PC Minutes 3-21-22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 21, 2022 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Roach was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Ms. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Elio Battista, Chief Judge Michael Newell, Mr. Bill Lenihan, Mr. Brock Parker, Mr. Jaime Sechler, Mr. Mike Glick, Mr. Greg Rishel and Mr. Dominic Balascio. Speaking from the public were Mr. Christopher Gilkerson, Mr. Edward McNamara, Mr. Eric Norton, Ms. Tonya Brinkly, Mr. Mike Babiah, Ms. Kathy Theodorakas, and James Devine. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Roach absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2022 Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2022, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Roach absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on February 28 & March 1, 2022 and March 14 & 15, 2022. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers and we will continue to provide an opportunity for virtual participation as well. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that other updates from the Planning Office include that this is the time of year that you are now late if you have not renewed your Rental Dwelling Permit or Public Occupancy Permit. A second reminder was sent to those people. She wanted to extend a big thank you to a number of City Departments and Staff from our Office. With last week’s fire in Downtown Dover, our Fire Marshal’s Office, the Police Department and Public Works Office were all heavily involved in the aftermath of that incident. It continues to be under investigation at this point. It is a significant building corner in our Downtown area and we hope for the best as things move forward from that event. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are some reminders for those of you who own property in the City of Dover. We do have Property Maintenance regulations and one of those is that when grass grows, there is a maximum height for grass in the City of Dover and that is 8 inches. So get your mowers tuned up now since Spring appears to be inching ever closer to us with that taste 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 over the weekend. A reminder for people who are on the City’s water system, tonight is the second night of the flushing program of our water system. The Department of Water & Wastewater has a map series to cover the entire City. You can find more information on the City’s website when they will be in your area of the City where you may expect some water discoloration. If you have any concerns with that, you can reach out to their Department. They would be happy to help you understand what to do to clear those lines as a result of that flushing program. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are training opportunities for the Planning Commission members. In the packet was information on the Institute for Public Administration at the University of Delaware. Their next upcoming training opportunity is on April 1, 2022 on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Local Officials. The fact that we are having an open meeting this evening is part of the rules for the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the State. If you are interested in participating in that training session, please alert Staff and they will get you registered for it. It is a virtual session but you do need to register ahead of time because there is a registration fee. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS Z-22-01 Lands of the State of Delaware at South Governors Avenue and West Water Street - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning Application to adjust the boundary of the H (Historic District Zone) to include a series of six (6) parcels consisting of a total of 1.74 +/- acres and an alley as the balance of the lands for the new Kent County Family Courthouse project site. The properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone), subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The properties are located on the east side of South Governors Avenue between West Water Street and Bank Lane. The owner of record is the State of Delaware. Property Addresses: 411 S. Governors Avenue, 429 S. Governors Avenue, 435 S. Governors Avenue, 439 S. Governors Avenue/117 West Water Street, 441 S. Governors Avenue, and 447 S. Governors Avenue. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-03-37.00- 000, ED-05-077.09-03-48.00-000, ED-05-077.09-03-50.00-000, ED-05-077.09-03-51.00-000, ED-05-077.09-03-52.00-000, ED-05-077.09-03-61.00-000, and an alley. Ordinance #2022-02. Council District 4. First Reading was held by City Council on February 28, 2022 where the Public Hearing dates were set for Planning Commission on March 21, 2022, Historic District Commission on March 24, 2022 and City Council on April 11, 2022. Representatives: Mr. Elio Battista Jr., Parkowski Guerke and Swayze PA; Chief Judge Michael 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Newell, Delaware Family Court; Mr. Bill Lenihan, Tevebaugh Architecture Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Rezoning Application that has an associated File Number of HI-22-02 which the Historic District Commission will deal with later this week. It is a series of parcels as you can see from the Exhibit Map that are shown in the hashed area located to the northeast of Governors Avenue and West Water Street. It is a series of properties owned by the State of Delaware and also a segment of an alley which is a City alley that is in the process of being transferred to the State. In total, this is about 1.74 acres of land. It is currently zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). This request is to extend the boundaries of the H (Historic District Zone) which is depicted on the Exhibit Map in the orange color. This request would expand those boundaries to the balance of this block in Downtown Dover. The properties that we are dealing with have frontage on South Governors Avenue and two of them also have frontage on West Water Street. This area of the City has a mix of zoning classifications. Across the street to the west are areas zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). There are areas adjacent to it that are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and then a series of properties that area zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and those are primarily properties in that are fronting on The Green or on South State Street. A number of them, as noted, are already within the Historic District Zone. With the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dover, in their Report, they call out two items of note. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan offers a series of goals related to historic resources and one of the recommendations is to look at areas for potential expansion of the Historic District designation which this application does. Also, there are goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to Mixed Use which is a land use category in the Downtown. The focus of the Downtown Area is as a traditional and symbolic center of the community and the Comprehensive Plan notes that efforts should recognize its unique heritage and historic resources while also providing opportunities for Mixed Use development that you would find in such Downtown areas. From a zoning review perspective, the City’s Zoning Ordinance has established a Historic District and the purpose of that District is “to preserve and enhance the unique character and value of the old portion of Dover as an area of special charm and interest. It is particularly intended that the regulations prevent in the Historic District, any change of conditions that would be deemed to be a disfigurement or degradation of the present unique visual and architectural qualities of the District” and that is from Article 3, Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance. To amend the boundaries of the District, the Zoning Ordinance has a series of criteria for consideration. The ones of most interest in this request are that by expanding the boundaries it gives a more clear and distinctive boundary to the Historic District; basically along streets rather than zig-zagging through a series of property lines. This is also a request that the property owner has made which is one of the criteria. Then there are a series of other criteria including increased potential for economic and community development as a result of the designation. It is the recommendation of Staff that the Rezoning to the Historic District Zone be granted citing the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We find that it does make a clearer more distinctive boundary so that the entire block is located in the Historic District Zone. The Historic District Zone has a series of Design Standards and Guidelines that guide development activities in those areas and that would be utilized for any future development at the project site. Tonight, we are dealing with a Recommendation regarding the Rezoning; it is not a review of the potential development. She will note that the potential development area is much larger. As it stands at the moment, part of it is in the Historic District and part of it is not; hence part of the reason for the request to bring the entire land area under the Historic District Zone. Displayed as 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 a graphic is the submission plan from the applicant. The shaded area shows the properties and alley that are the request this evening for a Rezoning. Mr. Battista stated that they are seeking to Rezone this location which has been identified by the State of Delaware for a proposed future site of the Family Court in Delaware. From his perspective, this makes sense because if you look at the diagram now, part of the proposed location is in the Historic District and part of it is not. So, it makes sense to bring it all under the umbrella of one overviewing agency with respect to the approvals that are necessary. It doesn’t eliminate all of the future approvals that you would need to get with respect to any construction, demolition or easements that have to occur. With respect to the recommendation that you provide to the City, he would ask Judge Newell to give the Commission some background as to why we are here, how we got here and how they believe that this is a benefit to the City and why it should be within the Historic District. After which Mr. Lenihan can kind of get into the actual details and facts with respect to what it’s going to look like, what they are going to do, and where do we go from here. Judge Newell stated that what he has been asked to do is give the Commission a little bit of the background as to how we got here for this project. In 2006, a number of years before his time as Chief Judge, there was a southern court facilities study that rendered the current Family Court Building that is located at 400 Court Street as inadequate. Since that time, there have been other studies conducted for the feasibility of the current building to be refurbished and expanded and none of those have proven to be acceptable to the needs of our current Court. In 2012, the United States Marshals, they serve as Federal Judiciary, but they were retained to do a security study and also cited significant issues with the current building with respect to size and security. So, the issues tonight that he wants to focus on are size of the building, security of the building, dignity of our building and what he calls collaboration. The new building will allow us to have the Department of Justice, the Office of Defense Services, the Office of Child Advocate, the Division of Child Support Services, and the Department of Services of Children, Youth and their Families to have adequate space to be able to operate within the confines of our building. That is extremely important so that litigants have the ability to have confidential conversations and dignity which he will get to, to have that conducted in the privacy of a conference room, not standing out in a hall. He mentioned size. The current Family Court Building is 35,000 SF of space. The new building will be approximately 105,000 SF of space. We are utilizing and living in every inch of the space in the current building. That is one of the reasons why he mentioned earlier about the collaboration and the inclusion of the other agencies and their ability to conduct their business in a private and dignified and confidential manner. The average courtroom size in the Family Court Building in Dover is approximately 600 SF which is significantly lower than any courtroom standards that exist today. Next, are the security issues that we have in the building. This building was built in 1989 prior to September 11, 2001 which we all know what happened to our Country at that time. Security standards have significantly been revised and modified. He worked with the Second Chief Judge while he was in law school who built the building at the time and he has a great deal of respect for him. Fortunately, over the years with the complexities of population growth, judicial officers going to the court, filings have increased and our jurisdiction has expanded, the current building just no longer serves as a functional courthouse. There are no separate waiting areas for victims which we are required to have. He has already mentioned a couple of times now, no confidential areas for attorney and client participation. When litigants want to come in and fill out petitions, they will do so in an open area. It is not necessarily private enough for the types of 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 petitions that are filed in our court. Significantly, with the building currently does not accommodate what is called mixed circulation for the public, the people who are detained or incarcerated who come before us and our Staff in our judicial offices. The people who are incarcerated park in the same parking garage as our judicial officers and have to come through the parking lot where our employees park. There is a sally port in this current building but unfortunately given the size of our vans, the sally port doors aren’t able to be closed allowing open access to the outside judicial officers vehicles. The prisoners and detainees take the same elevators as the judicial officers do from the parking garage to the courtroom floors. If you have ever visited the building, you would see this from the public’s view but the detainees are escorted to the courtroom through the interior hallway where our Judges and employees’ offices are. That creates a significant risk but it is also an issue of dignity also regardless of where you stand on the criminal justice spectrum. Prisoners should not be paraded down hallways in their jumpsuits and shackles when they can actually access a courtroom from an access right off of a courtroom. Finally, the dignity. As you can imagine if you have had any experience with our Court, we deal with some of the most personal, intimate and heart wrenching issues that involve families and children. A dignified, safe and an appropriately sized courthouse is not a luxury; it really is a necessity. We want this Courthouse to be a civic presence in Dover and he thinks it will do that once we get to showing the design of the building later this Spring. Just so you know, it is estimated at this point, that this project will cost approximately $122,000,000. He thinks that it is appropriate that he is standing before you on the first full day of Spring because we are hopeful that Spring brings freshness and revitalization. We are hoping that this project will do the same to the area of Dover. Mr. Lenihan stated that to reply back to Mrs. Melson-Williams’ comments, they do agree with all of the comments from the Development Advisory Committee and the Planning Department in their summary of the project. One of the things that you see on the screen right now is the hashed area for the parcels that we are asking to be included into the Historic District by adjusting the Historic District boundary. As you can see, this is the full area of the State of Delaware parcels of the combined site. They go along the full block of Governors Avenue, from Water Street all the way to Bank Lane and then most of the block of Water Street all the way up to properties that front South State Street. So that will become the full continuous site as they have adjoined all of the parcels there. With this, that hashed area that is on the monitor (plan sheet being presented) is only approximately half of the total site area. The main reason why they are requesting this adjustment with the boundary here is to really make this site consistent with the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) boundary for this full site that you see on the screen. They are very appreciative that the City of Dover went through the process in 2021 to rezone this whole site for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) that would allow for this Family Court Complex to be constructed. This is a great project for the State of Delaware for all of the reasons that Judge Newell mentioned but also it really creates a Courthouse Campus. With the Kent County Courthouse just across the other side of State Street and the other offices and departments and attorneys who practice in these courthouses to all be down in this one area. It has been mentioned that he refers to this as a two- step public process. The first step is what we are going through now to adjust the boundary of the Historic District and the second step would be the normal development process where we would have review of the site and the buildings. So, we have an application into the Planning Department now to appear before this board again in May for that part of the process. He will show the Commission an exhibit that they will see in May that has the footprint of the proposed buildings so that you can see how the site is proposed to layout. At the corner of South Governors Avenue 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 and West Water Street would be the front entrance of the L shaped Courthouse that is shown in the baby blue color on the board here. Then there would be the existing Water Street parking lot that would be a smaller footprint and then there would be a parking structure on Governors Avenue towards Bank Lane. You can see the boundary of the Historic District where it is right now, subdivides the Courthouse and the parking structure. It will keep this project consistent with the new IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Zoning Map and also the Comprehensive Plan and the boarder of the National Register of (Historic Places) The Green Historic District Area which includes this full block. Also, with the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization in 2010 Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan, this is consistent with all of their recommendations. So, we are asking for approval to adjust the Historic District boundary for all of these reasons. Mr. Hartman stated that it appears that we will be losing some parking on that site, but he knows that this is just the first step. Does Planning Staff have any concerns about the loss of parking with this project? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Rezoning Application, so we are just dealing with a Rezoning request. The applicant has been working with Planning Staff regarding the site development elements of it. She believes that they will be addressing parking to his satisfaction but that is not what we are here to talk about tonight. What the applicant has shown is indicating that there is a parking structure to come and there are some other plans for parking related to displacement of what’s currently there on part of the overall site. But tonight is just about rezoning. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that this is just the first step but one of the problems with the original Courthouse was inadequate parking. The Judge didn’t mention anything about the inadequacies of the current Family Court and he just wanted to understand that without the benefit of a parking garage, he was concerned that it would detrimentally impact either the Kent County Courthouse parking or the law firms or Attorney General’s parking. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lenihan stated that the State of Delaware commissioned a parking study for this project because we wanted to make sure that they are not only meeting the zoning requirements, but they also wanted to make sure that they had an adequate parking for the project. With that, the Parking Study looked at over one year’s worth of cases and hearings at the existing Courthouse. They talked about what time of day the hearings occurred and also days of the week; so, that they could come up with a solid number for what the real demand for the parking for visitors and employees for the Courthouse are. Then they looked at how many spaces would be displaced by the new structures. They also talked to other neighborhood organizations and the City of Dover to get their input as well. The new full site between the onsite parking and the parking garage will have more parking than is required by Code and will meet the Demand Study listed in the Parking Study. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to recommend approval to City Council for application Z-22-01 Lands of the State of Delaware at South Governors Avenue and West Water Street in the matter of the rezoning application to adjust the boundary of the Historic District to include a series of six parcels and an alley as the balance of the lands of the Kent County Family Court. He bases the 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 approval on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the request from the State of Delaware as the owner and the recommendations of Planning Staff, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 8-0 with Mr. Roach absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the motion. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on previous statements and Staff recommendation. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated and for the presentation that she could understand. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for the reasons stated in the motion itself. Mrs. Malone voting yes; based on reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; based on all of the reasons listed in the motion. Mrs. Denney voting yes; based on testimony before us tonight and just review of the plan. Obviously, this is sorely needed to rezone this area so that we can have some continuity with our new Family Court. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons provided in the motion. S-22-02 Frito Lay Exchange Center at Lafferty Lane – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the construction of a 7,884 SF warehouse and associated site improvements. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The property consists of 22.86 acres (995,996.38 SF) and as part of this application will be subdivided into two parcels. Lot 1 being 19.74 acres (880,045.42 SF) and Lot 2 (the lot to be developed) being 2.99 acres (130,579.33 SF). The property is located on the north side of Lafferty Lane approximately one quarter mile west of Horsepond Road. The owner of record Devreco, LLC. Property Address: Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05- 077.16-02-05.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Curbing. Also for Consideration: Performance Standards Review Application. Representatives: Mr. Brock Parker, Parker & Associates Ms. Bulkilvish stated that this is Application S-22-02 Frito Lay Exchange Center at Lafferty Lane. This is a Development Plan as well as a Subdivision Plan. The plan is to develop a small portion of 22.86 acre property. The Subdivision would divide the property into Lot 1 of 19.74 acres and the smaller lot to be developed as Lot 2 of 2.99 acres. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and it is also in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) in the APZI (Accident Potential Zone I) and APII (Accident Potential Zone II) as well as Noise Zone A. These are important because it limits the types of uses that can occur on the site. It is a little bit more restrictive than what is allowed by the M (Manufacturing Zone). What is being proposed is a 7,884 SF warehouse with parking as well as eight loading docks. This is going to be the Frito Lay Exchange Center where delivery drivers will come and pick-up their delivery trucks, load them up from the warehouse, and drive out to their distribution centers; and, then come back to pick-up their personal vehicles from the lot at the end of the day. Also for consideration tonight are the Performance Review Standards that the applicant has provided in a separate document. Basically, that is to make sure that there use will not have any kind of noxious effects on the neighboring properties. They have also requested a waiver for the partial elimination of sidewalk along the western and northern boundaries of the property at that larger parking area and that is to accommodate the stormwater flow into their drainage at the rear of the property. They have also provided connection into the larger property which they do not plan on curbing for future connection into that second larger parcel that they are creating. The project did have some landscaping. They provided three Crape Myrtles and some rose bushes; however, with our landscaping requirements they are deficit of forty-one trees which they will have to show in a future landscape plan. The other concern that Planning Staff had was the architecture. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Unfortunately, we do not have that (image) in our presentation tonight. But the portion of the building that does face the road is kind of void of any windows and just has two doors at the front. It doesn’t really reflect the architecture of the neighboring property of the George & Lynch Construction Company offices because there are a lot more windows and glass on their frontage. However, they are proposing windows along the other sides of the building so she believes that they could carry those around to the front and kind of mesh that look like the neighboring properties as well. Mr. Parker stated that the Frito Lay Exchange Center is basically a hub where big trucks come in and drop off boxes of product and little trucks take it from there and deliver it to their routes in the general vicinity. Obviously with a project like this, the internal circulation for trucks is pretty vital. So, there is wide expanse of paving in front of the building to get the trucks in, turned around, etc. That provides the ability to set the building pretty far back off of Lafferty Lane to provide about 150 feet of green space in between the building and Lafferty Lane. The parking behind the is to get it off the street and get it behind the building where it belongs. We do show an internal cut-through or shared access to the property next door. That is in anticipation of some inter-parcel connectivity as you probably want when you plan a site this large. We really don’t know what we are doing on the remainder. That’s why we are just subdividing this piece off into a little 3-acre lot and proposing what we are proposing today. Obviously, we would have to return for the reminder of the lands if a proposal was ever generated for that. As far the development of the property itself, we have prepared the DelDOT Plans that we’ve submitted to DelDOT. We have gotten the first round of comments back from them and nothing is overly catastrophic because DelDOT really tells you what they want before you get into the plans. Essentially, they are hitting us for a full turn lane in the middle, acceleration and deceleration lanes on our side as well as a full multi-modal walking path along the frontage. They didn’t take it easy on us but they have it accommodated on the Plan that we’ve submitted, and we will receive comments back. As far as stormwater goes, we have submitted the plans back to the Kent Conservation District and we are awaiting comments there, but the design is completed. We are comfortable with the design and the plans that we are showing the Commission today. They feel confident that they can realize this plan exactly how you are looking at it. We are aware of and we have read the full DAC Comments. We are fully aware of them and they take no exception. We can comply with all of them including the addition of an embarrassing number of trees. The architecture can be revised and we feel like we can make Staff happy with the addition of some windows and some other gingerbread on that side of the building that faces the road. As far as the other stuff, we don’t really see a problem with complying with getting this thing to fruition. Mr. Hartman stated that the Fire Marshal had some concerns about the width of the driving area for emergency apparatus. Have you resolved that concern yet? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Parker stated that he feels as though we haven’t engaged the Fire Marshal with their exact submittal. We do have significant drive aisles around the building. The parking space itself is about a forty-foot drive aisle and then we have one hundred and some feet on the other side of the building. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Christopher Gilkerson – (member of the Project Team) 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Mr. Gilkerson stated that he had no additional comments as Mr. Parker did a great presentation. We are excited to move forward with the project and get rolling with construction. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that he thought he had read that Planning Staff had approved the waiver. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is correct. With the waiver for upright curbing, the Zoning Ordinance gives the City Planner the ability to consider and grant that waiver. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-22-02 Frito Lay Exchange Center at Lafferty Lane to subdivide the lot into two parcels and inclusive of the Performance Standards Review noted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin Mrs. Melson-Williams asked to confirm that the motion includes approval of the Site Development Plan. Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Baldwin both agreed to include the Site Development Plan approval in the original motion and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it seems to be a good use of the property and probably well needed. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for the same reasons as Mrs. Welsh. Mr. Cooper voting yes; based on Staff recommendations as well as the applicant’s willingness to make adjustments based on recommendations. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks that it is an excellent use for this particular parcel, and it fits well within what the City would like to have there. They have made adjustments as requested by the Planning Department. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the fact that the warehouse building as described is in compliance with the M (Manufacturing Zone) and the Performance Standards Review Letter demonstrates the intent to comply with the Performance requirements stipulated by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on all of the previous comments. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon the previous reasons given as well as the applicant’s agreement to address any concerns raised. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. S-22-03 Restaurant at 801 North State Street - Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the construction of a 7,681 SF Restaurant with outdoor patio dining and associated site improvements. The property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property consists of 1.943 acres (84,637.08 SF) and is located on the east side of North State Street, southwest of Lepore Drive. The property is bordered by Silver Lake to the south. The owner of record is Lopez Kent County, LLC. Property Address: 801 South State Street. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-068.09-01-13.00-000. Council District 3. Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Curbing. For Consideration - Bank Stabilization for Reduction of Setback Requirement from Silver Lake. Representatives: Mr. Jaime Sechler, Davis, Bowen and Friedel; Mr. Mike Glick, Lighthouse Construction Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Site Development Plan Application for a property located at 801 North State Street. This is on the east side of North State Street immediately abutting Silver 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Lake. On the Site Plan shown on the screen, Silver Lake is to the left of the development. The property is just under 2 acres and it is currently vacant but was most recently the site of a single- family home which he believes there was a fire there and the structure was demolished several years ago. This property has been vacant for a few years. The restaurant as noted is a little over 7,600 SF and it is proposed to be the El Azteca Restaurant. There are a couple of items that Planning Staff have identified. Specifically, as it is immediately abutting Silver Lake, there is a requirement to provide a minimum 100-foot setback from the water to any impervious surfaces on the property. The applicant does have the ability to have that minimum setback reduced, provided that they can meet certain standards. In Item 5 – Site Considerations of the DAC Report, you can see that there is a graphic that is provided that sort of displays what these kinds of requirements could be. Specifically, it is noted that the setback could be reduced to 30 feet from the edge of water if the applicant can sufficiently provide the evidence that they will be providing bank stabilization which essentially means that there will be a luxuriant amount of native foliage there to stabilize the bank at the water’s edge. There are further images in the packet that the applicants had submitted showing that they would be providing well beyond what that minimum standard would be for the plantings at the water’s edge. As it is immediately abutting Silver Lake, it was referred to the Silver Lake Commission. The members of the Silver Lake Commission had reviewed this application and on the Commissioners’ desks tonight was a collection of their comments that were sent to Planning Staff this afternoon. On the whole, they were mostly noting the conditions of the site as in terms of how many trees may be removed, landscaping conditions on the water’s edge, etc. There were no major comments or objections to this Site Development Application. The applicants have submitted one waiver for the partial elimination of upright curbing. They had been showing the six-inch upright curbing along the edge of drive aisles and parking immediately abutting the proposed restaurant; however, the rest of the parking lot is not showing any of the curbing. The waiver submitted has noted that they were requesting this waiver for the bulk of the drive aisles and parking areas in order to facilitate the sheet-flow and stormwater management. Based on the plans that we have seen, we are not entirely sure how removing the six-inch upright curbing from the entirety of the exterior of the site and along that interior island would be necessary in order to facilitate that. So, Planning Staff is still requiring the six-inch upright curbing to be continued at the entrance where it wraps around to the first parking spaces at the north and south as well as along the central island. They will continue to work with the applicant. If they provide information to us that shows that would be necessary, then of course Planning Staff will revise their comments on that. Additionally on the plan submitted, they had not been showing the bicycle parking based on the number of vehicle parking spaces which he believes is 76. There is a general requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that for every 20 vehicle parking spaces, you provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space. The applicant has indicated that it will not be an issue and they will provide the minimum four bicycle parking spaces. They have also shown a new sidewalk along the North State Street frontage there where you also see a turn lane. The applicant has also told Planning Staff that they will be providing a dedicated pedestrian or sidewalk entrance from that new sidewalk on the North State Street frontage onto the site as well. For recommendations, specifically Planning Staff was cognizant of the Dumpster enclosure being located on the eastern side of the proposed restaurant near to the Overlook Subdivision to the east. Noting that, we had included a recommendation that the dumpster enclosure should be a masonry build to be a more durable material and then aesthetically it should match the general aesthetic itself and that there should be added landscaping there as to make it as pleasant for the neighboring properties as 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 possible. Additionally, as this is a commercial use immediately abutting residential uses, there is a provision of the Zoning Ordinance that requires an opaque barrier to be installed when a commercial use is immediately abutting a residential use. On the plan that you see on the screen, the residential uses technically only are directly abutting this property sort of in the middle at the bottom. Staff had included a recommendation that the opaque barrier requirement essentially be implemented on the entirety of the eastern property boundary abutting the Overlook Subdivision. So basically, the property seen at the bottom of the screen that would include the opaque fence and added landscaping. There is a general requirement for landscaping on development in the City where it is required to provide a minimum of one tree for every 3,000 square feet. The plan submitted had shown twenty-seven trees; however, they are required to show twenty-nine. They have indicated that it should not be an issue to add those trees. They note again that there will be added landscaping required for the bank stabilization on the edge of Silver Lake and added landscaping requirements to fulfill the opaque barrier requirements along the Overlook at Silver Lake property. Mr. Sechler stated that he just wanted to reiterate a few things that Mr. Swierczek spoke of. This is a 7,681 SF restaurant with seventy-five parking spaces. They are going to provide the bicycle parking as noted and also the sidewalk to the entry of our property. As far as the upright curbing, they submitted a plan of where we would like curbing along the building and where we would like to remove it. The reason stating that is that he knows the Silver Lake Commission had some concerns about contamination and everything like that. We do the design and for the Kent Conservation District, the more sheet-flow that you can do across the grasses or bio-media or anything like that helps treat all of the contaminants potentially in the runoff. So, to be able to have it sheet-flow across the grass and then also treated again in the stormwater facility would just help to facilitate that. Curbing is required and it is what it is. It just goes straight into a catch basin and then into the stormwater facility where it is not treated quite as much as if it is allowed to sheet flow across some other type of media or grass. They did meet with the Kent Conservation District prior to this meeting to go over the Silver Lake Drainage Study and sufficient items like that. He met with Jared at the Kent Conservation District and there didn’t seem to be any issues that they wouldn’t be able to work through all of that and our design with him. We also met with DelDOT to discuss our entrance design and they are going to need a right turn lane. Obviously, this portion of North State Street already has a suicide left lane so that suffices and also the pedestrian facilities out front. The restaurant also was located in a way so that the rear of the restaurant kind of faced away from all of the residential adjacent to us to try direct noise and things like that towards any of the residential properties. Mr. Hartman asked if they addressed the opaque fencing requirement. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Sechler stated that he did not but he believes that the Code requires like a six foot high opaque fence to be installed at the location where they are adjacent to residential units and we can install that. Mr. Hartman asked if he was saying about the recommendations presented by the Planning Office, they intend to follow those? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Sechler stated that was correct. There were twenty-seven trees and we need twenty-nine, but it was just a miscalculation. Yes, we agree with them. 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Mr. Hartman asked what consideration they had given to the neighborhood concerning the lighting coming from the facility. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Sechler stated typically the City of Dover has their own recommendations but everything shines down and away from adjacent properties. Then there is a certain illumination that is required by the City, but everything would be down and away from all of the adjacent properties. Mrs. Denney stated that one of her concerns in reviewing this is noise. You have a restaurant with outdoor dining and she sees some potential of a party area. As she looks at this plan, she is thinking what about the noise for the neighbors? Mr. Glick stated that they looked at two items when addressing the noise for the outdoor dining. One, the outdoor dining is all roofed so any sound would not be traveling upwards. So, we are covered at least on the back side of the restaurant and the roof structure. As well as looking at placement on the property, none of the outdoor dining is facing directly to any of the residential. We looked down State Street which actually crosses over the cemetery area. So, to minimize any impact with adjacent properties, we tried to develop all of the outdoor dining pointing in that direction. Dr. Jones asked if the applicant could speak about the ADA compliant ramps. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Sechler stated that on the Site Plan, everything anymore starting from State Street in all has to follow the ADA guidelines. Typically, we design to be anywhere from a 2% cross- load. Everything from the State Street inward and also the handicapped parking out front and your sidewalk accessibility even throughout the restaurant has to follow those guidelines to be approved and inspected. Dr. Jones asked if that included the ramps. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Sechler stated yes, the ramps 100% will have to be inspected. Everything will be ADA compliant as well as inside the restaurant. Mr. Hartman asked what the setback was for the restaurant across the street. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Swierczek stated that he was not sure off the top of his head. He does know that it is reduced and that it did have to get a variance related in part to being in the Flood Plain as well as to have the setback reached. Mr. Hartman asked if they considered a design with a larger setback with the 100 feet. Did you consider a design with that setback as well? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Seckler stated not really. With the larger setback in this area, the site is not conducive to a restaurant with the amount of parking required; they would need to do a 75-foot setback here. With stormwater management, it could be done but it’s very largely expensive with underground chambers, etc. that might be required so he is not sure that the client may move forward. Mr. Glick stated that with the addition of the riparian buffer, it gives us the ability to reduce to the thirty-foot setback. We looked at placement of the structure and we came to Mr. Sechler’s comment. It is conducive to the restaurant at its current location and it also optimizes where the parking is. The bulk of parking is to the right and to the west and north of the building, furthest away from residential. Again, they are trying to push it as much as we can. Obviously, we can’t 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 give it all away but the further we can keep the parking towards State Street as well as to the north side were the billboard is, the further we are away from the residential properties. Mr. Hartman stated that he appreciated the amount of thought that was put into the application. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Ed McNamara – 122 Overlook Place Dover, DE 19901 Mr. McNamara stated that he had a couple of questions that the applicant can probably answer. What will the opaque fence material be? Responding to Mr. McNamara, Mr. Sechler stated that it will be a PVC type material. Mr. McNamara questioned if there was only one way in and out of the property. Responding to Mr. McNamara, Mr. Sechler stated yes, there is only one entrance on State Street. Mr. Eric Norton – 627 Venue Drive Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Norton asked if in addition to the roof over the outdoor seating, can they also put a wall around it to keep the noise localized. Responding to Mr. Norton, Mr. Glick stated that there will be a wall on what he would call on the eastern side of the property where residential is to help block the sound. There would be both the opaque fencing on the actual property line and then you would have a physical wall where the outdoor dining occurs so that no sound can transmit towards the residential. Mr. Norton asked if they could move the garbage can up to where that uppermost tree is. It would be an easy fix to move the smell. Responding to Mr. Norton, Mr. Glick stated that they can certainly look at that. One of the issues is that the Kent Conservation District, because of the type of ponds that we can likely have on this property, has asked us to try to keep the trash structures away from the ponds at best. So that area right there is an infiltration pond, but we can certainly have that conversation with them and explore what options we have to move it to the northwest corner of the property. Ms. Tonya Brinkly – 654 Vista Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Brinkly stated that she is smack dab in the middle of this restaurant development. She has been here for approximately 1.5 years and she is not very happy. She looked at the plans and she agrees with the gentleman about the trashcan. She doesn’t want to see it, smell it or see the rodents or anything else that is going to be associated with that. She is upset about where the loading dock will be and the diesel fuel that she is knows will come through her bedroom window. She is not happy about that as well as the construction and noise. It is very close to our residence. It is not a buffer of having a six-foot wall. Most people average, at least men, six foot tall so anybody can look over at any point in time. Six foot is not enough; she would recommend twelve feet if at all possible. Maybe she missed the hours of operation for this restaurant. If it’s open from 12pm to 12am and she doesn’t need to hear noise while people are getting in their cars or having loud mufflers because that is going to wake her up as well. Having this be so close to a residence, she is not in favor of this. She understands growth and development like nobody’s business. She currently works for the City of Baltimore, Maryland. She comes here to rest and get peace and quiet, beautiful landscaping, great animals and she sees all kinds of weird stuff but 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 she would rather have that than the noise and pollution from a restaurant in her back yard. Mr. Mike Babiah - 102 Overlook Place Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Babiah stated that we talked about the opaque barrier for the extension of where his property line abuts but where the alley is associated. He saw a fence indicated on the plans but is that an opaque barrier or something else along that area. Responding to Mr. Babiah, Mr. Swierczek stated that their recommendation was that the opaque barrier be implemented on the entirety of that. It would be adjacent to the alley and terminus of Overlook Place. Mr. Babiah stated that helps them out to because there is a concern about not having an abundance of parking in Overlook Place. So, it would help from people parking there and walking up. Ms. Kathy Theodorakas – 650 Vista Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Theodorakas stated that she is concerned about our back yards which we are about twelve townhouse units on Vista Avenue. The back yards which are very small where we can park a car. It buts up to the back of this gentleman’s property. It was said that there is going to be a six-foot fence. She agrees with lady who just spoke that six feet is probably not enough. How do we keep the customers from coming over in our back yards? Is it going to be enclosed entirely so that people aren’t going to be roaming around our back doors if they have too much to drink or something? Responding to Ms. Theodorakas, Mr. Swierczek stated that he is not too sure about the site conditions of the properties immediately to the north. But again, the opaque barrier would have to be a completely solid fence with the addition of landscaping in front of it and that would run along that alley which runs behind all twelve units. Ms. Theodorakas stated that it is a very tiny alley. Responding to Ms. Theodorakas, Mr. Swierczek stated that their recommendation was considering the fact that they were not wanting people to transit between the restaurant property and then the residences on Overlook Place. So that opaque barrier would be applied along the back of all twelve of those townhomes in that alley, along the terminus of Overlook Place and then the residence at the waterfront. Ms. Theodorakas asked how close he thought that the trash would be to that back alley. Responding to Ms. Theodorakas, Mr. Swierczek asked the applicant if the exact footage was noted on the plan. Mr. Sechler stated that he would guess that the dumpster is about fifty feet away from that alley. Mr. Eric Norton – 627 Venue Drive Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Norton stated that he lives on Venue Drive and this is on the other side of our community right behind the Red Roof Inn. At the back of his house is an alleyway and the Red Roof Inn has a six foot retaining wall. Seemingly all of the people that go to the Red Roof Inn and the 7- Eleven seem to take great sport in seeing how far back they can stand and throw their trash over the fence. So, we have a whole bunch of trash that comes over that six foot retaining wall. Six feet is clearly not enough. That wall that goes around this new building must have a wall much taller than six feet. Ten feet would be best and he suggests twelve feet just from his experience living right there in the neighborhood. 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Mr. James Devine – 641 Vista Ave Dover, DE 19901 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mr. Devine was previously on the line (virtually) but he let her know in the chat that his questions had been answered because they have been put forth by others. Mrs. Maucher noted that some comments from the Silver Lake Commission members were received by email this afternoon and there were copies placed on the Commissioner’s desks. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that because this property is adjacent to Silver Lake, the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that the application be presented to the Silver Lake Commission. That happened about a week and a half ago and the applicant presented their proposal to the Silver Lake Commission. There was a lively discussion that evening and then the members put their comments and documentation of some of the questions that they asked that evening into email format. We provided that to the Planning Commission members by email last this afternoon and then also on their desks this evening. They are charged with looking at applications and their impact on the Lake. As you can see in their comments, there is obviously concern for tree planting. There is removal of existing trees, the planting of new trees, the implementation of the riparian buffer and bank stabilization along the edge of the lake area there. There were also some functional questions about noise and lighting that were also identified in these comments that you have heard about this evening. Mrs. Maucher asked if the Silver Lake Commission had to make a recommendation or is it just individual comments from the Commissioners. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that the Silver Lake Commission is referenced in your report in that the application needs to be presented to the Silver Lake Commission and any comments from the Commission should be forwarded to the Planning Commission. She can tell you that it was the first time that that Body had met in an extended period of time and there were a number of new participants appointed to that Commission. Their discussion that evening was very favorable. There are obviously concerns because it will be a change for that property which most have enjoyed as an open area with lots of trees and vegetation for a number of years with it being vacant. But they expressed their concerns. She didn’t get a feeling that they were overly concerned that the application shouldn’t move forward, recognizing that there is a development opportunity there. She thinks that they were pleased to see the proposal which is included in your packet for that riparian buffer and significant plantings along the lake which will actually change and very much improve that section of the lake area. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Malone asked if they were going to close down the existing site on Route 13 North and then only have this restaurant or are they going to have both restaurants. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Sechler stated that they are going to close down the other location and this will be their new location. Mr. Cooper stated that he knows from a residential perspective, we are limited to six foot fences. Are there restrictions that would stop the opaque fence from going taller as questioned? 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Swierczek stated that he believes in the Zoning Ordinance, there is something in the opaque barrier requirements that supersedes this but fences in commercial uses are allowed up to eight feet in height. That is not to say that in this scenario specifically that there couldn’t be some added provisions for the addition of a berm in addition to the fencing or taller vegetation landscaping. But in general for the fence itself, the limitation would be eight feet. Mr. Hartman stated that also from a residential perspective from somebody who is near a Dunkin Donuts and an Arbys, he believes that a twelve- foot fence is too much. He believes that it would be unsightly and he kind of believes that it would be very difficult to maintain. His main concerns with this project were the setbacks and that seems to have been addressed. His other concerns were lighting and noise which Ms. Brinkley had mentioned. He thinks that noise is a problem throughout the City. He knows that he has a problem with it where he lives. He would like to see Dover PD or the City be a little bit more aggressive in their enforcement of our noise regulations which you bring out in your report in the answer to the applicant. Mrs. Denney stated that she lives on State Street and down the street from what was Wesley College which is now Delaware State University, and for many years obviously in close proximity to the racetrack. People what say what about the noise; if you are sitting out at certain times during race weekend or football days or whatever athletics things are happening or it’s getting close to graduation. Her feelings generally are if it is totally out of control then certainly you can make a phone call. The Police Department has always been good about trying to check in on things. Wesley College was very proactive. If you just left a voicemail with the college and said you were getting a lot of trash, they would send people out to pick up the trash or replace something that was stolen from her property. They also reminded the students as best that they can but kids are kids. Sometimes we have a parade and if she’s out she can’t back to her house. That is the beauty of living on a main street; you can sit on your front steps and watch a parade go by. To her, while these are certainly issues that need to be given consideration, those things are temporary things that happen and tomorrow they are gone. Her concern with seeing this is she doesn’t think that they should have made adjustments to setbacks because as we all know, what used to be Silver Lake is not very silver anymore and it isn’t going to get any better. The trash and debris that happens when people come out after being there and the noise, overall she thinks that is steady nightly on any evening that they are open. While we want to accommodate development, she does believe that reducing setbacks and accommodating all of these little things that add up, she thinks that we really have to seriously consider. The other thing is, is to change to the character of the neighborhood? There are restaurants there but may not be so much in that regard, but it certainly is a change to the character of the neighborhood to the animals and trees and everything else that exists there and that always gives her concern. Mrs. Malone moved to approve S-22-03 Restaurant at 801 North State Street with the waiver requests for partial elimination of curbing, for consideration of bank stabilization for reduction of setback requirements from Silver Lake, seconded by Dr. Jones. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to confirm that your recommendation for approval is also inclusive of the Development Advisory Committee Report and comments. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Malone stated yes, most definitely. 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Dr. Jones stated that she agrees as well. Mr. Cooper stated that he is inclined to support this application but he has listened to the comments that have been asked. One of the things that he has kind of been struggling with is the location of the Dumpsters with the neighborhood right next door. They are only required to have sixty-one spaces but they have seventy-five proposed. By his incredibly rough scale measurements with a paper clip that he bent out and used his finger to guide it, it would only take up roughly three spaces in one of those top two corners. As he said, he is inclined to support the application, but he is wondering if relocating the trash can would at least be an effort of good faith and would only cost three parking spaces. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Glick stated that they can go ahead and relocate the trash can. The motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach absent. Mrs. Malone voting yes; she feels that the applicant has done a really good job with the presentation and she does feel that they will work very closely with the neighbors to try to take care of all of their concerns that they have. She feels that this will really be an asset to have this restaurant be built this way. She knows that they have been working out of the site on Route 13 North which is very tiny. They have great food. There is also McGlynn’s across the street and Countrie Eatery across the street; so, it does fit into the area. She feels very comfortable that the applicant will work very closely with the residents to make sure that their concerns are well taken care of. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for the reasons stated in the motion. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she is not happy with the setbacks but she does think that it is a good use for this property and as stated by the maker of the motion, there is also two other restaurants around there. They do have wonderful food and it is a nice change. With the exception of her concerns about changing the character so drastically, she does think that it is a worth while project. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on previous statements. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous statements. Dr. Jones voting yes; acknowledging that there are still some concerns about the noise and the height of the fence so if we could do some exploration to see if we can move past that six feet. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she believes that it is a good use of the property. It has been vacant for a long time and it is a great location for the restaurant as the one on the highway is quite tiny and this would give them a lot more space to utilize. It is in conjunction with the other two restaurants. She thinks it will be a nice gathering area. She thinks that it is good for the people who also live in the area because there is going to be several choices of restaurants that they can get to easily without traveling very far. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the DAC Report and the indication from the applicant of their willingness to work with the neighbors in addressing their concerns. Mr. Hartman asked the members of the public who spoke tonight to come back here once the facility is constructed to educate the Commission on their experience with the construction and the facility. He thinks that would be a great learning experience for this Commission. S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the proposed construction of street improvements in the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Improvements consist of paved roadways, curbing, sidewalks, and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, and stormwater drainage). Raymond Street is proposed to be extended west as a 24 ft. paved width 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 roadway to intersect with Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue is proposed to be constructed as a 24 ft. paved width roadway extending to the north ending in a cul-de-sac. Portions of the surrounding property totaling 0.61 acres and owned by Patel College Properties LLC and Patel Excess College Road LLC are being dedicated to the City of Dover for the expansion of Right- of-Way. The area is located north of College Road and east of the Lands of the Delaware Railroad. Public Right-of-Way to be dedicated to City of Dover. Property Address: Rights-of- way in the vicinity of Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05-067.00-02-56.00- 000. Council District 4. This area was annexed into the City of Dover as of the City Council Meeting of December 13, 2021. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Street Right-of-Way Width, Exceed Maximum Length of Cul-de-sac, and Partial Elimination of Sidewalks. Representatives: Mr. Greg Rishel, Pennoni & Associates; Mr. Dominic Balascio, applicant representative; Mr. Douglas Barry, Pennoni & Associates Ms. Bulkilvish stated that this Application might look familiar to some of the Commission members. These rights-of-way that we are going to discuss tonight have just come through as an application to the Annexation Area of the City. So, now they are officially in the City boundaries and we can move forward with their development. This project is kind of a Phase 1 of a two- phase project. The applicant, who owns the properties, has brought this forward to the north and the east of what is proposed as an extension of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. In order to access their property, they needed to develop the road and to make sure that they got everything in place in order to access for further development. The applicant is requesting a series of waivers this evening from the Subdivision Regulations. The road construction guidelines are in our Subdivision Regulations and the first waiver is the reduction of the street right-of-way width. When this area or right-of-way was plotted, it was plotted back in 1899 as a 35 foot right-of-way. The applicant is purposing to expand the right-of-way to today’s standards to put the right-of- way where they have property fronting the right-of-way. In those areas where they don’t have property to dedicate to the City, they are asking for this waiver to maintain the 35 foot right-of- way in existence. The second waiver that they are requesting is an increase in maximum length of a dead-end street. The maximum length of the cul-de-sac which is going to be Railroad Avenue. The Code has a maximum of 400 feet. She believes that this one is upwards of 700 feet; so, they are asking for a waiver for that cul-de-sac. The reason for it ending in a cul-de-sac is that the property to the north is actually owned by the State of Delaware and there are no plans for development. The Railroad Avenue is also bordered by the lands of the Delaware Central Railroad. That railroad runs directly adjacent so there is no expansion of the roadway in that direction either. They are just making it long enough so that they can have two access points onto the property which is required for what will be a residential development. The third waiver that they are asking for is the elimination of sidewalk on the frontage of a public street and that would be for Railroad Avenue. Like she said, it is bordered by the railroad tracks so there is no proposed development on that side of the street. So, they are proposing the sidewalk on the east side of Railroad Avenue where they are proposing a development and that will continue down Railroad Avenue onto Raymond Street. They would provide sidewalk on Raymond Street on both sides; one side in the right-of-way and then a portion of the other side that they are able to dedicate right-of-way to. Mr. Rishel stated that Ms. Bulkilvish did a fantastic job explaining the project as Stage 1 or Step 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 1 or Phase 1; whatever you want to call it. We are seeking the waivers for the design of the street and the layout of the street as she mentioned with some of the site constraints that they are faced with. They don’t have a whole lot more that they can add to that great presentation that she did. Mr. Hartman stated that there was a comment from Fire Marshal questioning the turnaround at the cul-de-sac. Has that been addressed? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Rishel stated yes, it has. We did have a DAC Meeting a few weeks ago and we did receive all of these comments and we have no objections or issues with any of the comments. For that one in particular, they actually exceed the State requirement for the cul-de-sac turnaround diameter. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements inclusive of three waivers; reduction of street right-of-way width, exceeding the maximum length of the cul-de-sac and the partial elimination of the sidewalks and also inclusive of the DAC comments, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it’s a definitely needed improvement to that area. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for the same reasons. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for previously stated reasons. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks all of these are the usual, normal and necessary changes that have to take place or waivers that have to take place in order for projects like this to happen. This was platted long before she was born and it is much needed and will be quite an enhancement to that area. Mr. Hartman voting yes; particularly because the waivers are much needed and many of them are inappropriate and unnecessary for this site. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; this project should certainly improve the use of the properties in the neighborhood. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. NEW BUSINESS Update on the Dover Air Force Base Compatible Use Study Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover Air Force Base Compatible Use Study is a project that is just getting underway. There is a Technical Committee that she, from the Planning Office, is participating in as well as a Policy Committee, which she believes the Mayor is a participant. This is a Study focused on if you use the Dover Air Force Base as the center, a 5-mile area surrounding the Base to look at land activity uses both in the City and within the County and the other areas that surround the Base to ensure that they can plan for activities that ensure the longevity of the Base from a military installation standpoint and an economic driver as well. There is a project website that we included on the meeting agenda where you can see the variety of documents that are posted about the Study. This is going to be about an 18-month study. There will be some opportunities for public engagement with this project. As we find out about those, we will certainly pass that along to the Planning Commission. Long term, it may result in a series of implementation items that are recommended to make this area both work from a land use perspective and also from the military installation standpoint. At this point, they are in the data gathering phase and the City will be sharing a number of our GIS layers from our 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Comprehensive Plan and our Ordinances that we currently have in place. Update on Downtown Dover Strategic Master Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Downtown Dover Strategic Master Plan is an effort of the Downtown Dover Partnership. They have retained likewise consultant services that are working on a Master Plan focused on Downtown. They are also in the data gathering phase and there will be opportunities for stakeholder meetings and also some public interaction. Again, we have provided a website link to the project where you can see their strategy for the plan. In the case of this project, they are hoping to have a Final Master Plan put together by Fall of this year so it is a much quicker turnaround timeframe for the project. Again, focusing on Downtown and what the opportunities are from a development perspective with potential implementation items to come. Meeting adjourned at 9:18 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 20