely would it be that they would be voted into one of those positions being new? Has that happened before? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is not sure that has happened before. Most of the Chair and Vice-Chair members that she can remember had either been on the Commission for some time before they were elected as Chair or it was where they were Vice- Chair and moved up to Chair. She doesn’t recall someone being elected and then immediately thrusted into one of those positions. Mr. Roach stated that yes, it would be nice to have that person included in the voting process but he doesn’t think they should keep pushing off the elections each month. But it can be at the pleasure of this group. Mr. Adams stated that he agrees with Mr. Roach. He thinks Mrs. Maucher has done a great job as Acting Chair and he wonders if there would be some willingness on her part to remove the 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Acting from the Chair in front of her name and then perhaps they could just try to find themselves a Vice-Chair rather than both. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Maucher stated that she is certainly willing to continue unless someone else would like to serve as Chair. Mr. Roach moved to elect Mrs. Maucher as the Chair for the Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Adams. Mrs. Welsh moved that nominations for Chair be closed, seconded by Mr. Hartman. Motion to elect Mrs. Maucher as the Chair was carried 7-0 by roll call with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Roach voting yes; she has been doing a great job. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she has been doing an exemplarily job. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mr. Adams voting yes; thank you for your leadership. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Hartman questioned if they could postpone the election for Vice-Chair until Mrs. Malone was back? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes. Mr. Hartman motioned to postpone the nominations and election of a Vice-Chair until Mrs. Malone returns, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28): Deferred from July 20, 2020 Meeting Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff has given you the Code that establishes this Subcommittee and currently as of the annual meeting last summer, Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Maucher are the Planning Commission members along with the Mayor or his designee at that time and then the members of that Subcommittee also include two design professional members. Previously, that has been Ms. Sarah Keiffer and Dr. Chandler. At the last meeting, you asked Staff to reach out to those members to discuss their availability. She did reach out to Dr. Chandler and he did agree to continue his service should this committee need to meet and Mr. Hugg reached out to Ms. Keiffer and she is not sure if he heard back from her or not. Mrs. Maucher stated that she is willing to still serve on this Subcommittee. Mr. Roach asked if Mrs. Welsh was still willing to serve on this Subcommittee? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Welsh stated yes, and she would be happy to have him join her. Mr. Roach stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams said that it’s something that they are not called upon often. He feels as though some of these they can try to take care of and rectify now so it’s less things that we have to take care of later. If Mrs. Maucher would step down from that position and put me in, then he is all for it. Mrs. Welsh stated that she has done it one time in six years. Mrs. Maucher nominated Mr. Roach for the position on the Architectural Review Oversight 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Subcommittee and accept that Mrs. Welsh and Dr. Chandler continue to serve as well. If Ms. Keiffer concurs that she is willing to serve then she accepts that pending her confirmation, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. Meeting adjourned at 9:30PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 19