Attachment

Planning Commission. Mar 16, 2015.

This text was pulled from the PDF automatically and may contain mistakes. The PDF is the official record, so check it before relying on this.

14 pages have little or no readable text here, often scans or drawings. See the PDF for those.

Page 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, March 16, 2015 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1) This agenda includes the applications previously scheduled for the February 17, 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission. Due to weather conditions the February meeting was cancelled. Public Notice was completed for these applications giving notice of tonight’s (March 16, 2015) hearing date. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING of January 20, 2015 ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF QUARTERLY WORKSHOP of February 18, 2015 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for MONDAY, April 20, 2015 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers. 2) Update on City Council Actions 3) Update on Planning activities OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: A. S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street – Request for a one year extension of the Planning Commission approval granted on March 18, 2013 for Site Development Plan application and Architectural Review Certification (HI-13-01) to permit the construction of a parking lot. The property is zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and is subject to the H (Historic District Overlay Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 - Excellent Recharge Area. The property is located on the northeast corner of South State Street and Elm Terrace. The owners of record are William and Lisa Boyles. Address: 527-529 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-05-47.00-000. Council District 2. Final Site Plan approval was granted on November 6, 2013.

Page 2

Page 3

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: March 16, 2015 Page 2 of 3 NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1) MI-15-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015 – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council regarding a series of Amendments to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Amendments include consideration of the following: a request for amendment of Map 12-1: Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of a property as associated with rezoning application Z-15-01 and amendments to the text of Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan of Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance #2015-01. A. Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map - Request for a parcel located on the east side of North State Street between the Silver Lake bridge and Lepore Road to revise the Land Use Classification from Residential Medium Density to Commercial on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. Property Address: 801 North State Street. This is associated with rezoning application Z-15-01. B. Consideration of Amendment to Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan – Amendment to Chapter 13 - Growth and Annexation of the Comprehensive Plan to amend the text to delete the Cost Revenue Analysis Model and to delete the requirement for its use as a means of reviewing annexation proposals within the Category 2 Annexation Areas. 2) Z-15-01 Lands of 801 Gold Coast, LLC at 801 North State Street: Rezoning from RG-3 to C-2A – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application for a 1.943 acre +/- parcel. The property is zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located on the east side of North State Street between the Silver Lake bridge and Lepore Road; the property is adjacent to Silver Lake. The owner of record is 801 Gold Coast, LLC c/o Luther D. Shank III. Address: 801 North State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.09-01-13.00-000. Council District 3. Ordinance #2015-02. Associated with request (MI-15-01) for Comprehensive Plan Amendment as a land use classification to Map 12-1. 3) SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace (previously known as The Meadow) Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace – Public Hearing and Review of Preliminary Subdivision Plan to create five (5) residential lots from an existing parcel totaling 4.23 acres +/- of land. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is located south of but not adjacent to Wyoming Avenue and west of Monroe Terrace. The proposal includes an extension of the street known as Jefferson Terrace. The owner of record is Penntex, LCC. Address: Jefferson Terrance. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17- 06-2.01-000. Council District 2. Waivers granted approval by City Council on 1/13/2014: Increased Length of Dead End Street and Increased Percentage of Lots on Cul-de-sac. This submission is a Revised Preliminary Subdivision Plan which supersedes the previous submission SB-13-06P filed for review in February 2014. 4) S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware at 777 South Little Creek Road – Public Hearing and Review of Site Development Plan for a place of public assembly building of 28,502 S.F. on a 3.8 acre property. The property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located on the north side of South Little Creek Road and

Page 4

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: March 16, 2015 Page 3 of 3 west of JH Brown Boulevard. The owner of record Islamic Society of Central Delaware c/o Usman Sandhu. Property Address: 777 South Little Creek Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.11- 01-03.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request: Alternative Format of Opaque Barrier. NEW BUSINESS ADJOURN THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Posted Agenda: posted March 4, 2015 at 2:00pm

Page 6

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF March 6, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF March 18, 2013 Plan Title: Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street: Parking Lot Construction S-13-03 Plan Type: Site Plan Architectural Review Certification (HI-13-01) Property Location: Northeast corner of South State Street and Elm Terrace Property Addresses: 527-529 South State Street Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-05-47.00-000 Owner: William and Lisa Boyles Present Zoning: R-GO (General Residence and Office Zone) H (Historic District Zone) SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Existing Uses: Existing Building of Apartment Units Proposed Uses: Same with Parking Lot Site Area: 9,775 S.F. Waivers Requested: Reduction of Parking Requirement Elimination of Curbing P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Page 7

City of Dover Planning CITY OF DOVER Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 6, 2013 APPLICATION: Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street: Parking Lot Construction FILE #: S-13-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 PLAN SUMMARY: This application is for review of a Site Development Plan application and Architectural Review Certification to allow for the construction of a parking lot to the east of the existing building at 527- 529 South State Street. The property is zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and is subject to the H (Historic District Overlay Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 - Excellent Recharge Area. The property is located on the northeast corner of South State Street and Elm Terrace. The owners of record are William and Lisa Boyles. Address: 527- 529 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-05-47.00-000. Council District 2. This project requires Site Plan Review and Architectural Review Certification. Due to the amount of site disturbance and it’s adjacency to residentially zoned property this Site Plan Review process is required. PROJECT PROPOSAL (Drawings dated 1/30/13): The application proposes construction of a parking lot in the backyard area of the property at 527-529 South State Street. The elements of the project are as follows: 1. Parking Lot: A seven (7) space paved parking lot with a twenty (20) foot width access from the alley off Elm Terrace is proposed. There is no direct vehicular access to Elm Terrace or to South State Street. The parking lot consists of one handicapped accessible space and six regular spaces. As no upright curbing is proposed for the parking lot, a series of parking bumpers are placed at the head of each parking space. All parking spaces are perpendicular to the drive aisle thus facing north. 2. Sidewalks/ Paved Areas: A new sidewalk of brick pavers is proposed from Elm Terrace to the rear of the existing building. The areas at the rear of the building adjacent to the parking lot are to be surfaced with the brick pavers as well giving as to the two porch entrances and the basement access door. The property has existing concrete sidewalks along the public street frontages of South State Street and Elm Terrace. 3. Landscaping: A landscape planting of a row of shrubs is proposed along the Elm Terrace frontage and alley corner of the property. These Inkberry Holly plantings are shown on

Page 8

S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street DAC Report of March 6, 2013 Page 2 the property side of the new fence. There are a number of existing trees in the southern portion of the property, a row of boxwoods along South State Street between the building and Elm Terrace, and a row of shrubs along the northern property line. 4. Fences: Black aluminum style decorative fences are proposed along the south property line and portions of the west and east property lines. Gate openings are shown for the new brick sidewalk leading from street frontage sidewalks. 5. Site Furnishings: The site includes the addition of a bicycle rack of three (3) bicycle space spaces at the rear of the building. 6. Accessory Building: A shed is proposed in the northeast corner of the property. No additional details of the shed are provided in the submission. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION - REVIEW The project site is located within the H (Historic District Zone). For the Parking Lot Construction project, the Historic District Commission considered the application HI-13-01 on February 21, 2013 regarding an Architectural Review Certificate for the construction of this site improvement. The Historic District Commission has forwarded a recommendation on the Architectural Review Certificate to the Planning Commission; see the Architectural Review Recommendation Report. The Planning Commission must act upon the Architectural Review Certification as part of any motion regarding this project, or as a separate motion if necessary. In taking this action, the Planning Commission is to consider the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. PARKING SUMMARY The parking requirements for apartments are two parking spaces per unit and 0.25 parking spaces per unit for visitors. Thus, this three unit apartment building requires seven (7) parking spaces. The use of a building within the R-GO (General Residence and Office Zone) is also allowed for offices; however, the parking requirement for offices is one parking space per 300 S.F. of floor area. Based on the size of the building at 3,000 S.F. a total of ten (10) parking spaces would be required for an office use. Waiver Requested: Reduction in Required Parking for Office Use The Zoning Ordinance in Article 6 §3.9 includes methods for adjustments to parking requirements; however, the reduction in parking by the Planning Commission is not to exceed 50% of the required number of parking spaces. This property is located within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area making it eligible for a twenty (20) percent reduction in off-street parking (See Article 6 §3.9). A waiver request was submitted in order to establish the parking on the site should the building be converted to office use in the future as only the Planning Commission can grant this parking reduction. A reduction of thirty (30) percent equaling three (3) spaces would set the parking requirement for an office use at seven (7) parking spaces. See attached Waiver Request.

Page 9

S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street DAC Report of March 6, 2013 Page 3 Bicycle Parking The project is required to provide bicycle parking. The bicycle parking calculation is one for every twenty parking spaces. Based on the total of 7 parking spaces, one bicycle parking space is required. Waiver Requested: Partial Elimination of Curbing Article 6 §3.6(b) requires upright curbing for all parking areas. The proposed parking lot does not incorporate curbing. A written waiver request for the elimination of curbing in these areas was submitted to the Planning Office for consideration by the Planning Commission citing the reasons of existing conditions and the management of rainwater runoff. See attached waiver request. SITE CONSIDERATIONS SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) The site is located within the SWPOZ (Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area) found in Article 3 Section 29.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, this project site is within the downtown redevelopment target area which is exempted from the SWPOZ requirements and restrictions as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §29.79. Trash Collection The current residential use of the property utilizes the City of Dover residential style trash collection containers and recycling containers. This type of trash receptacles are not considered to be ‘dumpsters’ under the Zoning Ordinance; therefore the dumpster enclosure requirements do not apply to this residential use. Sidewalks The project site has existing sidewalks along the South State Street frontage and Elm Terrace. Lighting The parking lot project does not identify any additional site lighting. If provided then the type of lighting that will be used needs to be shown on the plan. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The submitted plan presents information on the existing trees on the property and the proposal for shrub plantings. Based on the total property area of 9,775 S.F., a total of four (4) trees are required. The plan shows ten (10) existing trees to remain on the property thus meeting the requirement. The Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots to be screened when located across the street from residential uses. This screening requirement occurs along Elm Terrace as it is across from several residential dwellings on the south side of the street. Article 5 Section 7.23 Parking lots. Whenever a parking lot is located across the street from a residential use, it shall be screened from view of such land by a thick hedge located along a line drawn parallel to the street and a distance of 20 feet therefrom, such hedge to be interrupted only at points of ingress and egress. The open area between such hedge and the street shall be landscaped in harmony with the landscaping prevailing on neighboring properties fronting on the

Page 10

S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street DAC Report of March 6, 2013 Page 4 same street. A fence five feet high may be required while such hedge is growing to a suitable thickness. The project is proposing a black decorative fence four (4) feet in height and a row of Inkberry Holly shrubs along the fence as a screening treatment for the parking lot from the street. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1) The Site Plan must reflect any changes recommended by the Planning Commission. 2) Upright curbing shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance unless a waiver is granted by the Planning Commission. A written waiver request was submitted for the elimination of a portion of the curbing for consideration by the Planning Commission. 3) A waiver request for a parking reduction was submitted for review as related to the use of the building as office space which is a permitted use in the RG-O zoning district. This addresses the parking requirement for office use should be building be renovated for that type of use in the future. The current proposal for seven (7) parking spaces complies with the parking requirement for the apartment use of the building. 4) Sheet C-001: a) Show the location of the corner visibility area. b) The data column needs to be updated prior to Final Approval. Some of the items which need revising are as follows: i) Indicate the zoning H (Historic District Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) under the zoning for the site. ii) Correct setback information in Item #9. For the RG-O zone, the current use as an apartment building would refer back to the bulk standards provisions of RG-1 for multiple dwellings. iii) Add the number of bicycle parking spaces provided in Item #10. iv) Add note listing the SWPOZ exemption for this property. v) Add a note to the Plan to provide information on any waivers granted by the Planning Commission. vi) Add a note to the plan indicating the date and actions of the Historic District Commission review of the application. c) Check easement statement in General Notes #3. 5) Sheet C-901: Revise project details in accordance with conditions of Architectural Review Certification. 6) The following information must be provided on the plan as related to Landscape Plan in accordance with the plan requirements as listed in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §16.8: a) Provide list of existing trees b) Provide data column of tree planting requirements.

Page 11

S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street DAC Report of March 6, 2013 Page 5 c) Provide certification note. 7) The Historic District Commission has provided a Recommendation in regards to the Architectural Review Certificate for this project. See Architectural Review Recommendation Report. 8) The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences to four (4) feet within the front yard setback (Article 5 §1.55) with other provisions for increases in height for side yards, rear yards, and the second front yard on corner lots. In addition, for corner lots such as this, fences are limited to a maximum height of three (3) feet within the corner visibility area (triangle) as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.3. It is noted that in consideration of the Architectural Review Certification, relief cannot be granted from the corner visibility height limits. a) Clarify fence height within the corner visibility zone on the plan drawings. b) Check for potential conflict of the proposed fence with an existing Crepe Myrtle tree. 9) The design of the proposed shed must be compatible with the Design Standards and Guidelines and must be placed a minimum of five (5) feet from the side and rear property lines. It is subject to Architectural Review Certification as part of a Building Permit process. a) Check placement of the proposed shed as two different locations are shown in the plan set (C-001 versus L-101). b) Provide the setback requirements on the plan drawings. 10) The design of any proposed enclosure or screening method for trash/recycling collection containers should be compatible with the character of the Historic District. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: 1) The Historic District Commission at their meeting of 2/21/2013 took action to provide a Recommendation with conditions regarding the Architectural Review Certification (ARC) for the project including a series of comments. These comments/recommendations may be adopted by reference to the Architectural Review Recommendation Report when taking action on the Architectural Review Certification. a. Planning Staff as part of the ARC application review process prepared a series of recommendations and review comments in regards to the Architectural Review Certification and compliance with the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: i. The fence should be constructed of the black metal decorative fencing in a picket style pattern not to exceed four (4) feet in height and not to exceed three (3) feet in height within the corner visibility area. ii. The bicycle parking rack should be black in finish color and of a decorative style. A bicycle rack of modern style (tube form) is not recommended. iii. The proposed shrubs along the southern fence should be evergreen varieties and a minimum of two (2) feet in height at the time of planting.

Page 12

S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street DAC Report of March 6, 2013 Page 6 iv. The existing shrubs along the northern property line must be maintained at a minimum height of at least four (4) feet and should be an evergreen screen in order to assist in screening the vehicle parking lot. These shrubs appear to be recently pruned; therefore replanting of the shrubs may be necessary to maintain the screening buffer. v. Maintain unpaved areas of the property as lawn areas with landscape beds in the areas of shrub plantings for ease of maintenance. vi. Utilize black posts for any signage elements to be attached to posts i.e. handicapped parking signage and traffic control sign. vii. Any light fixtures/poles utilized on the property for site lighting should utilize a black finish color. 2) Waiver Request: The following is the Staff recommendation regarding the waiver request. a. Reduction of Parking Requirement: Staff recommends approval of the request for a reduction in the parking requirement related to the use of the building as office space from ten (10) spaces to seven (7) parking spaces. Since the RG-O zone allows for the use as offices, Staff recommended that this potential use be considered when establishing the off-street parking on the site. The property is in the Downtown area in the vicinity of on-street parking, public parking facilities, transit services, and a sidewalk system for pedestrians. In addition, the site proposes to also provide bicycle parking on site. b. Partial Elimination of Curbing: Staff recommends approval of the request to eliminate the curbing for the parking lot. It appears that the elimination of curbing will allow existing drainage patterns to continue for the site. 3) The plan provides limited information on the projects’ strategy for stormwater management. There are known drainage issues in this area of Elm Terrace due to limited stormwater management systems in the street network. Provide documentation showing that the project and its increase in impervious surface coverage does not increase the current level of run-off from the property. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The Planning Commission must act upon the Architectural Review Certification as part of any motion to approve this project, or as a separate motion if necessary. 2) The Planning Commission will act upon waiver requests as part of any motion to approve this project, or as a separate motion if necessary. Note: All waivers are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may approve or deny waiver requests. 3) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 4) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Site Plan occur in the finalization of the Site Plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require

Page 13

S-13-03 Lands of Boyles at 527-529 South State Street DAC Report of March 6, 2013 Page 7 resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Historic District Commission, Planning Commission, or other commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 5) Construction will have an effect on the adjacent property owners and nearby streets. Any work requiring the closing or rerouting of owners or visitors to the adjacent properties and streets shall be coordinated with the Planning Office and other City Staff as to offer the least amount of inconvenience. 6) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections and permits are required. 7) The applicant should be aware of the potential for historic archaeological resources which may include previous building locations, wells, privies, etc. on the property. The State Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs can provide technical assistance when dealing with archaeological resources including previous studies at the subject properties. 8) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A Building Permit will be utilized as a tracking mechanism for the site improvements and a Building Permit for the fence installation must be submitted. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. The permit application also must comply with the conditions of approval of the Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. 9) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Certain types of signage require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign; please consult with Planning Staff in regards to signage. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

Page 14

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2013 APPLICATION: Lands of Boyles, 527-529 S. State St. FILE #: S-13-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 2. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 3. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 4. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 5. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 6. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District submitted to our office. 2. Provide stormwater management calculations that prove that the runoff created by this parking lot can be adequately handled by the existing storm sewer system. SANITATION/STREETS/GROUNDS 1. None GENERAL 1. The final site plan must be submitted in a digital format compatible with AutoCAD 2010 (.dwg format).

Page 15

Lands of Boyles, 527-529 S. State St. File #: S-13-03 February 27, 2013 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/. STREETS 1. Install a stop bar and a stop sign exiting the parking lot to the Alley. Stop sign and stop bar shall be installed per the Delaware Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. SANITATION 1. Currently, the solid waste on this site is being serviced by the City of Dover, further review would be merited if the current sanitation condition changes. GENERAL I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

Page 16

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: February 27, 2013 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Boyles at 527 – 529 South State Street FILE#: S-13-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The Department has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

Page 17

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY MARCH 2013 APPLICATION: Lands of Boyles FILE #: S-13-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the approval and/or issuing of construction permits for the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project.  The proposed site improvements are less than 5000 square feet, the site is therefore exempt from strormwater management requirements.  If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

Page 18

WAIVER REQUEST 527-529 SOUTH STATE STREET PARKING LOT PARKING REQUIREMENTS / OFFICE USE REQUEST: A 30% (3 spaces) parking reduction is requested for the proposed parking lot. EXTENT OF THE REQUEST: By code, the project is required to have 10 parking spaces for an office use. The proposed parking consists of 7 spaces (a reduction of 3 spaces). BASIS FOR REQUEST: Article 6, section 3.9 of the City of Dover zoning standards allows Planning Commission to reduce parking, not to exceed 50% of the required number of parking spaces. The property is zoned RGO and located within the downtown redevelopment target area. The zoning allows residential or office uses. There is adjacent on street parking and mass transit stops adjacent to the site. Additionally, it’s location in the downtown area provides many pedestrian connections to other buildings and municipal parking areas, thus the 30% reduction for an office use is requested. 201202801ae-waiver

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION January 20, 2015 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:00 PM with Vice Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Mr. Cregar, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Ms. Still, Mr. Ambruso and Mr. Tolbert. Dr. Jones and Colonel Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Harvey and Mrs. Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Phil McGinnis, Mr. Scott Kidner, Mrs. Rebecca Kidner and Mr. Emmanuel Davis. Speaking from the public was Mrs. Tricia Arndt, Mr. Charles Salkin, Mr. Joe Hutter, Mr. Cameron Llewellyn, Ms. Theresa Owens, Mr. Ryan Weber, Mrs. Jennifer Mabus, Ms. Lauren Tinsley, Mr. Randy Jones, Mrs. Diana Welch, Mr. Theo Morgan and Mr. Michael Schott. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Holt moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Still and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Colonel Welsh absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2014 Ms. Still moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 15, 2014, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Ambruso absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Townshend stated that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Townshend stated that the next Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop will be held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:00 noon in the City Hall Conference Room. Mrs. Townshend provided an update on the regular City Council and Utility Committee meetings held on December 8, 2014 and January 12, 2015. Mrs. Townshend stated that on January 11, 2015 Governor Markell designated Dover as one of three (3) Downtown Development Districts. That will make properties within that District boundary eligible for a number of incentives. Most notably, the 20% rebate of cash from the State after the property owner or business spends $25,000 on that property. The County will be matching the State’s rebate up to $10,000 and the City will be adopting a series of incentives to further incentivize Downtown redevelopment. They are getting a lot of inquiries and she thinks that they will start to see things happening Downtown because now the numbers work a little better. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Townshend presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 1

Page 23

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1) C-15-01 Professional Office at 15 Kings Highway NE – Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to permit professional offices at an existing 3,250 S.F. ± structure on a 25, 920 S.F. ± parcel. The property is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). Planned interior renovations will convert the use from residential to office. The property is located at the north side of Kings Highway on the segment designated S.R 8 at the corner of Kent Avenue. The owner of record is Philip W. Coombe and equitable owner Marengo Ventures, LLC c/o Scott and Rebecca Kidner. Property Address: 15 Kings Highway NE. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.05-02-50.00-000. Council District 3. Representatives: Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Realty; Mr. Scott Kidner, equitable owner; Mrs. Rebecca Kidner, equitable owner Mr. Cook stated that this is a Conditional Use Site Plan to permit professional offices at an existing 3250 S.F. structure on an existing 25,920 S.F parcel. The property is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone) regulations. The property is located at the north side of the segment of Route 8 between Maple Lane and Kent Avenue. It’s addressed as Kings Highway Northeast. The site includes a house, detached garage and existing paved areas for parking, sidewalks and driveway. The owner of record is Philip W. Coombe and the applicant is Marengo Ventures, LLC c/o Mr. and Mrs. Kidner. The property address is 15 Kings Highway NE, Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.05-02-50.00-000. Mr. Cook ran through the report for the benefit of the public audience. The Zoning Ordinance allows professional uses in the RG-1 (General Residence Zone) district as a Conditional Use subject to regulations. A summary of some of the regulations for such uses are found in the DAC report. These would be primarily concerning preserving the residential character of the use and of the physical structure and property itself. These regulations have to do with primarily regulating how many similar uses can be within a two hundred fifty (250) foot radius of that proposed use. There should be no display of products or goods visible from the street. There are parking requirements which require two (2) off-street parking spaces minimum and then a maximum of four (4). The parking should be screened from adjacent residential uses, usually by means of landscaping or sometimes barriers such as a fence. These screens need to be in place for the duration of approved Conditional Use if it is approved. There are limitations of signs such that any proposed sign for the property would be limited to six (6) square feet. There are also limitations on the hours of operation whereby they could not be open before 6:00AM and they could not be open after 8:00PM and that no more than four (4) employees could be engaged in the operation on the premises during those times. For Conditional Use applications generally they made reference in the report to the criteria. The Commission reviews the proposed projects to determine whether or not these uses are intended and whether they are appropriate in type and scale for the immediate neighborhood. The applicant proposes using the existing residential structure as professional offices. This location at 15 Kings Highway NE is more than two hundred fifty (250) feet from a previously approved 2

Page 24

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 professional office at 109 East Division Street which was application C-14-04. In the report, they do make some note about the architecture. The building is located within the City’s Historic District Zone; this means that significant exterior renovations could be subject to review by the Historic District Commission. They have records noting that the structure was built in 1915. They believe that there’s probably been many renovations over the years and in terms of style the house is a little bit of a mish-mash but there are lots of things going on and certainly interesting historic details on it. There are no recent records of building permits so there is no history of any recent remodeling. There is a brick garage in the rear; this garage can be accessed directly from an alley which is along the rear property which is adjacent to the rear property line of the property. Staff noted in the report that the site is larger than most of the parcels surrounding it. The garage area is located in the upper left hand corner. A driveway does come from the front of the property. As shown on the site plan, to the left of the structure a driveway does come from Kings Highway and leads back to that garage. People can also exit and enter through the alley. One of the things noted in the report by Staff is that the existing landscaping is proposed by the applicant to be retained and just to be cleaned up for the most part. They took note of the shrubrow along the alley and also the shrubrow extends down Kent Avenue. These are proposed to be retained and this would screen the backyard. It’s a pretty sizable backyard; there’s a little pond back there with all kinds of vegetation. This would screen the proposed parking area which is actually the existing parking area. They count the garage as one (1) space and there are two (2) paved parking spaces forward of the garage. The seven (7) foot shrubrow is there. They noted the location of the Murphey School across the street. There is a tree planting requirement per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance whereby nine (9) trees are required on-site based on a minimum tree density requirement of one (1) tree per three thousand (3,000) square feet. They did not receive a detailed plan with the application; however, before Final Plan approval and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy there would be a requirement that they would receive such a plan for review. Staff believes that the requirement is satisfied; they just need to see the counts. The applicant did verbally discuss with Staff that there were no plans for significant landscape changes other than clean-up and trimming. The site does have access from the alley as well as from the front. There’s public sidewalk along the Kings Highway NE frontage. Staff also made note of the crosswalk crossings across the public rights-of-way as well as pedestrian signals at that corner. Although off-street parking is required, on-street parking does seem to be readily available along Kent Avenue at the times that Staff visited the site which was in the middle of a typical work day. Bicycle parking is required according to the Zoning Ordinance and that would be one (1) space. They have provided additional detail to the applicant regarding that. As conditions of approval to meet code objectives, Staff outlined five (5) things in the report. They recommended the acceptance of the existing paved drive and parking areas to be accepted as an existing condition. They found that a parking area without a raised curb to be more consistent with the objectives for preserving the residential character of the property, meaning that they recommended that the parking can stay as is. They recommended again that the hedgerows be preserved on the north and east side property lines and to maintain those and retain them at their present height for the duration of the Conditional Use. They recommended a screening requirement for parking spaces in the west side yard. They recommended some additional vegetation be placed there to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance requirement and that the parking areas have some screening 3

Page 25

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 from the neighboring properties. There were recommendations made to satisfaction of the bicycle requirement. Staff also recommended that the Conditional Use permit be evaluated after a period of one (1) year and at that time the Planning Commission could evaluate the continuation of that permit and whether the conditions of original approval were met sufficiently. For the public record there were some letters received from the public and these were placed on the Commissioner’s desks before the meeting. There is a letter from Mrs. Tricia Arndt and one from Ms. Elizabeth Hastings. Mr. McGinnis handed out additional correspondence to the Commissioners. Mr. McGinnis stated that he was here representing the owner, Mr. Coombe and Mr. and Mrs. Kidner who propose to occupy the premises as an office if the application is approved. What was handed out was two (2) pieces of correspondence that were obtained from immediate neighbors of the property. He knows that Staff received correspondence from some property owners who were not contacted previously by the applicants because they live outside the range of the mailed notice requirements. One email is from Judge Young who lives across the street and the other is from the Murphey School which is across the street. Mr. Coombe also talked to the neighbor directly to the west who is in between living at the house and a nursing home who has no problem with the application. For the most part, that means the immediate neighbors are fine with the application. Every single person that was on the list was contacted by Mrs. Kidner except for two (2) people in which they had incorrect phone numbers for; they were sent letters. Again, the immediate neighbors are perfectly okay with the application. Mr. Coombe is a Korean War amputee; his mortgage is underwater so part of the issue here is that with Mr. Coombe’s short sale, the Kidner’s are going to buy the property and the Coombe’s will escape from their debt. The property is in bad condition at this point. It needs to be renovated and the Kidner’s are going to do that; they are going to restore it to bring it back up to Code. They are not planning to do anything on the outside of the property except to add the handicap ramp which is required or otherwise wouldn’t even be considered. He apologized for the vague Site Plan that was referred to earlier. It’s because of the rush over the mortgage conditions that they had to get something submitted. The fact that there is not much on the plan is evidence that there is not much going on there. The Kidner’s are lobbyists so they are going to be doing lobbying at this location. The point is that lobbyists don’t get a lot of walk-in traffic; it’s not like a doctor or psychologist even a lawyer who practices law. As lobbyists, most of their business is done over the phone. The only people who would be coming and going are the Kidner’s and a couple of people who work for them. This end of Kings Highway is probably even more of a commercial use than the last application that the Planning Commission approved further up the street. The Murphey School is across the street, Central Middle School is behind it and across the street is a Catholic charity. There is a lot more activity than residential. They have been given the same lists and conditions that the Commissioners have received. They had the DAC meeting and are on the record at the DAC meeting as accepting all of those conditions. They proposed more parking than what is being presented tonight until the DAC said they had too much parking. Parking was taken away to reflect residential appearance of the property when they are finished. They recognize that they are located in the Historic District so they are not making any changes to the exterior of the property. They will finish the Site Plan that is required with all of the conditions on the Site Plan that need to be done. Mr. Bob Larimore did the survey. They will turn over a list of things that have to be included to him so that he can update it and get it submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Landscape Plan would be 4

Page 26

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 submitted; there is nothing going on with the landscaping. They have been asked to keep the hedgerow which they never considered taking down in the first place. The back yard is filled with sort of overgrown stuff that will be cleaned up. They would like to have a nicer appearance than what is there now. Bicycle parking posts is certainly going to be okay. They accept the conditions as proposed by Mrs. Townshend. Mr. Cregar asked to see Photo 5 on the slide show. He questioned if what they were talking about is additional vegetative screening that would screen the car parking area? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. Cook stated yes, it would be in that yard area shown in the picture. Mr. Cregar further questioned if it would be on just the west side? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Staff recommendation was just for the west side but if they wanted to see it along the front, which could also be placed as a condition. Mr. McGinnis stated that their understanding was that it was going to be “L” shaped. There are two (2) parking bumpers there that exist and right in the general area where the parking bumpers are, as you go to the long side of the parking space the immediate neighbor’s garage is right there. They understood it to be an “L” shaped screening. Mr. Cook read part of Recommendation #3 from the Report: “Specific recommendations would include additions to the hedges shown on/near the property line as shown in Photo 4 and the area forward of the parking bumpers as shown in Photo 4 and 5.” The parking bumpers are perpendicular to property line so the parking bumpers can barely be seen there but they are parallel to the garage door probably twenty (20) feet closer to us. Mr. Cregar questioned if there would be any screening that would be parallel to that garage door? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. Cook stated yes. Mr. McGinnis stated that they failed to mention that there was a comment from one of the neighbors, Mr. Salkin about use of the alley. His recommendation was to put a sign up about how to use the alley. He thinks that he is worried about left hand moves out of the property. Another concern would be people using the alley to access the property. He thinks using a sign goes back to the issue of the residential appearance of the neighborhood so they would be reluctant to put a sign up about not turning left. Mr. and Mrs. Kidner are going to advise clients while they are there if they park in this parking area versus parking on the street, to please turn right in the alley and go to the traffic light. Most of their visitors if they get visitors are going to be out-of-town visitors who are somewhere on their way to Legislative Hall or wherever the case may be and wouldn’t even know about the alley anyway. They anticipate all of their visitors using the street for parking and access because it’s easier than driving off of Kings Highway and using that alley. He comes out of that area fifty (50) different ways and parking on the street is so much easier. They will do what they can to limit access to the alley but they don’t want to put up a sign. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the alley was also used for trash disposal? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. McGinnis state yes. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if trash cans sit out in the alleyway? Will they be blocking the traffic that is coming and going? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. McGinnis stated that the trash cans are 5

Page 27

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 shielded by the garage. There is trash can and a recycling can but they are not in the alley; there is about ten (10) feet between the alley and the garage. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Ms. Tricia Arndt – 11 Pennsylvania Avenue Dover DE 19901 Ms. Arndt stated that she submitted comments earlier this afternoon. She is a firm believer that vibrant Downtowns rely on strong neighborhoods. There are multiple office spaces properties for sale or lease in the Downtown area along State Street, Governors Avenue and Reed Street. She listed some properties that are for sale in her written comments. Why would the City consider allowing office space in neighborhoods when there is alarming excess of empty buildings in areas zoned for such uses? Aren’t we trying to encourage re-development Downtown? Shouldn’t the City endeavor to keep prosperous, tight-knit neighborhoods, rather than chipping away at them with multiple Conditional Use approvals? Her seven (7) year old asked to come tonight which she thought was a very odd request from a little girl. She asked her daughter what she would like to say if she came. She said that she would say that she wanted families and kids in her neighborhood not businesses. So simple and so true. Please stop allowing office space where it doesn’t belong. Instead let’s focus on incentives to get businesses to locate Downtown where office space is plentiful and parcels are zoned for such uses. For these beautiful historic homes, let’s develop better incentives to encourage buyers to invest in improvements to restore them. Mr. Charles Salkin – 15 Maple Lane Dover DE 19901 Mr. Salkin stated that he lived at the property caddy corner to the rear of the subject parcel. Just a few general observations, first he appreciates the comments from his neighbor Ms. Arndt. He thinks she hit the nail on the head as to how they feel about this situation generically. He hopes that the Planning Commission will take a closer look at those concerns because she is right on target. Secondly, it’s not fair in his view to characterize neighbor’s reactions to this proposal to being perfectly fine. Surely he has a limited number of concerns and objections. He thinks the reason Ms. Arndt, he and others have concerns about this parcel is not all related specifically to the Kidner’s proposal. During the experience they had in dealing with 109 East Division Street, a very similar issue came before them. They believed that by working with the City and working with the owner of that subject parcel that they would resolve this issue for the future. That did not happen. He personally did not support the ordinance to bring this here tonight but at some point he realized that the neighbors and the owners of the property in the City felt that compromise was reasonable so he removed himself from those discussions. They were told at that time that properties would have to revert to residential use or would have to go through a new Conditional Use application if the property was sold and that is the only reason that he backed off of that discussion. The owner of 109 East Division Street was agreeable to that. We have since heard that the City Solicitor that this was not a restriction that the Planning Commission could put on a property. He thinks that is unfortunate but that’s a concern that he brings here tonight. It’s their understanding that the purpose of the ordinance was to deal with properties that were not able to be sold for residential use like the one at 109 East Division Street. It was marketed as a house on residential property for months and months, in fact years with no takers. This particular parcel was immediately advertised as a business opportunity. He thinks that’s very inappropriate. That’s not a feeling towards the Kidner’s, they are simply a customer. He hopes the Planning Commission will take a look at that issue as well. Properties that are in residential areas should 6

Page 28

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 remain residential. Generally, he thinks it’s a poor way of land use in the City. The Kidner’s are not the issue. They are people who have a very reasonable plan; they are good communicators. His main concerns about this parcel are the alley traffic. It’s a safety and noise issue and it has been for a long time. The idea that they would be adding traffic to that small alley is a major concern. It’s actually a pedestrian way for a lot of people at all hours of the day. He believes that the property driveway should either be closed with a gate or have a sign. Contrary to what Mr. McGinnis said he thinks a very sensitively designed sign would be appropriate there. He also encourages them to take a closer look at the existing driveway to confirm that it in fact complies with ADA. Just because it is paved and works for cars does not mean that it doesn’t need to be upgraded. He trusts that there will be some provision that will guarantee that the interior use of the property cannot be done in such a way that it would preclude future residential uses. Mr. Joe Hutter – 48 Delaware Avenue Dover DE 19901 Mr. Hutter stated that he is located on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Delaware Avenue. There are a couple new faces from when they were here with Mr. Ruggerio for 109 East Division Street. To back up what Mr. Salkin said about them being led to believe that certain restrictions were going to occur, he did not know until this week when he demanded an answer about why the residents were not told that the Conditional Use was not going to be able to be enforced. He does not know why because the City has their names and addresses and he thinks that’s wrong. As far as the Kidner’s go with this application, he doesn’t want to repeat anything that has already been said but he still believes in his heart that they should not have businesses in their neighborhood. If there is anything that he has noticed during his fifty-two (52) years here on earth is once you give the government something, it goes and goes and never stops. What if that property turns into a store? They can say all they want that it’s not going to happen but it’s never going to stop. That’s his biggest concern. He does not care for the way that everything went down with 109 East Division Street although Mr. Ruggerio is a fantastic neighbor. He is good to us and they are good to him. Mr. McGinnis said that they are lobbyists and they are not going to have visitors but then said that they are not going to put a sign up because they are going to tell the visitors where to park. It contradicts right there and that does say that they are going to have visitors at this location; it’s plain and simple. He feels bad for Mr. Coombe because he is a very nice gentleman. But to mislead that all the neighbors are good with the application, they are not. He is not within the two hundred (200) feet and he understands that; however; he is in the next block and the traffic around there is a lot especially when it comes to the school. Those kids are the most important. The City won’t even salt those streets when it’s a sheet of ice. Somebody is going to fall and hurt themselves so that needs to be addressed. The children’s safety is the most important thing when they are being dropped off and picked up from school. They do not need any more action or whatever in that neighborhood. They bought into the place knowing that there was a school. They knew that there was going to be action at least twice a day. But now more and more is getting a little ridiculous. Mrs. Townshend stated the issue is that after the Planning Commission hearing on the Ruggerio property, the question came up of whether it is a legal condition to tie a Conditional Use to ownership of the property because a Conditional Use relates to the use. If a new owner purchases the property and still meets all of those conditions, the question they asked was is it legal to tie it to the ownership? They were told by the Deputy City Solicitor that no, it is not legal to tie it to the ownership. Given that the Conditional Use was approved that their role was to notify the applicant and to notify the Commission but that was the limit of notification. At that point the decision could not be changed; the decision had already been made. 7

Page 29

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Cregar stated that he realizes that they can’t tie it to ownership but can it be tied to that individual particular office use? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, for example if they wanted to tie it to an office for government relations or lobbying it could be tied specifically to that. If they sold it to another lobbying firm they could still operate. It could be tied to the number of employees, the hours of operation, landscaping or signage but it can’t be tied to the ownership. Mr. Cregar further questioned if they could specify that it be a governmental relations office at that particular property? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mrs. Kidner stated that she is an attorney and has practiced for about twenty-two (22) years. Her primary practice is lobbying but she also has law clients. One is Kent County, they do not come to her office very often but she thinks the point that Mr. McGinnis is trying to make is that she doesn’t have a general practice where there’s this constant influx of domestic clients and criminal clients or people in and out all day long. For the most part, her clients are governmental entities or corporations. Once in a while she is going to have somebody come into town but it’s not daily in and out. The traffic is more like a residence than it would be an office. In fact, they might generate less traffic than she would from her residence running her three (3) children in and out. That was the point that was being made. She is going to be practicing law there and even though her practice is primarily government relations, for her limit it to a government relations office would be unfair. She would have to lose some of her clients. Mr. Tolbert questioned if it was a lobbyist office and a law office? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Kidner stated that her husband is a lobbyist not a lawyer. In the State of Delaware, you can be a lawyer and a lobbyist. You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a lobbyist. Mr. Tolbert stated that he understands. But will there be two (2) services provided from that property? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Kidner stated yes. Mr. Tolbert questioned if she would be taking clients other than local governments? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Kidner stated yes. The point is that the type of clients that she represents, like Kent County, are not clients that are in and out creating constant traffic. They are going to be good neighbors and are not going to generate a lot of traffic and they are going to restore the home. Their plan is to renovate it; it is really not livable right now. It’s been vacant for quite some type and someone talked about it being a beautiful old home. It’s not really a beautiful old home right now; it will be if they are permitted to renovate it and they look forward to calling it their office home. Mr. Cregar stated that it was stated that this property just came on the market. His understanding was that the property has been on the market although there may not have been a sign in front this property for over a year. Is that correct? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. McGinnis stated that this property has been on the market for about three (3) years. It was by word of mouth. Mr. Coombe didn’t want to actually list it. They have shown many different people through the property. They have shown some potential residential people through it and at the same time they are trying to 8

Page 30

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 preserve what’s left of Mr. Coombe’s wealth. There is a valuable consideration at plate but yes, it’s been on the market for about three (3) years. Mr. Holt stated if it’s been on the market for that long, the chances of it ever becoming another residential property is slim. It needs a lot of work inside and they couldn’t find anybody willing to do that. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. McGinnis stated yes, the cost of the renovations is upwards of $100,000. That’s the fact of the matter. The very first thing that has to happen is that the roof has to come off to the rafters. There’s a consideration here of who’s going to make that investment. Mr. Cregar asked for Mrs. Townshend to remind them of why they established this Conditional Use and what they were talking about in the preservation of some of these homes. Mrs. Townshend stated that it started with Mr. Ruggerio coming in with an application to re-zone his property to RGO (Residential and General Office Zone) which permitted office use. Through that public hearing it was determined that it permitted a laundry list of uses other than the professional offices and the single family residences that some residents were clearly uncomfortable with. From that we worked with Mr. Ruggerio, his legal counsel and residents to come up with a way for it to work. In discussing this with the Planning Commission and Council was that some of these older homes are vacant, are very costly to maintain, and very costly to renovate especially after they have been vacant. By allowing them to be used in limited way as professional offices could allow them to be rehabilitated in a way that typically businesses have somewhat deeper pockets than residents. That was kind of where the discussion went. When the Ordinance was approved, initially it was written to also apply to State Street. Due to some of the concerns that came forth from residents on State Street, State Street was removed and it’s only Route 8 and Governors Avenue. Mr. Holden stated that he believed he remembers some Conditional Use conditions that related to an annual review or a set timeline for review. He asked for a refresher on some of those conditions. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that this was one of the recommended conditions of this application and Mr. Ruggerio’s application. After the period of a year, the Planning Commission would review the application after it’s been operational, provide a public hearing so that if there are issues it could be addressed at that time. They have done this in other cases. In some cases after that one year review they have determined that there have been problems and have had to address them as necessary. That is something that Article 10 Section 1 does allow is periodic re-visiting. They have had some where they have re-visited them multiple times; where it will come back after a year and then come back again if it was somewhat marginal. As a condition, the Commission is able to re-visit the application as long as they set that condition as they see fit. Mr. Holden questioned if there have been Conditional Use approvals that have been rescinded at those reviews? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated not necessarily at those reviews. There have been instances where Conditional Uses are not abiding by their conditions and there is a process set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for revocation of a Conditional Use. It would be initiated by Staff, brought to the Planning Commission and provided an opportunity for a public hearing where both the holder of the Conditional Use and the public have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Cregar questioned if the applicant understands that part of this recommendation said that in one (1) year they would come back to review this and are they okay with that? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. Kidner stated yes. 9

Page 31

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Ms. Still asked for clarification of what happened with the Ruggerio property as far as the Conditional Use and the Deputy Solicitor saying that was not able to be tied to the owner. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Conditional Use could not be tied to the ownership. Ms. Still stated that it’s not tied to the owner anymore but the Conditional Use property for that is still in place for the operation of the facility? Responding to Ms. Still, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Ambruso moved to approve C-15-01 Professional Office at 15 Kings Highway NE which would permit legal and government relations offices with the conditions specified in the DAC Report, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion carried by roll call vote 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Colonel Welsh absent. Mr. Baldwin voting yes, for the reasons Mr. Ambruso stated. Ms. Still voting yes, the motion complies with the Conditional Use of the facility and understanding that there will be a review at a year’s timeframe. Mr. Ambruso voting yes, he doesn’t want to see another one of these properties fall victim to becoming another vacant house. Mr. Holden voting yes, for reasons mentioned previously and also he understands the near residents’ concerns and desire for family. He also thinks it’s a benefit to have the property taken care of as opposed to being abandoned for years at a time. Mr. Cregar voting yes, for all of the reasons previously stated and also he believes that the character of this business can be maintained in this neighborhood and they can be good neighbors and function together. One of the hardest things that the Planning Staff, City Council and Planning Commission have to do is trying to blend these neighborhoods. This is not easy stuff anymore. They are trying to maintain their neighborhoods but also make sure that these properties are maintained and that these things can co-exist together and that they can have vibrant neighborhoods. Mr. Holt voting yes, for the reasons stated by everyone and also he grew up with the Barros family in Dover they were good friends of his and he hates to see old houses like this fall into disrepair He thinks this is a saving grace for that property and it is going to be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Tolbert voting yes, not in disrespect for the comments they have heard to the contrary but they all know that when properties fall into disrepair and stay that way for a length of time do more to destroy a neighborhood than anything. It’s an old building in the Historic District. It’s a beautiful building and it’s going to be restored without changing the general appearance or altering its place in the neighborhood. 2) C-15-02 Walk in the Light Church at 149 South Governors Avenue – Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Plan Application to permit a place of public assembly (place of worship) in an existing commercial structure on a 3,795 S.F. ± parcel. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the east side of Governors Avenue between West Loockerman Street and Minor Street. The owner of record is D & S Investment Co., LLP. Property Address: 149 South Governors Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-03.00-000. Council District 2. Representatives: Mr. Emmanuel Davis, Pastor of Walk of Light Ministries Mrs. Harvey stated that the Conditional Use Plan Review is to permit a church within an existing vacant tenant space located at 149 South Governors Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located between West Loockerman Street and Minor Street. The tenant space was most recently utilized as a retail establishment and the applicant has submitted a proposal for the use of space as a church that would be a change of use. A church is classified as a place of public assembly as defined by the Zoning 10

Page 32

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Ordinance. The project does not propose any building additions or changes to impervious surface coverage; therefore, it does not require approval of a Site Development Plan by Planning Commission. The church will occupy the existing vacant tenant space and the second tenant space within the building is being utilized as a service establishment. The application submission consists of a building floor plan that has been included in the packet. The allowable occupancy load will be established per the Building Code and fire regulations. The C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) zoning district does not have an off-street parking requirement. The use as a place of public assembly is typically subject to a parking requirement based on floor area or seat count; however, in this case it meets the exception of Article 6 Section 3.1A2 making the use subject to the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) parking requirements rather than the Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 Section 3.1 requirements for parking for specific uses. Staff notes that there is on-street parking available in the area and several municipal parking lots located within the immediate area. Pastor Davis stated that he would be the Pastor of the church, Walk of Light Ministries. He is a minister and has been a minister a few times before. He was in the military so he has been a minister in a few places. He is a Delawarean and he and his wife are going to start a ministry in the Dover area. The church will be an asset to the community. The parking won’t be a conflict because the church would meet during non-business hours in the evenings and on the weekends. They will also be a referral to charity; they are not set-up to where they can do charitable activities but they are going to share their ministries and gospel with the community. They are also not by themselves; they also have a church that they fellowship within Laurel, DE. He and his wife also work full time so there won’t be any employees in the building during the day. The Fire Marshal’s Office has already given them a seating capacity of eighty (80). There is a parking lot adjacent to them for parking. They will be a blessing and an asset to the Dover community, with their military background. Not only will it be spiritual presentation of a church it’s a storefront and will also look professional at all times. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the applicant was in agreement with the overview? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Pastor Davis stated yes, they are in compliance. Mr. Holt questioned if their church hours would primarily be on Sunday? Responding to Mr. Holt, Pastor Davis stated yes, Sunday evenings. Mr. Holt further questioned if there was going to be any other hours? Responding to Mr. Holt, Pastor Davis stated that there’s going to be Sunday school on Sunday morning at 9:45 AM, a regular morning worship will be held at 11:00 AM and then there is a scheduled time for prayer and then periodically they will have unscheduled services maybe on Sunday afternoon at 4:00 PM or Friday evenings at 7:00 PM. That will probably be when they have guest churches come in and fellowship. The use is strictly church services or church meetings. Mr. Holt questioned how large their congregation is? Responding to Mr. Holt, Pastor Davis stated that right now they just have a couple of members. They do a house service right now. One of their members is from extended mileage. They believe that once they open the doors, people will see the love, see the teaching, see the mission and they will come. 11

Page 33

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Mr. Holt further questioned if they had a church bus? Responding to Mr. Holt, Pastor Davis stated no, they don’t have any general transportation for the church right now. They are just getting it off the ground. Mr. Cregar questioned what a shunt trip switch was? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that a shunt trip switch is a mechanism that if the fire alarm goes off that any amplified music or amplification system would also shut off so that the fire alarm is not drowned out by the sound. Mr. Holden questioned if there were first permitted uses that would potentially be impinged if the Conditional Use was approved? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend that it would depend on what he means by “being impinged.” The principal permitted uses that don’t go through the Conditional Use process are typically retail, restaurant or office type uses that have more regular traffic. She doesn’t think that this displaces any of those uses but it does require Conditional Use because part of the purpose of the Downtown zone is to really create that foot traffic and create an atmosphere where people are coming down and walking around and going from one shop to another. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Cameron Llewelyn – Mr. Llewelyn happened to be the person bestowed as the Chairperson or Co-Chairperson of the Downtown Dover Merchant’s Association; it’s part of the Downtown Dover Partnership. There are people here with him tonight. They meet once a month to talk about the things that they can do to help Downtown Dover grow. There have been many people before us that have done a lot of work and some of those people have grown very weary. There are some people in the back of this room that have come as a second wave and have relieved some of those prior people. They want to thank those that have gotten them to where they are today. There’s one housekeeping issue. He would like everybody in the room to understand that there’s no such thing as a vacant property in Downtown Dover; there are only available storefronts. When using the term “vacant” it sounds very negative. He just wants to make sure that as a community we embrace that. There are a lot of people active in the DDP and their vision is to create a vibrant Downtown with storefronts that are not just open from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM but from 7:00 AM to grab a cup of coffee to 9:00 PM to grab a nightcap after having dinner. With Governor Markell’s bill that was passed, this is a huge thank you to Mrs. Townshend for the tireless work that she put in there. The vision for Downtown Dover is active, open storefronts. There’s synergy now among merchants that allows them to feed off of each other and share clients so they have a lot of good growth. This project just so happens to be in what they like to call the “gateway to the west.” Not a whole lot seems to feed back and forth from that intersection where the pharmacy is located. There’s a gal in the room tonight that just purchased the property at 150 South Governors Avenue and she is going to open a vintage clothing store. That really helps us take the activity they already have on the first block of Loockerman Street and start to move it further west. There’s a four point plan that the Main Street America Program has put together and nowhere in that does it say that they want to bring a bunch of churches Downtown. The reason for this is that a church that is only there for a few hours in the evening and on Sundays does not meet that four point plan to create an active, vibrant Downtown. They are here tonight with a group of concerns. There is a potential for somebody that wants to open a white tablecloth restaurant there on the corner. Negotiations are 12

Page 34

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 happening but if a church were there they would be able to say no to granting a liquor license to someone who wants to sell a $35 aged prime rib but you can’t have a glass of red wine with it. That’s an issue for them as a community. With the news that they got on January 11, 2015, they think that the owner of that property should basically look at turning it into a retail storefront not something that is only open a few hours a week. Ms. Theresa Owens – 150 S Governors Avenue Dover DE 19904 Ms. Owens stated that she was the recent renter of 149 South Governors Avenue. She signed a lease for two (2) years and broke her lease after a year and a half because she purchased 150 South Governors Avenue. She is the lady that Mr. Llewelyn is speaking of that’s opening a retail store across the street. 152 South Governors Avenue is a church which obviously they were there before she came so she had no say in that. She thinks it’s fabulous that there’s anybody who wants to be a small business; however, the biggest issue is during the day time. She has been there for a year and a half; she has seen computer places, retail places, antique places, a bakery and now a tattoo shop. They are growing in their little area and now she is there. To her it’s very important where retail people are because those walker-byers (which every single day she recorded how many people walked by her store) is what made her want to come down to Downtown Dover. Instead to build up with the rest of the restaurants and the retail area because she cares. She wants to have more business and more money so she wants retail business to open up at the same times that she is open. The only big issue that she has is being across the street is being next to a church already that’s closed during the day. Now directly across the street will be another fail for me because no one is going to want to come shop at her store if there’s nothing else to shop at. Mr. Ryan Weber – The Golden Fleece 132 West Loockerman Street Dover DE 19904 Ms. Weber stated that he has a problem with this Conditional Use. They are the business owners; they are the ones who lay their heads down. They think of how to better their business, how to get more customers Downtown or how they will pay for the kids to go to college. Nothing against the church but a church can go two (2) blocks in any direction that a business slot can’t. There are lots of churches Downtown within a four (4) block area. If you have ever been on vacation and gone to a small town no matter what country, city or state you are not seeing storefront churches, office buildings or lawyer’s offices. You are seeing retail. Retail feeds retail hence why malls and other places spend billions of dollars a year on marketing to try figuring out customers. There is no church, office or lawyer in a mall. We need to stick to retail. He knows he was here last time when this was done for the Loockerman Exchange building and this is getting on a dangerous slope for him as a property owner of three (3) properties. He hopes that everyone here understands that the voices that are speaking today are the property and business owners; they are the ones that lay their heads down. Mrs. Jennifer Mabus – Bayard Pharmacy 200 West Loockerman Street Dover DE 19904 Mrs. Mabus stated that she and her husband opened Bayard Pharmacy about two (2) years ago so their business is within the two hundred (200) feet. Now that the grant was awarded to Downtown Dover they have more potential than ever to really revitalize and pull businesses Downtown into the storefronts which would be retail or dining. They have all worked so hard since the parking debacle that happened last year. They have become this huge family and have so many hopes and dreams for Downtown. Again, now that this grant has happened they feel more positive than ever that they can get the image that they want and that’s a destination place that people will drive up from 13

Page 35

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Milford, DE to come hang out Downtown. She doesn’t think that a church in a storefront would help that. Mrs. Lauren Tinsley – A Center for Mental Wellness 121 West Loockerman Street Dover DE 19904 Mrs. Tinsley stated that she is the Co-Chair of the Downtown Dover Merchant’s Committee along with Mr. Llewelyn and agrees with everything that everyone else has said. While a lot of the people here are business owners, she and her sister who owns Bel Boutique have been very fitted and passionate about staying in Downtown Dover along with their father who actually purchased the buildings they own and also spent a lot of money and effort in to doing what the rest of us are hoping continues to happen Downtown which is really invested in renovating these buildings and bringing them back up to Code. They get comments all the time about how great their buildings are and they keep encouraging other people to do the same thing. One thing that she knows is happening is her sister is trying to take advantage of the program through Governor Markell and at the same time she has scheduled a meeting with Mrs. Townshend. There are a lot of business owners who are currently located Downtown who are committed to staying down there. There are a lot of things she is worried about is while she is waiting for her meeting with Mrs. Townshend. She is searching through the properties that are available in Downtown Dover to see what’s a good fit for the expansion that they want to do because she doesn’t want to go outside of Downtown Dover. She is very committed to being down here. Some of the different options that are available because this is such prime location for different types of retail establishments or different types of businesses that some of them own while they are targeting bringing different stores from Milford, DE or different places to expand. She is just getting concerned that little by little they might now have those spaces to offer at these prime locations that other people would love to try applying for this incentive money while they have this year to really take advantage and try to recruit people in. It has only been a week or two since it’s been announced so they have a lot of recruiting to do but they are trying to entice people to come who really want to renovate and want to do a lot to improve Downtown Dover so that they can bring in more businesses. Mr. Randy Jones – unknown address Mr. Jones stated that he is not just from Sussex County or Kent County, he is an American. In listening to what everybody is saying concerning a church and everybody is entitled to their own opinion but he does believe if Walk in the Light Ministries comes to that area they will bring the blessings of God. The blessings of God will filtrate all the businesses that are there. You never know whenever the Davis’ or an outing, somebody might patronize the people’s businesses that are already there. Mrs. Diana Welch – The Golden Fleece 132 West Loockerman Street Dover DE 19904 Mrs. Welch stated that she owns the Golden Fleece Tavern. She really has no particular problem with a church or a store. It’s just how does it on an ethical or a moral level make sense? Also, why will the tenant at this location need a shunt trip switch? Responding to Mrs. Welch, Pastor Davis stated that the Fire Marshal is requiring a shunt trip switch in case they are having services and there’s a fire alarm so people could hear the fire alarm. Mrs. Welch questioned how loud they were going to be? Responding to Mrs. Welch, Pastor Davis stated that right now they don’t have instruments but they plan on having instruments. 14

Page 36

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Mrs. Welch stated that they have the farmer’s market going on now that filters people around. What will happen is those people that have places to go like Bell, Book & Candle, Bel Boutique and all the little shops, then they round the corner and there’s just a empty store and that’s a problem. She thinks that it’s already been mentioned that malls don’t have churches for a reason; it’s a commercial center. She is a licensed real estate agent and she would be glad to help them find a location that would be ideal for them. But it’s not about the church or not wanting somebody there it’s about what they do want at that location which is another open six (6) days a week retail business that feeds other businesses. That won’t happen on Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings. It will be empty five (5) days a week. They have many retail places that would love to go in that spot. She has been asked herself several times. If it doesn’t get rented by a church it will not remain unoccupied or unavailable. Mr. Theo Morgan – Computers Fixed Today 131 West Loockerman Street Dover DE 19904 Mr. Morgan stated that he owns Computer Fixed Today located at 131 W Loockerman Street. The reason he is here tonight is to hear what everyone has to say. He does have some highly technical operations and he kind of wanted to get an idea because the church that’s currently there across the street, on Wednesday evenings you can hear them at his location. He would like to know whether or not they would be having services during the week. His business hours are from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. As far as he is concerned, he needs the peace and quiet to really concentrate on what he is doing in there because there is a lot at stake. He wants to make sure that whatever is going on in the church is not going to interrupt what he has going on at his business. Pastor Davis questioned if he has said 7:00 PM? Responding to Mr. Davis, Mr. Morgan stated yes. Pastor Davis stated that the only thing that they have during the week at 7:00 PM is Wednesday night prayer and Bible study. There would be no instrument or acapella singing; it’s strictly going to be prayer and bible study. Mr. Morgan stated secondly, since there is a Conditional Use permit on the floor that does have a parking consideration. He would like to see if Council would be open to designating some additional parking in order to accommodate them regardless if there are fifty-five (55) spaces that are available for use when businesses are not in prime time. As this gentleman continues to grow if this Conditional Use is approved, he can absolutely see no reason on this earth why that ministry wouldn’t have additional teachings during the prime time hours. There are tons of grants that are available to a non-profit organization such as the one that is being presented to the Committee. It’s inevitably going to create a parking consideration. He doesn’t know what the scope of the Condition Use is but what he can see happening because Pastor Davis is a very smart military minded man who knows how to get stuff done. He is going to grow his ministry and what he can also see happening is it’s also going to grow the considerations of the citizens that are currently there and they are already depleted. They only have a total of ten (10) two hour spots that are allocated to the businesses on the Loockerman, Governors and Minor Street area that can be available for any one of those seven (7) businesses at any given time. All of these business owners present tonight are doing pretty well. It’s just a consideration that really needs to be put into focus. Mr. Michael Schott – unknown address Mr. Schott stated that he has been a customer Downtown for going on thirty (30) years. Parking has always been fun Downtown. He says that he is going to be open at 7:00 PM on Friday’s and 15

Page 37

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Sunday’s during the day. There are businesses that are open and he frequents one right around the corner that’s open until midnight on Friday’s. They have twenty to thirty (20-30) people there. They have ten to fifteen (10-15) who show up on Sunday’s from 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM or noon to 7:00 PM. Plus there is also The Golden Fleece and Irish Mike’s that are open at 4:00 PM on Sunday’s and they are open on Friday nights. Parking is going to be an issue. His other concern is having an empty storefront. They are working hard to get them done. Going around the corner to the bakery, the tattoo parlor or dress shops across the street with friends, he doesn’t want to see people not going around the corner because they are having music and stuff on a Friday night and they don’t want to deal with it. It’s just a lot of minor stuff but it makes a difference because it’s all about retail and growing Downtown into a place where everybody wants to come. Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a very conscious discussion made by the City. There has been plenty of deliberation on this over the years but there was a very conscious decision made to not require parking for Downtown businesses especially in existing buildings where there’s nowhere on the site to provide parking. Parking long term is an issue but they have talked a lot about parking over the last year and she would say that if you go to the parking lots now, they are very rarely full. She thinks the parking crisis is more something to come when they get a few more vibrant businesses. The time frames that they have has zero complaints on parking; this has been evenings and weekends when you have not only the lots that are permit lots during the week but you also have the State complex, the Library, the City parking lot that are all empty. Again, there was a very deliberate decision made in drafting the Zoning Ordinance in recent months to not require parking Downtown. As a matter of fact, there was previously parking required for new construction and even that was taken out. They need to deal with the parking issue, no doubt, but that has been tasked to the Parking Committee of the Downtown Dover Partnership to deal with not only the parking permits and the metered parking for the current day but to plan for how we get to the next level. There is a lot of work to been done but they have specifically not tied it to any specific application, especially occupying an existing space. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt questioned how long has 149 South Governors Avenue been empty? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that Ms. Owens who just purchased the building across the street had an active business in there until this past fall. Ms. Owens stated that she broke her lease at one year and five months because she purchased the building directly across the street. During the thirty (30) day process of breaking her lease, she let people come in to check out the building because she was excited to have other people come into Dover. There were plenty of interested people but she is not the landlord so that had nothing to do with her but she helped out the Downtown Dover Partnership, It was a very popular and it was retail ready. It’s a beautiful place. There is nothing that needs to be done. It had everything from the bathroom to the central air to the floor to painting. Someone could open up shop tomorrow. Mr. Holt further questioned if it stays as it is now, is there a good likelihood it would find a tenant? Responding to Mr. Holt, Ms. Owens stated yes, 100%. It’s not only a great price but it’s a great spot. She searched for eight (8) months and when she found it she signed immediately. She only had to do minor things to it and she left it pristine when she left because she wanted to make sure that there was no issues for her but also for the next person who came in. It was retail ready and they 16

Page 38

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 wouldn’t have to tear down anything that she had put up. She doesn’t have a doubt that there will be plenty of people interested. Mr. Cregar questioned if they open a church at this location, what is the law if someone wants to open a restaurant? How close can they be? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City’s Ordinance does not address it. Mrs. Welch stated that it’s not a City Ordinance, it’s a State law. Anytime that you open up a new bar or restaurant, anything that serves alcohol or anything that changes how you serve alcohol. For example when she opened a patio, she changed how she was serving alcohol and everything needed to be re-applied for. In her particular case, she had to send letters out to people located within a two hundred fifty (250) feet space. At any given time if somebody that didn’t like that she was adding a patio on and going to serve alcohol in a different way they could have shut her down. For an existing business that’s a problem. For a new business that could be a problem too. The lady across the street that owns the Governors/Loockerman space has indicated that she wants to do a jazz club in there. She will have to apply for a liquor license and the churches will have an impact on her ability to do business if they didn’t like her serving alcohol. Mrs. Townshend stated that there wasn’t anything explicit in the State statute or regulation it’s more the notification and the opportunity for them to object. Pastor Davis stated that not only a church but anybody could impact a business’s ability to serve alcohol. Responding to Pastor Davis, Mrs. Welch stated that is true but they worry more about churches. Pastor Davis stated that one thing about this ministry is that they are not trying to change anybody or change what they do. This is with respect to the property owners but also don’t forget that Downtown Dover has a lot of foot transportation. There are a lot of people who walk to where they are going. He comes to work in Dover and sees people walking all the way to the bus stop just to catch a bus somewhere. Not only that, he sees harmony where they could be harmony and even better harmony where they could also accommodate people who say they can’t walk to certain churches but they can walk to Pastor Davis’ church. They are not trying to make people do anything different. Mr. Holt stated that he gets the feeling that since Dover has this new grant and they are trying hard to bring Downtown back that they need to maybe give Dover a chance with this particular property as a retail outlet. Mr. Holden stated that he applauds what Pastor Davis is trying to do and his efforts. He does share Mr. Holt’s feeling. With a lot of the residents and businesses Downtown, he thinks that area has maybe not thrived recently but has survived well. He thinks the recent improvements that have happened Downtown due to a lot of the businesses. The grant opportunities and Governor Markell’s efforts here recently improved those and he thinks that they really need to give first permitted uses a chance to thrive. He also hopes that his efforts and ministry finds a good place and thrives but he leans towards that this isn’t the appropriate use for the property. 17

Page 39

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Mr. Tolbert stated that he has heard what has been stated regarding this application and he has heard a lot of comments about how it will impede business. What comes to his mind is that a church brings in people who will frequent and do business at these local businesses; they will bring in customers. That’s the potential that a church may have. Seeing it as a hindrance depends on how you market your retail business to a great extent; as to whether you will attract these potentially new customers that will be coming in. You can put your marketing hats on and attract these new potential customers to your business. Mr. Holden moved to deny C-15-02 Walk in the Light Church at 149 South Governors Avenue, seconded by Mr. Cregar and the motion to deny was approved by roll call vote 6-1 with Dr. Jones and Colonel Welsh absent. (Thus the conditional use of a place of assembly cannot be established.) Mr. Holt voting yes, to give Downtown Dover new businesses a chance to see if this Downtown Dover will succeed in their efforts that they have put into it so far and to leave this store as a retail outlet. Mr. Cregar voting yes, this is very difficult because he has lived Downtown for twenty-five (25) years. He has been a part of this community for sixty-three (63) years. He definitely supports what the applicant wants to do but he has seen Dover in different configurations and different evolutions and he does believe that we have a group of business people that are truly striving to bring back retail to this area which is very important and to try to come up with an appropriate mix in the Downtown area is a challenge. He believes that with the new opportunity with the grant, with this Downtown group that is thriving and is trying to do retail, he thinks they need to give it that opportunity. Mr. Holden voting yes, for all the reasons stated. He thinks they need to give Downtown Dover every opportunity to thrive and there may be a point in time where other Conditional Use plans may be more viable but he thinks that they need to keep all of those options open for Downtown Dover. Mr. Ambruso voting yes, for all reasons previously stated. Ms. Still voting yes, based on all previous comments. Mr. Baldwin voting yes, this is a very difficult decision because they all realize that everybody needs some kind of divine guidance but yet you have to look at the fact that this is a business community and they have to give every effort to fill that space with a business that will be productive. Mr. Tolbert voting no, for the reasons he previously stated. He sees the church as an entity that will bring a number of people into the area and those people are potential customers. The retail businesses in Dover need all of the customers they can get from anywhere they can get them. The church is just one entity that will bring in people and these people just walking through will see the other businesses. In his view they will come in and do business so he doesn’t see it as a distraction or a hindrance; he sees it as a plus. NEW BUSINESS 1) S-15-01 Lands at 598 North DuPont Highway: Waiver Request – Review and Consideration of a Waiver Request for the Elimination of Upright Curbing as associated with the Administrative Site Plan for the site improvements to include 683 SF ± of new impervious surface for parking. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and it is adjacent to Silver Lake. The site is located on the west side of DuPont Highway south of Lepore Road. Property Owner: Faithwork, LLC. Property Address: 598 North DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED05-068.09-01-18.00-000. Council District 3. Mrs. Townshend stated that this is a curbing waiver request that is for something that is an Administrative Site Plan and unfortunately for items that are Administrative Site Plans the Zoning Ordinance does not give Staff the authority to issue a curbing waiver. It still needs to be done by the 18

Page 40

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 2015 Planning Commission. What they are looking at is the conversion of a residential property to a real estate office at 598 North DuPont Highway. The use is permitted. The improvements are minor so it’s all able to be handled administratively; however, there’s a current driveway and current parking configuration and the Zoning Ordinance requires the six (6) inch upright curbing surrounding all parking areas. They will be adding a slight bit of asphalt. So since they will not be looking to install upright curbing it does require a waiver from the Planning Commission. There is a memo in the packet and in addition there is a letter from the Realtor who will be overseeing the office. Mr. Cregar moved to approve S-15-01 Lands at 598 North DuPont Highway to eliminate the upright curbing requirement, seconded by Ms. Still and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Colonel Welsh absent. 2) S-14-01 NBR Properties at 850 New Burton Road: Plan Revision – Information on Revision of the Site Development Plan approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 2014 for the construction of a 20,000 S.F. office building with the associated site improvements on a 1.671 acre parcel. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The property is located southwest of the intersection of New Burton Road/Queen Street and West Street. The owner of record is NBR Properties, LLC. Property Address: 850 New Burton Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.00-01-23.00- 000. Council District 2. Final Site Plan approval was granted on November 24, 2014 and construction has commenced under Building Permit #14-1435. Mrs. Townshend stated that this item does not require any action by the Planning Commission. It is an informational item. When the Site Development Plan S-14-01 at 850 New Burton Road came to the Planning Commission the Site Plan included a drive aisle between the building and New Burton Road. At the time that was designed it was because they were working with a medical office that would have required that additional fire lane coverage and since that point in time they are now working with non-medical clients to lease the building. They eliminated that drive aisle which converts that area that would be asphalt to landscaping. Staff approved it administratively but since it was something different than the Commission saw, they thought they should bring it back to the Commission to make them aware of it. Mr. Cregar questioned if it changed the Landscape Plan? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated no, not at all. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 19

Page 41

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION QUARTERLY WORKSHOP February 18, 2015 The Regular Quarterly Workshop Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:00 noon with Chairman Colonel Welsh presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Mr. Cregar, Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Colonel Welsh. Ms. Still and Mr. Ambruso were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Harvey, Mr. Cook and Mrs. Mullaney. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND CONCERNS Colonel Welsh stated that there doesn’t seem to have many applications; things are really drying up. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that has Mr. Koenig very worried because all of these things affect our budget. Mr. Tolbert stated that he has gotten complaints that Greyhound Bus is using 7-Eleven as a bus stop. Are they allowed to do that? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, they are not violating any codes. The City has received complaints too. Dr. Jones questioned where the 7-Eleven was located? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated it was on Lepore Road right by The Overlook across from the Kirby & Holloway Restaurant. Mr. Holt stated that he has read an article regarding this matter. It went on to say that the people liked that they could go into 7-Eleven to get things to eat or use the bathroom. Mrs. Townshend stated that they were previously at the cab place across from the hospital which was really awful. Mr. Cregar stated that he was surprised that the Department of Transportation didn’t have concerns about that location. Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that the bus company contacted Mr. Bill Neaton and we told them that they needed to contact DelDOT’s Central District Office and we never heard anything. She doesn’t know if they contacted DelDOT or not. Colonel Welsh stated that as Planning Commissioners there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it. It’s not a conditional use. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that the use is permitted and they didn’t make any alterations to the site to accommodate it. Mr. Cregar questioned if they were licensed? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that she was pretty sure but we will check. Mr. Tolbert stated that if he received a call about it again he would advise them to call DelDOT. Mrs. Townshend stated that she had a Councilperson suggesting that we shouldn’t allow it in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) but that’s our most intense commercial zone. Mr. Cregar stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the zoning part of it but he has a problem

Page 42

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 with the in and out and the unloading, the parking and other stuff. Mr. Tolbert stated that the buses are in the parking lot for twenty to twenty-five (20-25) minutes loading and unloading. Colonel Welsh questioned if people were parking their cars there long term? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Tolbert stated that no one had complained about that to him yet. He doesn’t think so. He would think that 7-Eleven would have a problem with that. Colonel Welsh stated unless 7-Eleven is charging them for parking. Dr. Jones stated that it was a small area there. Mrs. Townshend stated that they could find out what the bus schedule is and have the Fire Marshal’s go out to make sure that they are not blocking access and those types of things. Mr. Holt stated that he was having a hard time finding out if the regular Planning Commission meeting was going to be held last night. He had to call two or three times. He suggests maybe sending an email out to everybody. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that she didn’t have phone numbers with her; she wanted to call but didn’t have access to phone numbers. Colonel Welsh stated that the announcement was on the City’s website. Mr. Tolbert stated that they didn’t announce it on the radio. They announced that the State offices were closed but never said anything about the City offices. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Colonel Welsh stated that he saw where the State offices were closed but nothing about the City either. Mr. Baldwin stated that he is so tired of sitting on Loockerman Street while people are trying to make a left turn. Can’t a sign be put up saying something about no left hand turns during certain hours? Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Townshend stated that has come up and DelDOT studied it. The thing is that they can’t prohibit lefts along the whole corridor. So they looked at what happens if you don’t allow lefts onto Governors Avenue and the problem is that it creates a backup somewhere else. They said that they would have to allow lefts somewhere. Mr. Holden stated that they need a clockwise loop somewhere. Colonel Welsh stated that one of the lights has a red light camera also. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Holden stated that he got something in the mail from North Street and Governors Avenue; going south of Governors Avenue. Mr. Baldwin stated that it’s always worse during the lunch hour. Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Tolbert stated that you could always stay off of Loockerman Street. Mrs. Townshend stated that’s what she does if she knows that she needs to go left she doesn’t use Loockerman Street. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS UPDATE 2

Page 43

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Summary of 2014 Applications and 2015 Applications Mrs. Townshend stated that the application summary shows the first quarter for 2015 being about where they were for the first quarter of 2014. There are 18 total applications but if you look at Site Plans, this time last year they had seven (7) Site Plans and now there are two (2). We are having applications they are just not Site Plans, which is not a great thing. Mr. Cook questioned if they were doing more Administrative Site Plans now? Responding to Mr. Cook, Mrs. Townshend stated in terms of Site Plans, we don’t separate them out on this summary. In the first quarter of 2014 there were seven (7) total Site Plans and in the first quarter of 2015, even though they are only halfway through the quarter they have only has two (2) Site Plans. These numbers are as of February 2, 2015 so the number will go up some but they were hoping that their volumes would rebound a little more than they have. Colonel Welsh questioned if anything was happening with the vacant properties in Dover like the old Walmart store? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that it’s owned by the Onix Group. They had submitted an application for it to go to the Planning Commission several months ago to make it apartments but they pulled it back at the last minute. The project has been on hold ever since. Mr. Neaton has been in contact with someone from the Onix Group who said that they had signed leases for retail tenants. Their Site Plan is expired; not because it couldn’t be extended but because they never filed an extension. So they have to start over with a Site Plan and Mr. Neaton has told them that several times. She has not had contact with them. Colonel Welsh questioned who the Onix Group was? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that they are out of Kennett Square, PA or somewhere up in that area. She knows that the partnership included Mr. Connie Malmberg and did include Mr. Mike Zimmerman but she is not sure how large of partners they were. Mrs. Townshend stated that she has a meeting with somebody tomorrow about the K-Mart property. She has no idea who it is or what they are planning. Responding to Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Cook stated that it is with the current property owner but he doesn’t know what they are planning to do there. Mrs. Townshend stated that she also had a call from an engineering firm about that property as well. The old Metro will become Urban Furniture which should open sometime this month and Air Base Carpet Mart as well. Colonel Welsh questioned if Urban Furniture was a franchise? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Cook stated that he didn’t think so. Mrs. Townshend stated that you could see construction work at the old Dover Litho and Uno’s sites. Dr. Jones questioned what was happening at Dover Litho? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that they were all going to be mini strip malls with restaurants, a pool supply place, etc. 3

Page 44

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Dr. Jones questioned what the old Metro was going to be again? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would be Urban Furniture and Air Base Carpet. Dr. Jones further questioned if Air Base Carpet was moving? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, they are re-locating. Dr. Jones stated that she keeps waiting to hear that Cracker Barrel is going to come to them again. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Golden Corral was before the Board of Adjustment today to build something at the old Berry Van Lines site. Their variance was approved so they should be coming forward with an application at some point. Mr. Holt stated that the Berry Van Lines site has been vacant for a quite a while. Dr. Jones questioned if we used to have a Golden Corral in Dover? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, where the Greene Turtle is now. Mr. Tolbert questioned when the Golden Corral closed? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated maybe seven or eight (7 or 8) years ago. Mr. Tolbert stated that they should have never left. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that they were looking at the Berry Van Lines site. Mr. Holden questioned if it would front on the highway? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Mr. Holden stated that at one time there was going to be a whole complex back there. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they were still looking at doing something. The developer who has it under contract is working on a larger plan but Golden Corral wanted to move faster so they are probably going to come in on their own. Colonel Welsh questioned what happened to the Barnes & Noble that was going to be up by Delaware State University? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that she thinks that is never going to happen. She thinks bookstores are struggling. Dr. Jones questioned the status on Kirby & Holloway? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that their Site Plan is approved; their Building Permit application and building plans were submitted. Our Chief Building Inspector sent back some comments close to a month ago for their architect to address and he hasn’t gotten anything back from them yet. We are just waiting. Dr. Jones stated that the whole community was waiting too. Mr. Tolbert stated that an article in the newspaper some time ago said that they would be open around May 2015. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that if anything moves as quickly as it has so far then it won’t happen. There’s been long stretches where the City had submitted comments to the applicant and have been waiting to hear back for whatever reason. She doesn’t know if it’s dealing with insurance and the banks. 4

Page 45

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Mr. Tolbert questioned if anything was going to happen at the old Walmart location? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that according to what they have told Mr. Neaton, they have leases and will be coming back to the Planning Commission with another plan. Text Amendments Approved 2013-2014 Mrs. Townshend stated that in the packets there was a listing of ordinances that have been adopted. She doesn’t think that it’s changed since the last Quarterly Workshop. They did order new Zoning Ordinances and the company sent Zoning Ordinances for 2001 so they are in the process of trying to figure out why they took us back in time. Colonel Welsh questioned who they ordered the Zoning Ordinances from? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that they ordered from MuniCode. They just need to take them back and give us the right version. As soon as they have the problem fixed, they will send a copy to the Commissioners. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the company printed a lot of copies of the Ordinance? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that they ordered fifteen (15) so that everyone on the Planning Commission and Staff could have a copy. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if they printed all of the copies wrong? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Research Activities • Update on Research for Ordinance Amendments Mrs. Townshend stated that there are a few things that they are working on. There are some ordinance updates that are going to come forward as a result of the Restoring Central Dover Plan; some changes to the RG-1 (General Residence Zone). It’s going to take a little bit of time to get them together. Hopefully Staff can get them to the Planning Commission by summer. Some changes are going to have to be made to the RC (Recreational and Commercial Zone) because they are working with Dover International Speedway to annex the concert festival lands and they need to make sure that they address that as a permitted use but do it carefully. There are some concerns that the festival started as like a three (3) day event once a year. There have been discussions of Punkin Chunkin and now they have added a country music festival. There are issues such as what do they do about noise? She and Mr. Koenig have a meeting with DelDOT Traffic Management to talk about the whole issue of road closures because it’s one thing if you do it one weekend a year but it’s another thing when it becomes something more routine. The City is getting more and more complaints from residents who take access off of Persimmon Tree Lane. Colonel Welsh questioned if the City had received complaints about the noise? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that they received complaints this last year about noise because there was concerts or after parties going as late as 2:00pm. Staff wants to address those things in an Ordinance so she needs to get internally reviewed drafts, and then get it to the Speedway to look at. They were hoping to get the lands annexed before this year’s festivals. She is not sure they are going to make it. Colonel Welsh questioned if Dover Downs was supporting this annexation? Responding to 5

Page 46

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that they (the City) can’t annex it without them (Dover Downs) being supportive of it. Mr. Holden questioned if there had been any movement on discussions on dedicated access from Route 1 or whether they were working with the Dover Mall to do something? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Mall wants to do something but they want DelDOT to build it. She can’t imagine that DelDOT, in their current financial condition, is going to do that. Mr. Holden stated that Dover Downs doesn’t own all the way to Route 9, there’s a piece out there where they would be forced to create their own access. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they don’t go all the way to Route 9 but they go close. Mrs. Townshend stated that another issue she wanted to bring up is the issue of parking. She mentioned that Golden Corral was at the Board of Adjustment today for a variance. There are two things; one thing is that they are going to need to address is what the proper parking requirement is for restaurants. What they have in the Code right now is too low. But there is another issue that came up with Golden Corral and also Dr. Dover’s Dentistry Practice, the cap on parking. Right now we cap it at 125% of the Code minimum. If you are looking at something that has a small parking requirement, that 25 % is next to nothing. It seems to be making it really difficult for the restaurants. What they heard at the Board of Adjustment today is that Dover is the only place that they have seen that has a maximum. She has a hard time believing that Dover is the only place that has a maximum. Her guess is that there are places that are more progressive that they are. She wants to discuss if the Commissioners still feel the need for a parking maximum. Also, if they want to make it more sliding scale that maybe if your minimum parking requirement is one to fifty; maybe you can have 100% more. For instance, if you have a parking requirement of six (6), 25% means that you can’t even have two (2) extra spaces. Mr. Holden questioned what issue created the driver to have the maximum? Responding to Mr. Holden, Colonel Welsh stated that if you look at the old Walmart, Sam’s Club, Lowes and Home Depot, it’s all of the impervious surface that they have and it’s never used. It’s used maybe once a year on Black Friday but he doesn’t even think that’s the case anymore because everybody shops online. Mrs. Townshend stated going back to the Berry Van Lines site, if you remember when the application for Dick’s Sporting Goods came in it was Dick’s Sporting Goods but there were other retailers as well. They had their minimum; she thinks their square footage required five hundred to six hundred (500-600) parking spaces and they had a Site Plan with over nine hundred (900) spaces. The concern is that if there’s a code requirement that caps your parking they will comply but if there’s not a code requirement they will come to Planning Commission and kind of back you into the corner. For example, they will say if this retailer doesn’t get the parking they are not coming. It’s a lot easier to fall back on the code requirement. Colonel Welsh stated that there’s a method for them to get there and that’s to go to the Board of Adjustment. He feels that the large retailers have entirely too much impervious surface in the City of Dover. For example, the old Blue Hen Mall and the fitness center located across the street. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that Mr. Cook has some ideas too. Mr. Cook stated that if the concern is over impervious surface and the visual of having all of that 6

Page 47

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 space then there could be a way to have some sort of design guidelines in terms of what’s the orientation of the building and what’s the orientation of the parking to the building. For example, if it’s on Route 13 and you can have 150% of the minimum parking requirement but only if some of that is not all located in the front of the building. There may be some kind of mechanism where they can put in a requirement for additional landscaping or some other way of mitigating the visual. Mrs. Townshend stated that the question is, is there a middle ground? The other thing with the Berry Van Lines site in particular and a lot of the sites along Route 13, there in an excellent recharge area so limiting parking also helps to kind of push that issue. Part of the problem that we have is that our parking for restaurants is not feasible. In terms of what was provided for other locations, the same contractor that built the Cheddar’s and Texas Roadhouse, both of which have more parking than the City Code would allow. From a practical standpoint are under parked; their parking lots are full. Part of the problem is restaurants getting to the right number of parking spaces. This is one thing that Staff wants to look at but the other question is who do you deal with the maximum. Colonel Welsh questioned how burdensome it was to go to the Board of Adjustment? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that it’s awful. Today’s meeting wasn’t bad. Her personal opinion is the Board of Adjustment should be the last resort. If there’s something they can do or if they know that there’s an issue in the Code, it’s better to fix the issue in the Code. Colonel Welsh questioned if they could give the Planning Commission the waiver authority? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Cook stated that may be the easiest solution. Colonel Welsh stated that when an applicant does their Site Plan presentation, if they’ve got a documented need and can justify it then the Commission can give them some or all of them (parking spaces). Mr. Holden stated that he thinks amending the Code for restaurants is a good idea because on projects that he has been around he has run into that as an issue for some of the restaurants. He thinks there is some adjustment there to get it at what it should be. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that the flipside to that is places that have under parked restaurants will not be able to under park restaurants anymore. Which she doesn’t think that’s a bad thing; she gets people who yell at her all the time about why the City let projects open with a small amount of parking. Her answer is that they met the requirements at the time. Mr. Holden stated that you then get the neighbors who have their people parking elsewhere. He thinks it’s important to maybe massage that but he doesn’t know what that right number is. He thinks the Board of Adjustment is burdensome; it scares people because of the uncertainty of the perception that the applicant is going to get. Whether they feel like they’ve got great engineering land planning basis for what they are seeking there, the certainty that it will be heard in the same perception that you see it is not what you get there. You don’t really know what you are going to get because of the perception so it’s burdensome in that inhibits people from trying. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they have a very narrow legal function; they take it very seriously. In some places, the Board of Adjustment rubber stamps everything. The City’s Board of Adjustment does not. They’re well trained. 7

Page 48

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Mr. Holden stated that the difference from the business standpoint is the uncertainty over what you are going to get at the Board of Adjustment. He would like to see the Commission massage those numbers for the different categories that they feel are an issue and get them adjusted. Then he doesn’t know if he sees an issue with if you are outside those bounds then you would have to go through that more burdensome task. Colonel Welsh stated that Mr. Holden views it from a totally different perspective than he does. He hates parking lots and he doesn’t like paving a parking lot because typically they are not taken care of. They fall in a state of disrepair and then there are huge potholes and ugly crap on them. They will pay to have them repaired. He enjoys looking around at various places during his travels. In Florida, he looks at the malls and most of them are very nicely landscaped with medians and they’ve got plenty of parking but it’s not all pavement. He thinks the old Walmart parking lot is hideous and he has always thought that but it’s the fact that they create run-off that creates flooding, washouts and it really serves no purpose. He would agree that Cheddar’s Restaurant in Camden has a parking problem. He doesn’t know what the answer is but if you have an exception with the restaurant, what do you do with the restaurant that’s not attracting a crowd like the Cheddar’s Restaurant would? How do you tell somebody that you don’t think their restaurant is going to be as successful as this one is? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Holden stated that it’s a challenge to write a Code that is for a up to three (3) hour per seat type of restaurant or a forty-five (45) minute per seat, the number needs to be different. Mrs. Townshend stated that the City’s parking requirement is based on seat count. In talking to Mr. Charles Owensby who is the person who’s working on the Berry Van Lines site and also has the Playtex site and built Cheddar’s in Camden, he said for instance, in New Castle County it’s ten (10) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet. They do it on a square footage basis and in some ways that makes it easier because you don’t have to see their seat count. It’s really difficult at the front end of a process to figure out how large a parking lot needs to be when the seat count could change as you get into the building design. One thing would be to look at other places. She did some research of other places and what they do; she did see a lot of other places in that ten (10) space one thousand (1,000) square foot. Some places want fifteen (15) per one thousand (1,000) square foot. It could be a waiver where they demonstrate need because if they can demonstrate that their chains in other locations have this similar type of location and we have 150 spaces. If you are only going to count them at 125 spaces, then they can demonstrate that they have 150 spaces and they are always full. What really drove that cap was the retail that just wants Black Friday. You build your parking for the day after Thanksgiving but they don’t want to build their roadways for the day after Thanksgiving. Mr. Holden stated that maybe they look at a hybrid for it. If you are located outside of a certain range that the Planning Commission could offer the increase up to. You give some flexibility that may not force them to the required. Going to Planning Commission is less scary than business before the Board of Adjustment. There is not one size fits all. Colonel Welsh stated that it was an excellent idea because what that’s going to do is for someone who doesn’t want to go to the Board of Adjustment then so he’s going to be willing to design down and take whatever the Planning Commission can grant. Mr. Holden stated that it’s a lot safer bet for the applicant. 8

Page 49

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Colonel Welsh questioned if the Commission had the waiver authority and they deny the application then can they still go to the Board of Adjustment? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that she thinks so but the likelihood of that happening is low because by the time that they get to the Board of Adjustment there needs to be a very narrow reason. The likelihood of it is low that there nothing that would prohibit that. Colonel Welsh stated maybe right now they are at 125%; maybe they could change it to 150%. Mr. Holt stated that it would save a lot of time too. Colonel Welsh stated that optimum design standards would be to stay within the 125%. If you have justification for it then coming before the Planning Commission you could make it one of the waiver requests. The Commission needs to be pretty strict on it too. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that maybe the Commission can require that the applicant increase their landscaping or something. Mrs. Townshend stated while they are discussing parking and they are going to go into the parking section the other piece that comes up periodically is for a waiver. If somebody comes to the Planning Commission for a parking waiver, the Commission can grant up to a 50% reduction but they have to reserve the space. They have to keep space undeveloped that in theory it would be there for them once they have to build the parking. Do we want to require that reservation at a smaller amount? Maybe not at 100%. They have never gone back and made anybody who’s had a parking waiver build more parking. What it does is it ties up land. It has driven some people to the Board of Adjustment because they don’t have the land to reserve so they just go for a variance. Colonel Welsh questioned what she means by they don’t have the land to reserve? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Planning Commission can waive a portion of the parking requirement. So if you are required to have one hundred (100) spaces and the Commission says that you really only need seventy-five (75) spaces, then the Commission has the authority to say that they only have to build seventy-five (75) spaces but they need to reserve space for that other twenty-five (25) spaces. In theory, she (the City Planner) can go to them and say that they need to build the remaining twenty-five (25) spaces, which has never been done. The other option is do we have them reserve a portion of that land so that they don’t have to reserve it for a full twenty-five (25) spaces. Colonel Welsh questioned if they have never had a situation where somebody is under built in terms of parking? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that only in the Downtown where we don’t require any parking and where we don’t require any reservation of parking when the Commission gives a waiver. For instance, State Street Commons is her view. It’s more their issue than it is the City’s because they can’t get the building leased partially because tenants believe them to be under-parked. Mr. Cregar questioned what happens when uses change and parking requirements change? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated if you’ve built a retail space where you have a parking requirement of one (1) to three hundred (300) and you’ve gotten a waiver and now a restaurant wants to come in. We have never told anybody that they cannot move into a spot. Say 9

Page 50

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 you have a shopping center tenant; the City usually looks at parking as an existing condition. Mr. Holden questioned what Grotto’s Pizza had to do? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they did have to demonstrate that they met parking requirements; that was an Administrative Site Plan. As long as it’s through a Site Plan process but if it doesn’t require any type of Site Plan, there’s no way to require additional parking. Mr. Cregar questioned when someone comes in there’s no calculation done? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that they will calculate it. For example, they will make it part of the record on the Permit that by Code this space is required to have fifty (50) parking spaces, there are thirty (30) that’s seen as an existing condition. In theory, they could end of up with an issue if they don’t require people to reserve the space. Mr. Cregar stated that we end up making uses non-conforming. Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that we could. Mr. Holden stated that it could be that they force people to reserve the space or that you implement that check elsewhere. Is that a business permit or where would it be that you implement that check? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that in the places where we’ve seen the waiver request have really been offices. They haven’t seen it on retail. One place they saw it on was the Kent County Building when it was built. They reserved all of this land for parking and then when it was re-zoned from C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) which has less of a parking requirement, they could free up that land. That’s where the memorial is now. A lot of people will go to the Board of Adjustment instead of going for the waiver because they don’t to have to reserve the land. The question is what’s the practical effect of not being able to do something administratively? Mr. Holden stated that it doesn’t sound there has been a lot of issues where we need to keep that reserved area. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that she can’t think of anywhere where they have had an issue. Mr. Holden stated that it seems like they could give some there or whether you give half of it back. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that maybe it’s that the Planning Commission may require it instead of it’s an absolute. So that if you do have one of those uses that is likely to change. The offices are pretty set. Some offices like medical offices have a higher parking volume. Mr. Cregar stated that Dr. Markowitz on Governors Avenue is outrageous. Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated yes it is and the stuff on Beiser Boulevard. Remember we changed the parking requirement for that stuff so that medical offices no matter what, had a one (1) to three hundred (300) square feet because that was all zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) which has a parking requirement of one (1) space per every eight hundred (800) square feet. It was designed as if it was manufacturing space and the practical reality of things is that it wasn’t manufacturing space. They can look at probably something that doesn’t take away the ability to require the reservation of land but maybe gives a little more flexibility. Mr. Holden stated that back to the maximum, he thinks there is some sense to having some sort of sliding scale or if your requirement is four (4), a 200% range would work. If you are talking 10

Page 51

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 about a place where there are two hundred (200) or four hundred (400) spaces, there’s a huge magnitude change compared to four (4) spaces to eight (8) spaces. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that was the thing with that shopping center, a lot of Planning Commissioners left the room that night not very happy that at what has been approved but feeling like they were backed into a corner. It was more than double on a scale of it required four hundred (400) spaces and had over nine hundred (900) spaces. It was so excessive but again, doubling your parking when you require two (2) spaces it’s as excessive. Colonel Welsh questioned how using square footage affect that? A doctor’s office? A dentist office? If you addressed it as a requirement for three (3) parking spots for every so many square feet. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that they wouldn’t change that base requirement but what they could say is if you have ten (10) spaces or less as your total, you might be able to go to three (3) times your minimum or one and a half (1.5) times your minimum or two (2) times your minimum. Then if you had say ten (10) to fifty (50) spots maybe you could go to 70% over your minimum. Once you have more than fifty (50) spots you would go down to 50% over your minimum. Mr. Holden stated that you would out strip that small magnitude thing. Whether it’s twenty (20) or thirty (30), somewhere in that range is where getting an extra 30% or 50% should get you a good amount if the minimums are right. When you are down in those single digits is where it’s a much harder thing to do. There is a little variability on how you run your business. Mrs. Townshend stated that for instance, the Commissioners didn’t see the parking analysis for Dr. Dover’s office because their note on their DAC Report was if you don’t get a variance you can’t exceed the maximum. They have more employees than their maximum parking requirement based on their square footage. Clearly, we need to at least allow them to park their employees and their customers on their property. Colonel Welsh stated that his concern is not the single restaurant. His concern is the big box, the malls, etc. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that outside of the big boxes, people don’t typically have deep enough pockets to buy more land than they need to. Mr. Cregar stated that he did want to go back to the fact that they create non-conforming uses so what do they do? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that they are creating non- conformity; it doesn’t make the use non-conforming. Mr. Cregar stated that they can’t meet the Code. Mr. Holden questioned where Staff could put a check in? Is it a business permit that any new business would have to get that might be conforming use? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that they could do something. She’s sure they can come up with something. Mr. Holden stated it would helpful to have that check that way so if they change they are still per zoning classification but the use is much different. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Cook stated that’s a change of use and that’s going to come through zoning review with a Building Permit. Mrs. Townshend stated that even it’s a change of use it still gets a Building Permit. Even if you are not making any alterations, if you go from office to retail a Building Permit is required just to 11

Page 52

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 track the change of use. It’s different in Building Code and Fire Code so they need to at least make sure that it meets the requirement. We can do the same thing for parking. Unfortunately the things that these things affect are kind of the micro-businesses; the small, no experience in land development and no idea what you need for parking. That’s also where they are parking on the neighbor’s property or parking on the grass. Whenever we do these types of changes they never move quickly because she thinks that one thing that the City does well is try to anticipate the negatives that can come with something that is aimed to be positive. Mr. Cregar questioned if she was going to hear from Realtors on that particular change? Mrs. Townshend stated yes. They (the City) have been much more proactive in recent years about meeting with the Realtors before something that comes to the public because what they have found is that when they haven’t, they are immediately told to meet with the Realtors and work it out and then come back. They would include them towards the front end of the process once they have something. Mr. Holden stated that they seem to get a lot of upright curb waivers. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that that’s another one that they want to make it so that we can administratively review it. Mr. Holden stated that from a design standpoint and from the changes in stormwater regulations, being able to sheet flow off of a parking lot is very valuable. It seems like there’s not a big reluctance to approve those. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that it’s not a problem if it’s something that’s coming to you anyway. If you don’t need to not have curbing, the curbing is desirable to address the conflicts of people parking on the grass, parking on the grass and all of those things. Where it does create a problem is for administrative reviews and Staff could do it all administratively but now they have to bring the curb waiver to the Planning Commission. Colonel Welsh questioned if the Planning Commission has ever denied an upright curbing waiver? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated no. That’s been on the list to fix for years. Mr. Holden questioned if there was any thought to if there’s no upright curbing, do you have to have a recessed curb to get away with no curb? He knows sometimes when the site isn’t graded real well and you’ve got your edge of hot mix pavement but then you get erosion and pavement caving in and it gets more expensive. It may be a better design to have than a recessed curb so that the pavement goes flush up against a concrete curb that’s a little more south. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that we could but again on a really small project, that won’t help. Colonel Welsh stated maybe they could use the bumpers. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that the parking bumpers will keep you from driving on the grass. What Mr. Holden is talking about it where the grass starts to eat up the asphalt. Mr. Holden stated that just past the YMCA, the Happy Harry’s had that going on where it was flowing towards State Street and they ended up having to go back and fix it. It was not aesthetically pretty. 12

Page 53

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Mrs. Townshend stated that they do require parking bumpers and certainly whenever you have new construction you can require that without a question. Sometime it’s that small little change of use thing. • Review of 2008 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Townshend stated this was done last year so she isn’t sure why this topic was put on the agenda. Mr. Cregar questioned when the next update? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that the way the State law is written is that they are required to review it every five (5) years and update it every ten (10) years. Our update would be 2018-2019. She would like to do it before that. She has requested for the budget process a new planner. Mrs. Townshend stated that she doesn’t know how we do a Comprehensive Plan update in- house. The Comprehensive Plan to her and the Zoning Amendments are too important to get a contractor for. She knows consultants have a role but she feels like when you hire them for things you lose the development control. To her, the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan are the two key pieces that keep us all on one page. She doesn’t know if she would be good with just hiring somebody and going on about her business. Mr. Cregar stated that she was right about the losing control piece. Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that you end up fighting with your consultant. Mr. Holden stated that it is a challenge; you lose control and then you end up having to handle it the whole time and you’re doing all the work yourself. It’s one way or the other. .Current Studies and Projects • Transportation Improvement Districts Mrs. Townshend stated that the Transportation District project is moving more slowly than they would like but they’re finally making progress. At this point they need to look at every property that they’ve identified within the area as under-utilized or vacant and determine what a realistic square footage would be under conventional development scenarios and under ideal development scenarios. Hopefully sometime this summer they will have something but they have to do all of the modeling once they get that information to them. • Citywide Recreational Needs Assessment Mrs. Townshend stated that the Recreational Needs Assessment data is in it’s just a matter of writing the document. That was one that she was very willing to give to a consultant but they said but they said that it had to be done in-house. That means that it’s moving slowly because she has to write it. • Draft Bicycle Plan and Draft Pedestrian Plan for Dover Mrs. Townshend stated that the MPO has been working on those; they are looking to finalize them. She is hoping that they go to Committee in late March. Mr. Tolbert questioned what a Pedestrian Plan was? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that it’s looking for areas where the City needs to improve sidewalks and maybe some pedestrian trial links through parks to improve the pedestrian networks so people 13

Page 54

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 can walk better. Colonel Welsh questioned if MPO is behind the relining of acceleration lanes for bicycles? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that it was DelDOT. Colonel Welsh stated that it is the dumbest thing that he has ever seen. Does anybody ever use College Road to go out on Route 13? Yesterday, he met a bicyclist coming his way as he starts that right hand turn. First of all, what is he doing on that side of street? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that’s one of the things that she is supposed to set up a meeting with the Police Chief to talk about enforcement as it relates to bicycles. It's both cars doing things that violate the laws and putting bicyclists at risk but also bicyclists doing things to violate the laws and put themselves at risk. Colonel Welsh stated that he was sure that he felt since he was in the bicycle lane although going the wrong way in the bicycle lane on a major highway that he was safe but he was not. What the elimination of the acceleration lane has done as really screwed up the traffic there. He thinks people in Delaware look at a yield sign as a stop sign. The idea is to have that acceleration lane to get up speed and then merge with traffic. Dr. Jones questioned if there were any plans in the works for an improved walkway on State College Road from the Campus to those Courtyard Apartments? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a Del-State Pedestrian Safety Study that was done that looked at that. It looked at where people were crossing Route 13 where they weren’t supposed to. The results of that are a number of recommendations, some of which will be undertaken by the University and then others that they will be looking at Legislators or DelDOT to fund. She can get the information on that. Dr. Jones stated that she was really surprised that someone hasn’t been hurt traveling that road. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a lot about that area in the Study. • Certified Local Government Program Application Mrs. Townshend stated that the application should be on Monday’s Consent Agenda for City Council to approve and Staff will be submitting it to the State Historic Preservation Office. What that does is it allows the City to be eligible for certain Historic Preservation grants. The hope is that next year they can look to get a grant to update their Historic District guidelines which are locally out of date. They did try two (2) years ago in-house updating and they just don’t have the Staff to do it. Hopefully they will now be eligible for grant money for updating. Mr. Cregar stated that Mrs. Townshend said that she applied for staffing in your budget. What does Council say when you go in there and say that certain stuff starts to stack up and Staff is not really able to meet the need? What’s the answer that you receive back? Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mrs. Townshend stated that the way the budget works is first a request has to get through the City Manager to get into the budget. The pressure is on the City Manager to make the budget balance and to not raise taxes. A lot of times Council doesn’t even see the requests that go in. She has had discussions with the City Manager and she has told him that there’s no way that they can continue the stuff that they are tasked with doing with existing staff. Even a year ago before Ms. Cornwell left, she always worked plenty more than forty (40) hours a week and would punch out and go back to her desk. She has caught Mr. Cook doing the same thing. The reality is that 14

Page 55

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 they are stretched and so she thinks it will be interesting to see what happens when the City Manager has to put together his budget because at this point now he is also strapped with ten (10) additional Police Officers that have not been tied to a funding source. They already have a budget that wasn’t going to balance without a tax increase and they have already increased our transfer from the Electric Fund to $10 million so they are already over burdening the Electric Fund. There are still some members of Council who feel that we are over taxed. At this point they don’t even know who is going to be on Council when it comes time for the budget. She has no idea the perspectives of the different people running. There are some people who truly believe that we are over taxed here. They can’t really address the problems until they address the tax rates. It could be a matter of continuing to bury their heads in the sand and just work a lot of hours a week. There have times where Council has assigned things to her and she has stood in front of Council and said at some point you are going to have to tell me what the priority is because it can’t all get done. Dr. Jones stated that’s it been a couple of years since Mrs. Townshend has had a new department added to your responsibilities. Has there been any discussion about whether that’s really working or not or whether that’s seriously impacting your function in Planning? As a member of Legislative & Finance Committee, one of the things that she constantly dealt with was the whole idea of a total evaluation in terms of how well things are working and whether or not this should be here and that should be there. She knows there was a savings of a director’s salary there but the question becomes, how much benefit was there to that saving. How seriously impacted was Mrs. Townshend by taking on another division? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that it ebbs and flows. There are times when she feels guilty because she feels like she doesn’t give Parks and Recreation enough of her time. There are times where she feels like she is not at City Hall. Actually, she has a really good working relationship with them so from a working relationship it’s actually been quite good. It has allowed a little bit more leverage and resources but the long term intent is that they need to add if not a Director position, they need a manager. Right now there is no manager position but if you have a large department there needs to be something in between. But they need to do it without adding another person and the idea of taking people who are all peers and saying now you are in charge, it doesn’t work. Dr. Jones stated that there lies the concern about an internal audit of positions and desk audit. She had spoken to Human Resources about that because it was always a concern that if you had people working in a position for fifteen (15) or twenty (20) years and they’re not promotable then something is wrong. Mrs. Townshend stated that she thinks that part of the challenge back when Mr. Koenig first became City Manager and they had a few department heads leave, there was a lot of pressure and a lot of sentiment on the heart of some people that the organization was too top heavy. There were a number of department level positions eliminated and Parks and Recreation was one and Facilities was another one. The Senior City Administrator was another. The idea was let’s eliminate these top heavy positions. It turns out that all of those positions actually had a function. By eliminating the Senior City Administrator position, they really left the City Manager’s Office in a position where there were not able to be responsive not for lack of trying but similar to like hamster in a wheel where you are just running and not getting anywhere. The City now has an Assistant City Manager; who if you haven’t met him, he is actually very good. Hopefully as he gets more acclimated and gets his marching orders, will start to do a lot of that evaluation. Council is now having the discussion of what the City’s form of government should be. There is 15

Page 56

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 a special Council meeting being held tomorrow night to talk about what our form of government should be and if we should be City Manager/Council form of government which we kind of are now but then we also have a number of departments that don’t report to the City Manager, which includes her but more importantly it includes the Police Department. That’s the majority of the General Fund Budget that does not report to the City Manager yet the City Manager is responsible for the budget. There are a lot of structural issues that Council needs to kind of get their head around. She thought they were going to talk about what they are getting ready to talk about now back in April and then they’ve talked the bulk of the last six months about if we should go to a strong Mayoral form of government. She is not sure where that came from because the genesis of the discussion was kind of who do we make sure we are more accountable under the City Manager. Dr. Jones stated that the wonderful consultant firm that the City once had that came in and suggested the pay for performance, did they go away? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that she believes so. Pay for performance is kind of a four (4) letter word around elected officials around here. • Restoring Central Dover Community Plan This was done by Interface Studios out of Philadelphia, PA. They actually did a really good job on the Restoring Central Dover Community Plan and that ends up being a piece of the Downtown Development District. DELAWARE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM – DESIGNATION FOR DOVER Mrs. Townshend stated that she had a brief PowerPoint presentation. There are workshops being held on the Downtown Development District on Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:00 AM, 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM in the Dover Public Library. There was a map displayed showing the area that has been designated as the Downtown Development District. It’s the east side of Lincoln Park, it goes down to the Transit Center, up Water Street to Mary Street, it kind of notches out Wesley College and then along State Street. The Downtown Development District Act was unanimously approved by the General Assembly. There is a designation of no more than three (3) districts in the first year and funding in the form of grants; $7 million was appropriated for Fiscal Year 15 and the Governor’s recommended budget has $7 million again for next year. That is among all three (3) of the districts in the State. There is an application process; they looked at need and impact, the District Plan and the local incentives. The thing that really helped Dover is that we documented and did not shy away from the fact that we have issues with crime and housing. These are the things with poverty. We accepted those issues and talked about how we can work to address the issues. That’s all part of the District Plan and then we have a number of local incentives. The way the application process worked was 50% of the application was evaluated on needed impact, 30% was on the District Plan and 20% was on the local incentives that they would be offering. The applications were reviewed by the Cabinet Committee on State Planning issues in January and on January 11, 2015 Governor Markell announced three (3) district designations: Wilmington, Dover and Seaford. Dover’s District includes our Central Business District and adjacent neighborhoods. We have an 84% rental rate within this area; we have high crime concentrations, a lot of vacancies both vacant buildings and lots and unfortunately a lot of condemned buildings. The District Plan comprises two (2) pieces: primarily, the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design 16

Page 57

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Book which was done in 2011 and the Restoring Central Dover Plan that was released just in time to submit their Downtown Development District application at the end of October 2014. Their Development District goals are that they want business growth within the Central Business District whether that’s existing businesses expanding and doing better or bringing new businesses in; they want it all. There are a lot of retail spaces that have dead space on top of them; they would like to see those places occupied with apartments. They want to see an increase of homeownership in the neighborhood. With an 84% rental rate, that really brings a level of instability to the neighborhoods. They want to promote affordable housing. Specifically within the neighborhood, the focus of their affordable housing is homeownership which is why some of the key partners here are the Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, NCALL and Milford Housing Development Corporation. They want to reinforce the key intersections within the District with vibrant buildings. The idea here is we’ve got a number of corners that are either vacant land or vacant buildings and we want these buildings to come back to life. Where there are vacant corners with no buildings on them, they want attractive architecture and buildings that will then be occupied. There are cash rebates on the cost of construction that the State will give for capital improvements to a property if over $25,000. They will give a 20% rebate to whoever is making those improvements; it could be a tenant or a property owner. There are fee waivers; they have impact fee waivers, Business License waivers and Building Permit fee waivers. There are also tax abatements and tax credits. There is a waiver of the tax on the value of the improvements for a period of ten (10) years. We have historic property tax credits at the City level. There is also a State historic preservation tax credit. We have tax benefits for homeownership. One of the benefits is if you purchase a home as your primary residences within the Downtown Development District, the first year you pay nothing for property taxes, the second year you would pay 25% of your tax liability, up to the fifth year where you pay 100%. There are also transfer tax benefits as well. The Downtown Dover Partnership has a façade grant program. They have added to that an architectural grant so if somebody is looking to make improvements to a building, the first $1,000 can be fully reimbursed by the Downtown Dover Partnership and they will reimburse beyond that 50/50 up to $5,000. The Sustainable Energy Utility is offering reduced cost energy audits and higher rebates in this area than they would offer elsewhere. Through the State program, again, you get the 20% cash rebate amount. Once the rebate amount reaches $500,000 the percentage decreases with a maximum of $1 million per property. Kent County will match the rebate up to $10,000. This is eligible for your construction costs only so architectural fees, engineering fees and those types of things do not count. The rebate is eligible for costs over $25,000. The State Housing Authority has described it as to look at that $25,000 as your deductible. The City has our Building Permit fee waivers, impact fee waivers, and Business License fee waivers for new businesses for a period of three (3) years. This waiver is on Council’s agenda for adoption on Monday. Others include a rebate of the buyer’s portion of the transfer tax when a property gets a Certificate of Occupancy; this is for properties that transfer after March 1st. You buy a piece of property and you make renovations to it or you build a new building on it, as long as you get a Certificate of Occupancy within five (5) years of the transfer then the buyer’s portion of the transfer tax will be rebated by the City. There are also the tax abatements for a period of ten (10) years and then the Tax Credits for Historic Properties. For the homeownership incentives, you have to stay in the home for at least a four (4) year period or else you have to pay it back. If you are taking advantage of this incentive you are going 17

Page 58

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 to want to make sure you will be there for a while. Citywide the transfer tax is waived for first time buyers. Within the Downtown Development District, if you are selling to a first time buyer you would also be eligible for that. People may also be eligible for Dover First Start payment assistance through the City’s CDBG Program. Delaware State Housing Authority also has down payment assistance if the City uses all of theirs. Other incentives are the Façade Grant and the Architectural Cost Grants as well as reduced cost energy audits and high rebates for energy efficiency improvements. The energy efficiency improvements would be for existing buildings. An old building probably doesn’t have efficient windows or lighting so you can get rebates for those efficiency improvements that you make. The Strong Neighborhood Housing Fund announcements were made last week. The Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity was the lead applicant of a coalition that also includes NCALL, and Milford Housing Development Corporation. The City is part of the coalition although they wouldn’t be building houses. They received $672,191 all allocated within our Downtown Development District for construction of new affordable homeownership and rehabilitation. There is the Neighborhood Building Block Fund which is to support crime reduction, neighborhood revitalization and economic development. The City s submitting a grant that they are calling the Western Gateway Plan to improve the appearance of Downtown Dover as you come in from Saulsbury Road. The Workshops will be held on February 26, 2015. They will have the State Housing Authority, the State Historic Preservation Office and the Sustainable Energy Utility. They will all be present at the Workshops so that if there are questions about their specific programs, they can answer them. Mr. Holt questioned if anyone in the City was available to assist in writing grants because he knows that they have to be worded a certain way? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Planning Office and the Economic Development Office are willing to help people. She has provided documentation of compliance with the plans for at this point one applicant but others have asked her and once she receives their requests, she will get it for them. We have also provided the maps that need to be submitted as well. We have a mapping application that is about 95% done. They plan to roll it out next week so that people can go online, click on a map and figure out what benefits they may be eligible for and who to contact for those benefits. They should also be able to print out a map that shows their property to submit with their application to the State. If it’s technologically above their heads then Staff will help them as well. EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITES • Delaware Planning Education Program by UD-IPA: Workshop Series Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a list of programs in the packet. The “Land-Use and Development Administration” is the next program being held on February 20, 2015. We are beyond the deadline but she guesses that they would take this if someone wanted to register. If anyone is interested in either “Understanding & Marketing Your Local Economy” or “Land-Use and Development Administration” let her know and she will get them registered. • APA Webcast Lecture: Urban Design, Sustainability, and the Environment on March 11, 2015 at 4:00pm, Kent County Administration Building Mrs. Townshend stated that she needs to double check the location of this webcast. This is the 18

Page 59

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2015 webcast lectures that Staff registers for. It helps them get their credits. It could also be of interest to Commission members and there is no fee to register. Colonel Welsh questioned if they had been getting any participation in the educational opportunities? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated not recently. Meeting adjourned at 1:36 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 19

Page 60

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Public Hearing before the Dover Planning Commission February 17, 2015 Proposed Amendments to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan: There are two amendments proposed to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan at this time. A. Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map – Request for Land Use Classification Change from Residential Medium Density to Commercial – Change of land use classification for property located on North State Street between Silver Lake and Lepore Road from Residential Medium Density to Commercial. This amendment has been requested by the affected property owner, in conjunction with a rezoning request , as specified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. B. Amendment to Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan – This amendment removes the language relating to the Cost Revenue Analysis. The Cost Revenue Analysis model is dated and the value of the model is unclear. Staff is prepared to do a more general analysis of the financial benefits of annexation requests without use of a formal model. Ordinance Number: #2015-01 File Number: MI-15-01

Page 61

MI-15-01 – 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments DAC Report– February 4, 2015 City of Page 2 Dover Planning CITY OF DOVER Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: February 4, 2015 APPLICATION: Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015: Proposed Amendments to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan FILE#: MI-15-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office CONTACT PERSON: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP PHONE#: 736-7196 Project Background: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council on February 9, 2008, and subsequently amended on November 23, 2009, (in conjunction with the 2009 Comprehensive Rezoning Project), amended on March 14, 2011, amended on April 11, 2011, amended on March 12, 2012, and amended on March 10, 2014. As adopted, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan sets forth a process by which the Comprehensive Plan can be amended on an annual basis. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can be initiated by staff or requested by members of the public. For amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that involve rezoning of property, the requests are processed concurrently. The process to amend the Comprehensive Plan is detailed in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 15: Implementation, specifically on pages 183 and 184 of the Plan. This process involves review of the proposed amendments through PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Services). These Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015 were submitted to PLUS review for the January 28, 2015 PLUS review meeting. PLUS comments will be forthcoming. The proposed amendments are detailed below and represented in the attachments. A. Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map – Request for Land Use Classification Change from Residential Medium Density to Commercial This proposed amendment is an applicant-initiated amendment, where one property owner is requesting a change to the Land Use Classification for property located on the east side of North State Street, between the Silver Lake bridge and Lepore Road. The request is that Land Use Classification be changed from Residential Medium Density to Commercial as depicted on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan. This request is associated with the rezoning application for the same property, identified as Z-15-01 Lands 801 Gold Cost LLC at 801 North State Street.

Page 62

MI-15-01 – 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments DAC Report– February 4, 2015 Page 3 According to the applicant: 801 Gold Coast LLC formally petitions for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.09-01-13.00-000; Property Address is 801 North State Street, Dover DE 19904, and change in zoning from RG-3 to C-2A. The parcel was acquired in October of 2013. This parcel abuts C-2A zoning to the West (Compass Point) and to the North (C&M Custom Homes). To the East is RG-3 (Overlook at Silver Lake), and the South is Silver Lake. Owner initially reviewed the viability of using present zoning and use with City of Dover Planning Staff. Considerable effort and studies were completed to evaluate developing property under present zoning as Group Housing with Senior Citizen housing under PND option. It was determined that the project was not viable. The proposed C-2A Zoning would be compatible with the property to the West and North of the Parcel and general area development. The existing infrastructure (sewer, water, roadways, etc.) will support the proposed zoning. C-2A zoning would allow for a mix use including a blend of commercial and residential in harmony with surrounding community. The property has special features and unique qualities that C-2A zoning will afford us the ability to develop the property as a showcase on the quality of life afforded by living in the City of Dover. Regarding Commercial uses, in Chapter 12 – Land Development Plan, page 151 and 153, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan states the following: Assumptions: Commercial Land Uses 1. Dover will continue to be the dominant commercial center within the central Delmarva region. 2. Ease of access to commercial establishments is highly desirable within urban environments. 3. Jobs and commerce in the retail, wholesale, and service sectors are an important part of Dover’s economic vitality. 4. Well designed, aesthetically pleasing commercial centers and corridors contribute to the City’s overall image and the positive feeling of its residents. Neighborhood Commercial The Plan identifies areas for continued neighborhood commercial use to meet the convenience retail need of existing and future residential areas. B. Amendment to Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan This amendment removes the language relating to the Cost Revenue Analysis on page 171 and 172. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan requires that a detailed Cost Revenue Analysis model be run for annexations within the Category 2 Annexation Area. This Cost Revenue Analysis model is dated and the value of the model is unclear. Staff is prepared to do a more general analysis of the financial benefits of annexation requests without use of a formal model.

Page 63

MI-15-01 – 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments DAC Report– February 4, 2015 Page 4 These Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are subject to public hearing before the Planning Commission which makes a recommendation to City Council. Planning Commission may act separately on each amendment in their recommendation to City Council. Recommendations of the Planning Staff: The Planning Staff provides the following recommendations in regards to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015. A. Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map – Request for Land Use Classification Change from Residential Medium Density to Commercial Based on the assumptions and the description of Neighborhood Commercial uses in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as well as analysis of the surrounding land uses, the request for a map change in this area from a Land Use Classification of Residential Medium Density to Commercial appears to be consistent with the development of the area and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the change to a Land Use Classification of Commercial for this property at 801 North State Street. B. Amendment to Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan Staff supports the elimination of the use of the Cost Revenue Analysis in review of annexation requests.

Page 64

MI-15-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015 There are two amendments proposed to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan at this time. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan is available on the City’s website at http://www.cityofdover.com/Comprehensive-Plan-4005/ A. Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map – Request for Land Use Classification Change from Residential Medium Density to Commercial – Change of land use classification for property located on North State Street between Silver Lake and Lepore Road from Residential Medium Density to Commercial.  Exhibit Map showing subject area of the Current Map 12-1 and the Proposed Map 12-1 indicating the proposed change of land use classification designation. B. Amendment to Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan – This amendment removes the language relating to the Cost Revenue Analysis. The Cost Revenue Analysis model is dated and the value of the model is unclear. Staff is prepared to do a more general analysis of the financial benefits of annexation requests without use of a formal model.  Copy of text of Chapter 13 – Growth and Annexation Plan. Amendment editing mark-up shown in red strikethrough to identify text to be deleted.

Page 76

PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the City of Dover Planning Commission February 17, 2015 Applicants/Owners: 801 Gold Coast LLC Address: 801 North State Street Location: East side of North State Street between the Silver Lake Bridge and Lepore Road Tax Parcel ID #: ED05-068.09-01-13.00-000 Size: 1.943 +/- acres Present Use: House Proposed Use: Mixed Use Building Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density (proposal to change to Commercial) Present Zoning: RG-3 (Group Housing Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) File Number: Z-15-01 Ordinance Number: 2015-02

Page 77

Z-15-01 Lands of 801 Gold Coast LLC DAC Report – February 4, 2014 Page 2 Existing Property The property is currently zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone) and consists of one parcel of land with a single family home on it. Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property is surrounded by a variety of uses. Immediately south of the subject parcel is Silver Lake. The property to the east is the Overlook on Silver Lake, which is zone RG-3 (Group Housing Zone) and developed residentially. The property immediately north adjacent to the subject property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and is commercially developed. The property immediately west across North State Street is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and is developed commercially. Comprehensive Plan: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan depicts the subject area as Residential Medium Density land use classification on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. Under MI-15-01, there is a request to change this classification to Commercial. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, the requested zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not approved, the zoning requested would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Request for C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) The following description of the C-2A zoning district is provided from Article 3 §15 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 14. - Limited central commercial zone (C-2A). 14.1 Uses permitted. In a limited central commercial zone (C-2A), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: (a) Retail stores. (b) Business, professional or governmental offices. (c) Personal service establishments. (d) Restaurants. (e) Service establishments. (f) Hotels. (g) Places of public assembly. (h) Drive-throughs. (i) One family residences, including attached and semi-detached dwellings, complying with the bulk standards of the RG-1 (General Residence) zone. (j) Apartments and multi-family dwellings. 14.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Parking lots and parking structures as a principal use on suitably landscaped lots. (b) Fuel pumps accessory to a permitted use.

Page 78

Z-15-01 Lands of 801 Gold Coast LLC DAC Report – February 4, 2014 Page 3 Recommendation of the Planning Staff: Staff supports the rezoning request from RG-3 to C-2A, provided that the companion Comprehensive Plan Amendment is also approved. The requested zoning is consistent with other properties in the area, particularly those fronting on North State Street. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A public hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The subject building has an active Rental Dwelling Permit, but the property owner has been unresponsive to requests by the Department of Planning and Inspections to inspect the dwelling. The subject property must comply with current inspection requirements before any land development applications can be reviewed by the City of Dover. 2) The subject property is located on Silver Lake. Prior to the Planning Commission considering a Site Development Plan application, the Site Development Plan will be subject to review by the Silver Lake Commission. 3) The applicant shall be aware that following any decision made by City Council in regards to approval of this rezoning, that a Site Plan, Subdivision Plan and or appropriate Building Permits must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the establishment of a use or any construction activity on the site. The applicant should contact the Planning Staff to determine the appropriate review process for any proposed projects. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit, other construction activity permit approval, or authorization to establish a use. A separate application submission showing proposed improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Office as soon as possible.

Page 79

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF February 4, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF February 17, 2015 Plan Title: Jefferson Terrace Subdivision (Revised) (previously referred to as The Meadow Subdivision at Jefferson Terrace) SB-13-06P Revised Plan Type: Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Revised) Applicant/Owner: Penntex, LLC Project Engineer: Bohler Engineering Location: West of Monroe Terrace, south of but not adjacent to Wyoming Avenue Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-06-02.01-000 Existing Site Area: Parcel 1 - 2.35 acres ± Parcel 2 - 1.88 acres ± Total Proposed Site Area: 4.23 acres ± Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Five (5) single family lots for residential development Sanitary Facilities: City of Dover Water Supply: City of Dover Waivers Approved: Exceed the Maximum Street Length of a Dead End Street Increased Percentage of Lots on Cul-de-sac Active Recreation Plan: Exemption for Small Developments P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Page 80

City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Office APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: February 4, 2015 APPLICATION: Jefferson Terrace Subdivision – Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Revised) FILE #: SB-13-06P REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE #: 302-736-7196 PLAN SUMMARY This review is a Preliminary Subdivision Plan* to permit the subdivision of land totaling 4.23 acres ± into five (5) parcels for single family detached dwellings with residual land to be known as Jefferson Terrace. The parcel is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). This parcel is located west of Monroe Terrace and south of but adjacent to Wyoming Avenue. The owner of record is Penntex, LLC. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 077.17-06-02.01-000. *(This submission is a revised Preliminary Subdivision Plan which supersedes the previous submission of SB-13-06P filed for review in February 2014.) Previous Applications The Planning Staff administratively reviewed a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan (Application MI- 12-10) and granted approval on June 5, 2012 (recorded June 12, 2012) involving this parcel of land. The Plan reduced the size of the parcel that included the existing dwelling at 324 Wyoming Avenue by aligning its rear property line with adjacent residential parcels and dividing it from the lands to the south. The parcels impacted by the revisions were 324 Wyoming Avenue and the land south of 324 Wyoming Avenue with frontage on Jefferson Terrace and Monroe Terrace. The property at 324 Wyoming Avenue is not part of this Subdivision Plan application. It is the remaining land area to south of 324 Wyoming Avenue (and other properties) that is the subject of this Preliminary Subdivision Plan application. The first step of this subdivision, the Conceptual Subdivision Plan (SB-13-06C), was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 18, 2013 and granted conditional approval for a subdivision of five (5) residential lots. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee recommended approval of two waivers for the project relating to the cul-de-sac street. City Council on January 13, 2014 granted approval of the waiver requests allowing for increased length of the dead-end street (cul-de-sac street) and for an increased percentage of lots on a dead-end-street. The applicant previously filed the Preliminary Subdivision Plan SB-13-06P for review in February 2014; however, they requested that review of the application be placed on hold prior its Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. The current submission resumes the review process for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan.

Page 81

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 3 of 9 SITE CONSIDERATIONS The minimum lot area for lots within the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Zoning District is 8,000 SF and 10,000 SF for R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) Zoning District. A majority of the subject tract of land is zoned R-10. However, the land area proposed as Lot 1 of the subdivision contains both R-10 and R-8 zoning. Overall, the residential lots within this proposed subdivision meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements for R-10 as all lots will be greater than 10,000 SF in size. This subdivision of land and any future development on the parcels is subject to the requirements found in the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §1 and referenced sections which outline the permitted uses for the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). The following table highlights some of the design standard requirements for the R-8 and R-10 (One Family Residence Zones). (NOTE: This chart is not an all-inclusive listing of the code requirements, but is provided as information on development requirements.) MINIMUM REQUIRED: R-10 One Family R-8 One Family Residence Zone Residence Zone Lot Area 10,000 SF 8,000 SF Lot Configuration – width (ft.) 80 ft. 70 ft. Lot Configuration – depth (ft.) 110 ft. 100 ft. Front yard setback (ft.) 25 ft. 25 ft. Minimum side yard (ft.) 15 ft. 10 ft. Total Both Side yards (ft.) 30 ft. 20 ft. Rear yard setback (ft.) 30 ft. 30 ft. Off-Street Parking Spaces 2 per dwelling 2 per dwelling Maximum Permitted : Building Height: Stories 2 ½ stories 2 ½ stories 1) Feet 35 feet 35 feet Lot Coverage 30% 35% Since this parcel is zoned R-8 and R-10 it is subject to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.7 Uniformity of design in all one-family residence zones. These provisions limit construction of buildings that are like or substantially like a neighboring building in order to prevent monotony of architectural design. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Flood Hazard Areas Flood Hazard Areas (100-year flood plain) are to remain as natural open space. The southern portion of this tract of land includes a Flood Hazard Area. The rear lot lines of Lot 3 and Lot 4 are placed to avoid inclusion of the Flood Hazard Area on the residential lot. The Flood Hazard Area remains as the natural area adjacent to an existing stream including woodland and wetland areas. From the plans it appears that some woodland clearing in the floodplain may be necessary as related to implementation of the stormwater management for the development; a permit for

Page 82

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 4 of 9 development activities in the floodplain will be required (per Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 50). Wetlands The southern portion of this tract of land also includes areas delineated as wetlands. One area is large enough in size to require a setback from the wetland area per the Zoning Ordinance. The setback of 100 feet can be reduced to fifty (50) feet when a riparian buffer is established. The existing woodland can be recognized as satisfying the riparian buffer requirement. This buffer requirement does not impact the five lots proposed for residential development; the impacts are to the residual land area (Parcel 2 area). Wet Soils and Basements The Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §11.23 regarding wet soils limits the building construction when seasonally high water table is within two and one-half feet of the surface and requires construction subject to conditions to address the prevention of water damage. Subdivision plans must identify the seasonal high water table on each lot if basements are proposed. STREETS The Subdivision Plan proposes an extension of Jefferson Terrace as a public street leading to the west from Monroe Terrace. There is existing right-of-way (60 feet wide) for a portion of the street. The extension of Jefferson Terrace is proposed as thirty-six (36) feet paved width before terminating the cul-de-sac. This extension of Jefferson Terrace was required by the Planning Commission to be thirty-six (36) feet paved width. The right-of-way for the street will continue sixty (60) feet of width. The thirty-six (36) feet of paved street width will allow for on-street parking on both sides of the street. Parking would be prohibited within the cul-de-sac. Appropriate street signage will be necessary to denote the areas available for on-street parking. The street extension includes the required upright curbing and sidewalk to be constructed to the City of Dover Standards. The applicant will need to work with the City’s Department of Public Works regarding the detailed street design for this extension of Jefferson Terrace and the associated curb cuts for entrance drives to the individual lots fronting this new street segment. The Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI. §A. Streets also include requirements related to format of right-of-way lines and street layout. Approved Waiver Request: Length of Dead-end Street On January 13, 2014, City Council approved a waiver request (with affirmative recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee) to allow for the extension of Jefferson Terrace (west of Monroe Terrace) to exceed 400 feet. The proposed dead end street is approximately 390+/- feet in length when measured from the center line of Monroe Terrace to the center of the proposed Jefferson Terrace cul-de- sac. However, the length of the proposed cul-de-sac is 440 feet when measured to the terminus of the street right-of-way. Approval has been granted allowing this proposed dead end street (cul-de-sac) to exceed the permitted length of a dead end street per the Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI §A.15. Approved Waiver Request: Increased Percentage of Lots on Cul-de-sac On January 13, 2014, City Council approved a waiver request (with affirmative recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Safety Advisory and Transportation

Page 83

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 5 of 9 Committee) to over 20% of the lots to front on the turnaround section of the cul-de-sac. The Plan depicts three proposed lots or 60% of the proposed five (5) lots in the subdivision to the front on the turnaround section of the proposed Jefferson Terrace cul-de-sac. Approval has been granted to allow proposed lot percentage to exceed the maximum of 20% of the lots in a development allowed to front on the turnaround section of a cul-de-sac. Tree Planting & Preservation Plan The subject site includes areas of existing woodland and scattered individual trees. Several individual trees are proposed to remain on Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3. Tree clearing is limited to a maximum of 50% of the woodland of the parcel. Small areas of tree clearing are identified for implementation of stormwater management drainage on Lots 3-5 and on the residual Parcel 2. The existing woodland on the overall tract is 1.85 acres and with the development of the subdivision total of 1.70 acres in woodland is proposed to remain. This results in a non- woodland area of 2.53 acres (110,206.8 S.F.). With the new tree plantings required at a rate of one tree per 3,000 SF of non-woodland lot area, a total of thirty-seven (37) trees are required. Seven (7) existing trees are proposed to remain and thirty (30) new tree plantings are proposed. The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §16.52 does allow for limited clearing of trees to accommodate the placement of the house, driveway (property access, utilities, etc. for an area of up to 30 feet from the proposed building foundation and 15 feet from utility placement. It appears that additional clearing can be proposed on Lots 3 and 4 at the rear of the proposed house locations. Active Recreation Plan The Zoning Ordinance includes requirements for areas of Active Recreation to be provided with the development of residential subdivisions at a land area rate per lot. However, there are exceptions to this requirement for residential subdivisions where the property is less than five acres and less than ten dwelling units are proposed. This Jefferson Terrace Subdivision project is eligible for this exemption and the project will require a cash donation instead of identifying an active recreation area of land. See code excerpt below. The process will involve submission of the appraisal information to the Planning Office for review by the Parks Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee City Council, and the Planning Commission. Once the amount is confirmed, the donation must be paid prior to the first Building Permit being issued. Article 5 Section 10.5 Exemption to recreation area and open space dedication. 10.51 Exemptions for small developments. 10.511 Residential developments with less than five acres of land and less than ten dwelling units. These developments shall be exempt from the land requirements set forth in [sub]sections 10.1 and 10.2, but shall require a full cash donation to be made by the developer in lieu of a dedication of land. 10.52 Amount of cash donation. This cash donation shall be equivalent to ten percent of the appraised value of gross land area. The land area value shall be based on the appraisal prepared for the developer to secure construction financing. This submitted appraisal shall be a copy of the original supplied to the lending institution, with that institution identified, and shall conform in all ways to the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal practice and be performed by an appropriately qualified certified appraiser. If an appraisal prepared for construction financing is not available, then the developer shall have an appraisal done in accordance with the procedures set forth in [sub]section 10.174.

Page 84

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 6 of 9 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: NEED TO UPDATE 1) The name of the subdivision has been revised to Jefferson Terrace; it was previously proposed as The Meadow. Since there is an existing residential subdivision known as The Meadows the revision was necessary to avoid confusion in emergency response. a) The name Jefferson Terrace was suggested for usage during processing of the subdivision plan. Given the small size and infill style development is it unlikely that the development will be recognized by a subdivision name but rather the street location. b) The street name of Jefferson Terrace is appropriate as the proposed street is a continuation of the existing street segment known as Jefferson Terrace. 2) A Record Plan sheet must be prepared for recordation according to the Record Plat requirements. Currently Sheet 5 has a portion of this information already provided. a) Provide a data column on the Record Plan. b) Indicate actions taken on waivers for the subdivision. c) Identify the locations of any existing or future easements (drainage, utilities, etc.) on the site and reference documents establishing the provisions of the easements. d) Appropriate deed restrictions and notes on the Record Plan should note the features of this southern area (Parcel 2 area) and the restrictions to development related to the existence of the flood hazard area, wetlands, retention of the woodland as a riparian buffer, tree clearing limitations, etc. e) Additional review comments will be provided with the submission of a Record Plat sheet(s). 3) At the time of Final Plan submission update file number on cover sheet. This submission is SB-13-06P and then the Final submission will be SB-13-09F. 4) Sheet 1: The Project Notes will need to be updated with the following: a) Item #13: Check wording (approved a waiver request (…) to allow over 20%). b) Under Governing Agencies: Clarify that City of Dover is the Department of Planning & Inspections and the Department of Public Works. The phone number 736-7196 is the Planning Office. c) List name of managing member signing on behalf of the property owner. 5) Sheet 2: a) Ensure notes are applicable to this project in the City of Dover. For example, road construction notes reference a county inspector rather than City; Utility Notes must reference approved materials for use in the City; lighting notes seem to reference to a commercial project with an ATM. b) City Water/Wastewater Notes: Update references to Public Works (from Public Utilities) and their contact number to be 736-7025. 6) Sheet 4 - Existing Conditions and Demolition: a) Clarify the existing woodland edge and the proposed edge location after clearing.

Page 85

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 7 of 9 b) Suggest utilizing a “X” graphic to mark individual trees to be removed. 7) Sheet 5 - Site Plan: a) The label for the street Jefferson Terrace is off; add tie line to street location. Clarify the extension of the street also is proposed as right-of-way. b) Provide the percentage of the proposed Residential Lot 1 within each of the zoning classifications of R-8 and R-10. This information is needed to determine the bulk standards for this specific residential lot. The District and Bulk requirements for R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) may need to be added to the Plan if found to govern the development of this specific lot. Currently the percentages are given by the ‘deed’ parcels. c) A series of additional notes and a data column will be required if this sheet is utilized as the basis for the Record Plat. For the Record Plat, the building footprints are not required. 8) Sheet 6 – Grading & Drainage Plan: The applicant will need to work with the Department of Public Works regarding the design of the extension of Jefferson Terrace to the City of Dover Standards and details for construction of this new street segment and the associated curbing, sidewalks, drainage, and signage (for traffic control and parking limitations). a) Evaluate the location of curb cuts to serve the existing parcels (both developed and vacant tracts) along the new segment of Jefferson Terrace located between the subject parcel and Monroe Terrace. Curb cuts for adjacent developed properties may be necessary with the construction of the street extension. b) Easements will be required for any construction activity i.e. re-grading that occurs on adjacent properties not owned by this developer. Documentation of such agreements must be submitted. 9) When bio-filtration swales cross a residential property, the future property owners Lots 3, 4, and 5) need to be made aware of the limits of usage of the swale and the procedures for its care and maintenance. 10) Sheet 9: Update manhole cover detail to appropriate City of Dover detail (not DelDOT). 11) Sheet 17 – Tree Planting & Preservation Plan: a) The trees shown on the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be relocated to distinctly place each tree on a specific lot. b) Evaluate the option of clearing additional area at the rear of Lot 3 and Lot 4 to create an open rear yard space. The Zoning Ordinance allows limited clearing for the placement of the house to allow for daylight infiltration and ease of building maintenance. Revise woodland clearing area tallies and recheck tree planting requirement. c) You may wish to consider planting evergreen tree species in the rear yard areas of Lot 1 and Lot 2 as a screening element. d) Update this Site Data column with any changes made on similar columns. 12) If basements are proposed, then the seasonally high water table must be identified for each lot. Construction is subject to specific requirements. A lot specific study may be substituted. See Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.23.

Page 86

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 8 of 9 13) The applicant must submit the appraisal for determination and review of the cash-in-lieu donation to satisfy the Active Recreation requirement. A Review of the appraisal must occur to establish the required cash donation amount in lieu of recreation area development. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: 1) With the extension and construction of this new street segment of Jefferson Terrace, appropriate water and sanitary sewer service connections (taps and laterals) should be established for all existing and proposed lots fronting on the street with this initial construction. This will avoid future disruption of the newly paved street to establish such services. 2) The proposal for sewer service to these five subdivision lots is unusual. The Department of Public Works is requiring/recommending submission of the agreements that establish this private force main system and has provided additional design review comments for such system and its connection to City utility infrastructure. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The Preliminary Plan is the second step in the major subdivision process. For this project, the next step is the submission of the Final Record Plat and associated Construction Plans through the Administrative process of Check Print Review in order to achieve Final Plan approvals. 2) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 3) The developer shall be aware that Street Lights shall be required to be installed in conjunction with the construction of subdivision streets. The developer shall coordinate street light placement and electric utility routing and equipment with the City of Dover Electric Department. 4) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Preliminary Subdivision Plan occur in the development of the plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 5) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate pre-construction meetings, site inspections permits are required. 6) A Permit will be required for the proposed woodland clearing activities proposed within the Flood Hazard Area (100 year floodplain area) of the residual lands (Parcel 2). 7) The applicant shall be aware that Preliminary Subdivision approval does not represent a Building Permit, Sign Permit and other associated construction activity permits and fees. A Demolition Permit will be required for the existing structure to be demolished in the

Page 87

SB-13-06P Revised Jefferson Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Plan DAC Report of February 4, 2015 Page 9 of 9 northwest corner of the site. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Permit from the City of Dover for construction activities on each residential lot. Each Building Permit will be reviewed for compliance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.7 Uniformity of design in all one-family residence zones. 8) Each design professional (engineer and landscape architect) sealing the plan are ‘doing work in the City’ and are required to hold a City of Dover Business License as an individual professional. Contact the Permitting & Licensing Division for information at (302) 736-7010. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

Page 88

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2015 APPLICATION: Jefferson Terrace FILE #: SB-13-06P REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Aren Wright - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. All cable and electrical equipment will be installed along the right-of-way in front of the lots. 7. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 8. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 9. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 10. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 11. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 12. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 13. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 14. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 15. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

Page 89

The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace File #: SB-13-06P January 28, 2015 Page 2 of 7 WATER 1. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. b. Any existing water lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Works Construction Manager at (302) 736-7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Public Works must observe and approve all City owned water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the water connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. 4. All water mains within the proposed subdivision must be looped. No dead end mains are permitted. A waiver to this requirement may be granted with a proper technical infeasibility presented by the owner / developer. 5. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. All water mains shall be cement lined Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. The minimum size is eight-inches (8”). Division valves must be provided every 800 feet. 6. Water service lines shall be shown for each residential lot meeting the following requirements: The water services shall be one-inch (1”) diameter Type K copper tubing, and installed five feet (5’) to the right of the sewer lateral as viewed from the center line of the street. Curb stops shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way for each lot. A water meter and meter pit must be installed on the domestic water service, in a non-traffic bearing location just downstream of the curb stop. 7. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no greater than 600 feet as measured along the curb. Fire hydrants shall be placed between the curb and sidewalk at intersections or centered on lot lines. Fifteen feet (15’) separation must be provided between all hydrants and hydrant valves. 8. Water service lines, from the main to the meter pit, shall extend perpendicular to the main. Please remove all bends to the water services, if a technical infeasibility exists; please submit a waiver request to our office. WASTEWATER 1. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Any existing sanitary sewer lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. b. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Sec. 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes, exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created with the site improvements.

Page 90

The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace File #: SB-13-06P January 28, 2015 Page 3 of 7 3. The private force main shall terminate prior to the City owned right-of-way. A manhole shall be installed at or near the property line to delineate ownership. The City will maintain the remainder of the sewer infrastructure, which is to be gravity, within the right-of-way. 4. The location for sewer mains shall be under the street, if the main cannot be installed in the center of the road, a waiver request must be submitted. One-tenth of a foot (0.1’) drop must be provided across all manholes. The minimum slope for eight-inch (8”) sanitary sewer pipe is 0.004 feet/feet. Minimum cover is 3.0 feet. 5. Sanitary sewer manholes shall be spaced no more than 400 feet apart. 6. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 7. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures. 8. The minimum velocity shall not be less than two feet per second (2 fps) for force main design. In general force main velocities shall not exceed five and one-half feet per second (5-1/2 fps) for force main design. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District submitted to our office. 2. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all stormwater structures. 3. Submerged pipe inlets to ponds may only be permitted if they are so designed that the permanent pool elevation of the storm water management area doesn’t surcharge back into the City of Dover’s storm drain structures and system. 4. The City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications require all culverts to be designed for the 25-year storm frequency and all storm sewers to be designed for the 10-year storm frequency. The Manning’s equation shall be utilized in design as applicable. Storm sewers are required to provide a minimum full flow velocity of 2 fps. Provide the calculations for each proposed pipe segment that, at a minimum, include: upstream and downstream inverts, upstream and downstream ground elevations, and ground cover provided; pipe slope, length, material, n value, and diameter; design flow, depth and velocity; and full flow and velocity. 5. The City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications require that all inlets (catch basins) be designed for the 10-year storm frequency (25-year storm frequency for sump conditions) and that the spread of water shall not exceed eight feet (8’) from the flow line of the curb. The design must also meet the requirement that the hydraulic grade line may be no higher than one foot (1’) below the top of the inlet. Provide the calculations for each proposed catch basin utilizing flows determined by each catch basin’s contributory drainage area, for the appropriate storm frequency. Spread, depth of flow and hydraulic grade line data for each inlet must also be included. Any carryover should also be noted and included at appropriate downstream catch basins as applicable. 6. Provide all stormwater management calculations and erosion and sedimentation control plan as required by Article 5, Section 11.2 and 11.2 of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. Ensure that individual lot grading, house locations with finished floor elevations, and driveway locations and grades are provided on the plans in order to verify the adequacy of the design. The provided information should also show adequate conveyance of runoff from each lot. 7. All storm drainage located within the right-of-way shall be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). STREETS 1. The current City of Dover standard street section provides for a 3’ grass strip between the curb and sidewalk. This standard was administratively revised to meet ADA and FHA compliance with cross slope requirements and to prevent cars from scrapping at driveways. The revised standard utilizes a five feet (5’) wide public sidewalk with a five feet (5’) wide grass strip behind the curb. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to alter the curb of any street so as to create a curb depression for the purpose of permitting vehicles to enter onto or exit from the city streets, without a permit issued by the city manager. 3. When determined to be necessary, dead-end streets, designated to be so permanently, shall not be longer than 400 feet and shall be provided at the closed end cul-de-sac with a turnaround having an outside roadway diameter of 80

Page 91

The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace File #: SB-13-06P January 28, 2015 Page 4 of 7 feet and a street right-of-way diameter of 100 feet. In no instance shall more than 20 percent of the lots in a proposed development front on the turnaround section of a cul-de-sac. 4. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. The inner right-of-way line of a street intersecting another street at an angle of less than 90 degrees shall be tangent to and follow a curve with a minimum radius of 150 feet centered on the nearest right-of-way line and shall be parallel to said inner right-of-way line. 5. Street right-of-way lines deflecting from each other at any point shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which, for the centerline of the right-of-way, shall not be less than 500 feet on arterial streets, 300 feet on collector streets and 150 feet on minor streets. The outer and inner right-of-way line shall be parallel to said center right-of-way line. 6. Street rights-of-way lines at intersections shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which shall be at least 25 feet. The required radius may be increased by the city engineer if the increased radius is necessary for public safety. 7. Street grades shall not exceed five percent. 8. Street grades shall not be less than one-half percent wherever feasible. SANITATION 1. Every person occupying a residence or duplex and every owner of an apartment shall provide such premises with a sufficient number of solid waste containers to provide adequate capacity for the solid waste placed out for collection without overloading the capacity of the containers. GROUNDS 1. An official street tree species list has been approved by the superintendent of grounds for tree plantings along streets and avenues of the city. (The official list will be kept on file in the office of the city clerk.) No species other than those included in this list may be planted as street trees without the written permission of the superintendent of grounds. 2. Spacing of trees shall be determined by the superintendent of grounds, but, generally, all large trees shall be planted no closer than 35 feet, medium trees no closer than 30 feet and small trees no closer than 25 feet, except in special plantings designed or approved by a landscape architect. 3. No street tree shall be planted closer than 30 feet to any street corner and no closer than ten feet to any fire hydrant. 4. Only trees listed as small to medium shall be planted under power lines; and no trees shall be planted within ten feet of any underground water line, sewer line, transmission line or other utility. 5. It shall be unlawful and a nuisance for any person to plant any vegetation in any public right-of-way. Upon receipt of notice from the city to remove any vegetation located in a public right-of-way, the owner of the abutting property shall remove such vegetation at his own expense within the time limit provided in such notice. 6. It shall be unlawful and a nuisance for any person to plant any tree, shrub or bush within 16 feet of the curbline. Upon receipt of notice from the city to remove any tree, shrub or bush which is located within 16 feet of the curbline, the owner of the property upon which such tree, shrub or bush is located shall remove the same at his own expense within the time limit fixed in such notice. GENERAL 1. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2004 (.dwg format). b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). 2. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to final grade in accordance with current City of Dover requirements and practices. This must be included as a note on the plan. 3. Where applicable, please replace DelDOT details with City of Dover Department of Public Works specific details. Please contact the office for access to said details.

Page 92

The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace File #: SB-13-06P January 28, 2015 Page 5 of 7 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/media/documents/2010%20Electric%20Service%20Handbook.pdf WATER 1. Provide water services to the following lots: ED-05-077.17-06-13.00 and ED-05-077.17-06-10.00. 2. Provide greater detail on how the proposed water main will connect to the existing water main in Monroe Terrace. WASTEWATER 1. Force main calculations shall be adjusted to include the possible effluent from the following lots that may connect in the future: ED-05-077.17-06-13.00 and ED-05-077.17-06-10.00. 2. Prior to the Department of Public Works approval, an agreement must be submitted for review and approval by our office to reflect maintenance and repair responsibility between all parties connected to the private force main. STORMWATER 1. The City of Dover will not maintain any drainage or storm pipe not located within the right-of-way. Please clearly identify who the drainage easements will be between. 2. In addition to the drainage calculations required, please submit drainage calculations for the adjacent lots to this development to assure increased water volume will not occur. 3. Safety grates shall be installed on all pipes that are daylighted. GROUNDS 1. Please remove the street trees that are located within ten-feet (10’) of underground infrastructure. STREETS / SANITATION 1. None. GENERAL 1. Public infrastructure dedication table shall be revised to incorporate all comments in this report. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed two (2) times per year during system wide flushing operations. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Water impact fees will be required for each residential lot.

Page 93

The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace File #: SB-13-06P January 28, 2015 Page 6 of 7 WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the sanitary sewer system plans must be submitted to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. The existing manhole must be core drilled and an approved (by our office) pipe to manhole connector must be used to construct the connection for installation of the sewer main. The existing manhole flow channel must be reconstructed accordingly. 4. Wastewater impact fees will be required for each residential lot. STORMWATER 1. Profiles of the storm sewer must be provided with the construction plans. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings must be shown on the profiles. 2. This plan proposes grading on adjacent lots not associated with this development. Please provide proper documentation that the owners of said lots are in agreement with this activity. STREETS 1. Street profiles must be provided with the construction plans. 2. All streets to be dedicated to the City must meet the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications. a. Pavement sections must be designed based upon poor soil conditions unless soil boring data is provided showing otherwise. Structural number calculations must be submitted for review and a pavement cross section detail must be included within the plan set. b. All curbing within the right-of-way shall be DelDOT Type III curb and gutter. All curb radii must be labeled on the plan. In particular, a minimum radius of twenty-five feet (25’) must be provided at all street intersections. A construction detail of the Type III curb and gutter must be provided on the plan. c. Sidewalk proposed within the right-of-way shall be constructed as per the City of Dover Standards and Specifications. All sidewalks must be poured by hand; curb machine slip formed sidewalks will not be permitted. The sidewalk must be scored in five feet (5’) squares using hand tooled joints. All tool marks shall be removed as tool finished edges are not permitted. Expansion joints shall be installed at a spacing of twenty feet (20’) and shall be precut, one-half inch (½ “) thick, four-inch (4”) wide, cork sheets. All sidewalk proposed within the right- of-way shall consist of Class B concrete, without reinforcing material, in order to prevent future interference with utility locating. The proposed five feet (5’) wide public sidewalk shall be installed 5 feet from the back of curb. The sidewalk cross slope shall not exceed 2% including across the driveways to ensure ADA and FHA compliance. A sidewalk construction detail containing the above information must be provided on the plan. d. All barrier free access ramps and driveway aprons constructed with the site improvements shall be in accordance with the most current ADA and DelDOT requirements and standards at the time of construction. To meet cross slope requirements a five feet (5’) wide grass strip must be provided between a five feet (5’) sidewalk and the curb. e. Signage and markings must be included with the site plan in accordance the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Signage proposed for streets to be dedicated to the City of Dover must be included on the plan (no parking signs, speed limit signs, street blades, stops signs, watch children, etc.) All signs must be installed on two-inch (2”) square break away sign posts. SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. GENERAL 1. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial

Page 94

The Meadow Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace File #: SB-13-06P January 28, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

Page 95

C F CITY OF DOVER I I T R DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Y E APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY O M F A D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 01/28/15 R D S O H APPLICATION: Revised Jefferson Terrace Subdivision on Jefferson Terrace V A E L FILE #: SB-13-06P REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal R CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed building is residential. 2. Address numbers of at least 6 inches in height must be placed on the street side of the building visible from the street. 3. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 4. Please ensure proper turning radius for fire apparatus within the cul-de-sac as required/defined by the 2012 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations. 5. Per the 2012 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, the cul-de-sac needs a minimum paved radius of 38 feet that is unobstructed. No parking signs will need to be installed to ensure that there is no on street parking. 6. There is a proposed fire hydrant in the cul-de-sac which is being required. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. N/A APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2012 NFPA Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2012 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

Page 96

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY February 2015 APPLICATION: Jefferson Terrace FILE #: SB-13-06P REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2014 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 5,000 square feet, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. The review fee and a completed Application for a Detailed Plan are due at the time of plan submittal to our office. Construction inspection fees based on developed area and stormwater facility maintenance inspection fees based on the number of stormwater facilities are due prior to the start of construction. Please refer to the fee schedule for those amounts. 2. The following notes must appear on the record plan:  The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to enter private property for purposes of periodic site inspection.  The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to add, modify, of delete any erosion or sediment control measure, as it deems necessary.  A clear statement of defined maintenance responsibility for stormwater management facilities must be provided on the Record Plan. 3. A soils investigation supporting the stormwater management facility design is required to determine impacts of the seasonal high groundwater level and soils for any basin design. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The plans are currently under review for the project. 2. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management plan has been approved.

Page 97

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF March 4, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF March 16, 2015 Plan Title: Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware S-15-03 Plan Type: Site Development Plan Owners of Record: Islamic Society of Central Delaware c/o Usman Sandhu Location: North side of South Little Creek Road and west of JH Brown Boulevard Address: 777 South Little Creek Road Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.11-01-03.00-000 Site Area: 3.8 acres Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Existing Use: Vacant lot Proposed Use: Place of Assembly Building Building Area: Proposed Building: 28,502 S.F. Impervious Areas: Proposed – 65% Off Street Parking: Required – 143 parking spaces (Maximum 179 parking spaces per Code) Proposed – 181 parking spaces plus future parking area* (exceeds allowable parking) Sanitary Facilities: City of Dover Water Supply: City of Dover Waiver Requested: Alternative Format of Opaque Barrier P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Page 98

City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 4, 2015 APPLICATION: Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware at 777 South Little Creek Road, Dover, DE FILE #: S-15-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 PLAN SUMMARY This is a Site Plan to permit construction of a place of public assembly building of 28,502 S.F. on a 3.8 acre property for the Islamic Society of Central Delaware. The property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located on the north side of South Little Creek Road and west of JH Brown Boulevard. The owner of record is the Islamic Society of Central Delaware c/o Usman Sandhu. Property Address: 777 South Little Creek Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.11-01-03.00-000. Council District 2 PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS At this property, a previous Site Development Plan S-08-15 Dover Self Storage was approved by the Planning Commission in March 2008. At the time the property was zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and the project proposed a mini-storage facility. The Site Plan S-08-15 expired due to lack of finalization of the Site Plan and no commencement of construction activity. The property was rezoned to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) as part of the 2009 Comprehensive Rezoning Project (MI-09-08). The property is now in new ownership. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of a vacant lot. The building is proposed in the northern portion of the property with the parking lot shown to the south of the proposed building. The building is approximately 28,502 S.F. in size; this floor area may be adjusted to reflect the occupied space on the basement level and the clarification of the floor area on the first and second stories of the building. Access to the property is from JH Brown Boulevard; there will be no direct access from the property to South Little Creek Road. This entrance drive crosses through an open space area of the Clearview Meadow Subdivision via a forty (40) feet wide cross access easement established with the Subdivision Plan SB-04-04F recorded September 30, 2015 (Plat Book 80 Page 46-51).

Page 99

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 3 of 9 As this property proposes dedication of right-of-way, a Record Plan sheet must be prepared for this right-of-way dedication (adjustment to property line location) and any other required easements. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.54 (O) requires submission of architectural elevation drawings or other graphic representations of the building for review to identify building massing and materials. The drawing submission reveals a proposed masonry building of colored concrete/masonry block and Dry-Vit finishes with a variety of window openings. The building design has been refined to include pitched and hipped roofs. The U-shaped building includes a one story wing on the west side for a gymnasium space and a two story wing on the east side for a series of office, meeting rooms and classroom spaces. Central to the building is the two story assembly area which is entered from the main entrance off the middle courtyard area framed by the building. Building detailing includes changes in materials and color to create a watertable area, to highlight the sections of the building, windows, and the cornice line. C-2A ZONING DISTRICT The uses and bulk standards of the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) zoning district were amended in the past year along with the Site Development Plan procedures. Ordinance #2014-08 (with Staff Amendment #1) was adopted on July 14, 2014 by City Council. This project requires Site Development Plan review by the Planning Commission due to the size of the proposed building and amount of impervious surface coverage. The proposed use as a place of public assembly and is permitted in the C-2A zone. The bulk standards for the C-2A zone are now established in Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 Section 4.14 as follows: C-2A Minimum required: Lot area Lot width (ft.) Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front yard (ft.) 15 Side yard (ft.) None required, but 5 feet min. if provided. Rear yard (ft.) 20 ft. above ground floor. At ground floor, 5 ft. required. Side or rear yards which adjoin a residential 25 Off-street parking: Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 6 Feet 75 Floor area ratio 4.0

Page 100

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 4 of 9 SITE CONSIDERATIONS PARKING SUMMARY The parking requirement in the C-2A zoning district is one (1) parking space per 300 S.F. of floor area or one space per employee. However, due to the specific use proposed the parking requirement is established by Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 §3.1. This code section requires that a place of worship have at least one (1) parking space per 200 S.F. of floor area but not less than one (1) space per four seats. Based on the floor area of 28,502 S.F. for the total building, a minimum of 143 parking spaces is required and the property is limited to a maximum of 179 parking spaces. The plan currently depicts a total of 181 parking spaces; this exceeds the allowable parking and must be revised. The plan also depicts an area labeled as “Possible Future Parking area.” Staff estimates that the area would consist of 19 additional parking spaces. This area cannot be constructed as parking as the site currently is at the maximum parking allowed. The applicant has the option of seeking a variance of the parking requirement (to allow for more than the code maximum number of parking spaces) with an application to the Board of Adjustment. In addition, it appears that regulatory requirements from other agencies may impact the availability of this area proposed for future parking. Loading Spaces The use of the building does not require a designated loading space. Bicycle Parking The site is required to provide bicycle parking. The bicycle parking calculation is one for every twenty parking spaces. Based on the number of parking spaces at 179 spaces, then at least nine (9) bicycle parking spaces are required. The plan does not currently show bicycle parking. Dumpster For the place of public assembly (type of institutional use), one Dumpster is required for the first 40,000 S.F. of building area and one for each additional 40,000 S.F. of building area or fraction thereof. For this project with a total building area of 28,501 S.F., the requirement is for one (1) Dumpster. However, provisions must also be made for recycling. The plan locates a new Dumpster area north of the parking lot area on the east side of the building. The type of enclosure and gate system is unclear. The Landscape Plan also shows Arborvitae plantings to screen the Dumpster enclosure. Lighting The location of the proposed lighting is not shown on the plan and must be identified. The proposed lighting must be adequate to safely light all parking and pedestrian areas yet must be shielded and directed as to not create a nuisance on the adjacent properties or traffic on adjacent roads. Sidewalk There is sidewalk proposed along the street frontage of South Little Creek Road in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18. A sidewalk is proposed connecting from the street

Page 101

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 5 of 9 frontage sidewalk into the site from South Little Creek Road. Additionally, a sidewalk leading into the site from JH Brown Boulevard is also required. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN A Landscape Plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §16 was prepared. The tree planting requirement is based on the total lot area and one (1) tree is required for every 3,000 SF of land area. This project site consists of a total lot area of 3.8 acres (165,528 S.F.); therefore, fifty-six (56) trees are required. The vegetated area along the western property line will be removed and along the northern property the understory brush will be removed. The new trees plantings include Red Sunset Maple trees along the South Little Creek Road frontage, Plane Trees in the parking lot islands, additional trees on the side of the parking lot near the building, Plum trees near building entrance, and a number of evergreen trees along the north property line. Opaque Barrier Requirement Waiver Requested: Alternative Format of Opaque Barrier The northern property line, adjacent to the residential use properties in the Clearview Meadows Subdivision is required to be buffered as per Article 5 § 7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. At this location an opaque barrier and landscape buffer is required since this a non-residential use abuts a residential use. The plans show an opaque fence of six (6) feet and a series of evergreen tree plantings. However, the plan is showing the tree plantings on the project side of the fence rather than the residential side as required by Code. The applicant has submitted a written waiver request for an alternative format of the opaque barrier for consideration by the Planning Commission. They propose installation of the fence at the property line and then the landscape tree plantings on the non-residential (project) side of the fence. Staff notes that the opaque barrier element is required only for the northern portion of the site if it is to be implemented. The property line along JH Brown Boulevard is not considered by this Office to be adjacent to a residential use. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1) For the opaque barrier, the plan is showing the tree plantings on the project side of the fence rather than the residential side as required by code. The applicant has submitted a waiver request proposing an alternative format for the placement of the fence component and landscaping component. 2) The 181 parking spaces shown on the plan (and the future parking area of 19 spaces) exceed the maximum parking limitation set by the Zoning Ordinance based on the parking calculation for this building project. The Plan must be revised to show the maximum of 179 parking spaces. a) If the applicant wishes to pursue development of additional parking spaces, then a variance application to the Board of Adjustment is required. Contact Planning Staff for

Page 102

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 6 of 9 information on the variance application process. (Note: This Site Plan application can continue with the Planning Commission review, as the elimination of the excess parking does not significantly impact the site design.) 3) A separate Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan (Record Plan) sheet must be prepared to document the right-of-way dedication and any utility or other easements. 4) The Site Plan must be updated with changes recommended or approvals including any waivers granted by the Planning Commission. 5) Check spelling of Tax Parcel in Title Block. 6) The Site Data Column will need to be updated prior to Final Approval with the following: a) Items #6 and 7: Recheck dedication area. Based on the plan drawing this should be 0.049 acres. Update Net Area. b) Item #10: Add minimum lot depth of 100 feet. Update the maximum building height for C-2A to read as 6 story 75 feet. c) Provide Floor Area Ratio for project site. d) Water and Sewer should be listed as City of Dover. e) Item #32: Remove references to New Castle County Drainage Code and references to Kent County Drainage Code (on other plan sheets). f) List any conditions, recommendations or approvals including information on the action taken on any waivers granted by the Planning Commission. 7) Sheet 1: a) Add deed and/or plat reference for cross access easement on Clearview Meadow Subdivision property. b) Clarify intention of Building being labeled as Phase 1, 2, and 3. This may have code compliance implications. The applicant has indicated that the building will be constructed as one phase; update the plan labeling. c) Building label should reflect footprint size and total floor area size. d) Recheck parking count labels and update. e) A construction easement may be necessary to construct the sidewalk ramp to join the sidewalk to the driveway on the adjacent property. f) Remove stray property line near JH Brown Boulevard. 8) Sheet 2: a) The proposed sign location does not appear to provide adequate separation distance from the proposed sewer line. b) Parking count is mislabeled. c) Update Reference in General Note #4. The Kent County GIS is not the reference source for properties located within the City of Dover and their water resource protection status. In the City, this is depicted as part of the Zoning Map as the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ). 9) In order to clearly depict information, the plan drawing may need to be presented at a different scale and divided onto multiple sheets.

Page 103

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 7 of 9 10) Add a sidewalk connection from the street frontage sidewalk of JH Brown Boulevard to lead into the site. 11) Add bicycle parking location to provide at least nine (9) parking spaces. Add detail of rack system. 12) Show location and style of lighting fixtures for the property. 13) Add connecting sidewalk from JH Brown Boulevard leading into the site. 14) Provide details of Dumpster enclosure and gate system. 15) Barrier free access ramps shall be installed allow access from the accessible parking spaces and at all points where sidewalks intersect with roadways and parking areas. a) Clarify the sidewalk and ramp system along the front of the building at the entry from the parking lot pavement surface. 16) Identify the fence material to create fence component of the opaque barrier. 17) Landscape Plan: a) Remove reference to Kent County Drainage Code in General Note #6. b) As part of the opaque barrier along the north property line, the evergreen plantings must be continuous. Some adjustments to tree planting locations or additional trees are necessary for compliance. c) Any trees displaced on the adjacent open space parcel of the Clearview Meadow Subdivision for the establishment of the entrance drive will be required to be replaced. The Landscape Plan for the subdivision indicates at least one tree (may be two) that will be displaced with construction. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: 1) Waiver Request: The following is the Staff recommendation regarding the waiver request: a. Alternative Format of Opaque Barrier: Staff recommends approval of the request for an alternative format of the opaque barrier to allow the fence to face the residential properties with the landscaping of the non-residential (project) side of the fence. This will clearly show the property line and help to ensure the proper maintenance of the landscaping (tree plantings). At maturity the trees will be taller that the fence and will provide additional screening of the building. It is recommended that the fence be placed enough inside of the property line to allow for maintenance of the fence on its north face. 2) Staff recommends that any outside HVAC Equipment be designed to minimize the impact on adjacent property owners, adequately screened from public view and the overall visible impact. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:

Page 104

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 8 of 9 1) The Planning Commission should act upon any waiver requests for the project as part of any motion to approve this project, or as a separate motion if necessary. Note: All waivers are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may approve or deny waiver requests. 2) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 3) The engineer and landscape architecture sealing the plan are required to have a City of Dover Business License. For licensing information contact the Permitting & Licensing Division at (302)736-7010. 4) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff and directly to other agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement. 5) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of the Site Plan contact the Planning Office. Examples include reorientation of the building, relocation of site components, and increases in floor area count. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 6) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and City of Dover Fire Marshal for these requirements. The resolution of these items may impact the site design including such items as building dimensions and height, building openings, and fire protection needs, etc. 7) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections, Pre-Construction meetings (including a City of Dover Pre-Construction meeting), and permits are required. 8) Construction may have an effect on the adjacent property owners and nearby travel lanes. Any work requiring the closing or rerouting of potential customers or visitors to adjacent properties should be coordinated as to offer the least amount of inconvenience to the adjacent property owners. 9) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign.

Page 105

S-15-03 Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware DAC Report of March 4, 2015 Page 9 of 9 10) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

Page 106

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2015 APPLICATION: Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware FILE #: S-15-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Aren Wright - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

Page 107

Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware File #: S-15-03 February 25, 2015 Page 2 of 5 WATER 1. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. b. Any existing water lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Works Construction Manager at (302) 736-7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Public Works must observe and approve all City owned water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the water connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. 4. A curb stop shall be installed one foot (1’) outside the right-of-way line. 5. Water usage projections (peak demand or plumbing fixtures) must be submitted to our office to correctly determine the size of the domestic and irrigation (if applicable) water meter for the proposed building. These projections must be submitted prior to approval so the meter size can be placed on the final site plan. The proposed water meter must be installed in a pit per City of Dover requirements and manufacturer’s recommendations. Also, a dual check valve is required downstream of the meter. 6. The domestic service, fire main connection and valves must be clearly shown for each building. A valve must be installed at the tee to isolate combined fire and domestic water service to the building from the water loop. Typically this valve is installed at the tee or an acceptable distance from the building. A valve must be provided on the domestic water service, which must be tapped off of the combined eight-inch (8”) fire/domestic service outside of the building. The domestic water tap and valve should be as close to the building as possible. Typically, the domestic tap and valve are located within five feet (5’) to ten feet (10’) of the building. A blow up detail of this layout is recommended. 7. Provide a construction detail for the proposed restraining system for the fire main located within the buildings. The Department of Public Works will test and inspect all fire mains to a blind flange located inside the buildings. The blind flange with tap is used for hydrostatic pressure testing (200 psi for two (2) hours) and dechlorination. The flange must be restrained in the direction of the pipe entering the facility. A pipe entering horizontally through a wall sleeve shall be restrained with rods through the wall. A pipe entering vertically through a slab shall be restrained through the floor to the ninety degree (90) bend and thrust block. All rods shall be a minimum of ¾” all thread. All pipes through walls and slabs must be Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. Confirm particulars to meet this requirement with mechanical designer. WASTEWATER 1. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Any existing sanitary sewer lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. b. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Sec. 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes,

Page 108

Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware File #: S-15-03 February 25, 2015 Page 3 of 5 exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created with the site improvements. 3. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures, including cleanouts. 4. Cleanouts must be installed on sanitary sewer laterals within five feet (5’) of the building, one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way and at all bends. Any cleanout located within a traffic bearing location shall be installed with a heavy duty cast iron frame and cover to prevent damage to the cleanout and lateral. 5. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer laterals (other than for single-family dwellings) showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. 6. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 7. If kitchen facilities are proposed a minimum 1,000 gallon, two chamber grease trap, meeting all Kent County ordinance requirements, must be provided. A construction detail for the proposed grease trap, as well as the proposed location, must be provided on the plan. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District is submitted to our office. 2. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all stormwater structures. STREETS 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. 2. The radius of the entrance to the site shall be at least 25 feet. The required radius may be increased by the city engineer if the increased radius is necessary for public safety. SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None GENERAL 1. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to final grade in accordance with current City of Dover requirements and practices. This must be included as a note on the plan. 2. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2004 (.dwg format). b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/. WATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None. WASTEWATER 1. Please depict the existing utility easement for the sanitary sewer main that crosses this property.

Page 109

Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware File #: S-15-03 February 25, 2015 Page 4 of 5 ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Water impact fees will be required for this proposed site plan. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the sanitary sewer system plans must be submitted to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. Profiles of the sanitary sewer main must be provided with the construction plans. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings must be shown on the profiles. 4. Wastewater impact fees will be required for this proposed site plan. STORMWATER / GROUNDS 1. None. STREETS 1. Please clarify the type of truck used for the turning radius diagram, entrance width should be designed to accommodate the largest vehicle that could enter the site, this includes, but not limited to, delivery trucks, buses, emergency vehicles, etc. 2. Signage and markings must be included with the site plan in accordance the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Signage proposed for streets to be dedicated to the City of Dover must be included on the plan (no parking signs, speed limit signs, street blades, stops signs, watch children, etc.) All signs must be installed on two-inch (2”) square break away sign posts. SANITATION 1. This site shall be served by a private solid waste removal company. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88.

Page 110

Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware File #: S-15-03 February 25, 2015 Page 5 of 5 I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

Page 111

C F REVISED 03/04/15 I I T R T. MULLANEY Y E CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D S D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 4th, 2015 O H V A E L APPLICATION: Building for Islamic Society of Central Delaware at 777 South Little Creek Road R FILE #: S-15-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Timothy P. Mullaney Jr., Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed building is Assembly. Primary fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and cover the side of the building that has the primary entrance and exit. Fire lanes can be no closer than 10 feet to the building and no farther than 50 feet from the building. The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 ft from the exterior wall if one or two stories in height; 40ft if three or four stories in height, or 30ft if over four stories in height. Fire lanes shall cover 50% of the proposed building. 2. Fire Lanes shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13ft 6in. 3. Address numbers of at least 12 inches in height must be placed on the street side of the building visible from the street. Label all suites if applicable. 4. Any natural or LP gas bottles, meters, values, regulators, etc., must have impact protection per City of Dover Code of Ordinances. 5. Full building and fire plan review is required. 6. Building cannot be occupied or construction or renovations started until completion of building and fire plan review. 7. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non slip surface, and leading to and terminating at a public way. 8. Sprinkler system required. System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. 9. Sprinklers required in basements over 2500 sq. ft.

Page 112

10. Fire Department Connection is to be located within 50 feet of main entrance. Parking cannot interfere with access to the FDC. Signage for the FDC will be determined at time of building occupancy. 11. Fire Department connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment. 12. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements. 13. Knox Box required. 14. Elevator cars to meet the interior dimensions set forth in the Delaware State Fire Prevention Code. 15. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment. 16. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done by Delaware State Communications prior to Final CO. ( Documentation of this was sent via email 03/04/15). 17. Elevator cars to meet the interior dimensions set forth in the Delaware State Fire Prevention Code. 18. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: (REVISED 03/04/15) 1. Please show on the plans that the property meets the 50% fire lane coverage as required. This area should be shaded to reflect the percentage. 2. Approved City of Dover Fire Hydrant is required within 300ft of an approved Fire Department Connection. This measurement should be clearly marked on the plans. The measurement should be measured as the hose comes off of the fire equipment (street lay). 3. Documentation on the plans is required to identify how the fire lanes will be identified per the most current Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations (signage or verbiage on roadway). 4. Please show on the plans the measurement (distance) of fire lane on the east side of the building is required to be shown on plans. Any dead end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turn-around or cul-de-sac arranged such that emergency apparatus will be able to turn around by making not more than one backing maneuver. 5. A note on the plans advises that the maximum building is 75ft and the proposed building height is 30ft at the highest point. Per Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations if the building exceeds 50ft in height, it will be required to have 100% perimeter access. Right now there is no requirement for perimeter access due to the

Page 113

building being fully sprinklered and at 30ft. Please provide the adjusted building height as per our conversation during DAC on 03/14/15. 6. The building is sectioned in phases on the existing plans. Please note on the plan that per DAC on 03/014/15 the building will not be constructed in phases as per our conversation. 7. Due to the current layout / placement of the proposed fire department connection per DAC on 03/04/15 the proposed Fire Department Connection will be relocated to the face of the building as discussed. This should be shown on the plan. 8. Due to the current layout / placement of the proposed fire hydrant per DAC on 03/04/15 the proposed City of Dover fire hydrant will be relocated to the grass area to the west of the main entrance as discussed. This should be shown on the plan. 9. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done by Delaware State Communications prior to Final CO. Documentation of test information were sent via email on 03/04/15. This note needs to be added to the plan. 10. Please provide documentation on the plan advising the new square footage calculation as a result of the conversation concerning the basement during DAC on 03/014/15. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2012 NFPA Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2012 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

Page 114

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: February 25, 2015 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Building For Islamic Society of Central Delaware at 777 South Little Creek Road FILE#: S-14-22 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. In order to be issued a Letter of No Objection (LONO), the Department will require the applicant to provide the proper forms, fees, and plans. 2. This project will be releasing stormwater into the right-of-way. Therefore, a drainage report must be included in the plan submittal verifying the pipe sizes, actual and full flow pipe velocities, hydraulic grade line (HGL), pipe cover, velocities, etc... Also per Section 4.8 of the Subdivision Manual, stormwater facilities excluding bioswales must be located a minimum of 20-foot from the State right-of-way line. Please ensure that there are sufficient distance between the proposed stormwater facility and the right-of-way line. 3. The Department will require 40-feet of right-of-way dedication from the centerline of the frontage road for public use. Also, a 15-foot permanent easement (PE) must be provided along the site frontages. The PE must be shown on the plan as "A X-foot permanent easement (PE) is hereby established to the State of Delaware as per this plat.” 4. The developer of this project will be required to enter into a Traffic Signal Agreement with the Department for the intersection of South Little Creek Rd (K067) and Blue Hen Corporate Center Connector Road. The developer will be required to contribute his fair share of monetary contribution towards the cost of the traffic signal at the referenced intersection. The Traffic Signal Agreement for this project must be signed prior to the issuance of the approval letter. 5. This development is located in the Dover US Route 13 / Bay Road Corridor Transportation Improvement District (TID), which was established by an agreement between DelDOT and the City of Dover on November 18, 2014. Under this agreement, developers have the option to pay an Infrastructure Fee when they apply for building

Page 115

permits as an alternative to DelDOT’s standard development review process. Developers choosing to pay the fee are exempt from any DelDOT requirement to do a Traffic Impact Study and will receive a credit toward their fee for any offsite improvements they are required to build beyond their entrance construction. At present, DelDOT and the City are still working to establish a program of transportation improvements to be built in the TID and an Infrastructure Fee to fund those improvements. As guidance, we offer the following rate schedule, which was developed for the Southern New Castle County TID. We anticipate that the fee structure to be developed for the Dover TID will be comparable.  Detached Single Family Residential = $3,800 per unit  Attached Single Family Residential = $3,200 per unit  Multi‐Family Residential = $2,800 per unit  Commercial = $3.50 per square foot  General Office = $3.50 per square foot  Institutional = $2.00 per square foot RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: 1. An interconnection with the adjacent proper should be pursued as part of this project, and the necessary cross-access easement(s) should be shown and called-out on the plans. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

Page 116

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY March 2015 APPLICATION: Building for the Islamic Society Central Delaware FILE #: S-15-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2014 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 5,000 square feet, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. The review fee and a completed Application for a Detailed Plan are due at the time of plan submittal to our office. Construction inspection fees based on developed area and stormwater facility maintenance inspection fees based on the number of stormwater facilities are due prior to the start of construction. 2. The following notes must appear on the record plan:  The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to enter private property for purposes of periodic site inspection.  The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to add, modify, of delete any erosion or sediment control measure, as it deems necessary.  A clear statement of defined maintenance responsibility for stormwater management facilities must be provided on the Record Plan. 3. A soils investigation in the proposed stormwater facility area(s) is required to determine impacts of the seasonal high groundwater level and soils for any Best Management Practice (BMP) design. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. Green Technologies (bio retention, bio swales, filter strips etc.) must be considered to comply with the updated 2014 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations. The soils information provided in the Stormwater Analysis Study (SAS) indicates that the site is composed of B type soils and would be ideal green technology practices. 2. The preferred methods of stormwater management are those practices that maximize the use of the natural features of a site, promote recharge and minimize the reliance on structural components. 3. It is recommended that the stormwater management areas be incorporated into the overall landscape plan to enhance water quality and to make the stormwater facility an attractive community amenity. 4. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management plan has been approved.

Back to this meeting