CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION CANCELLED MEETING … · City Hall, City Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware The Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, March

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION

CANCELLED MEETING

Monday, March 16, 2020 – 7:00 P.M.

City Hall, City Council Chambers

15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware

The Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, March 16, 2020 has

been cancelled due to the recommendations on public gatherings as

noted in the Declaration of a State of Emergency for the State of

Delaware (effective March 13, 2020).

The following Applications will be postponed and rescheduled for the

Monday, April 20, 2020 meeting of the Planning Commission to be held

at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers at 15 Loockerman Plaza,

Dover.

For questions regarding the status of agenda items and project

applications, contact the City of Dover Planning Office at (302) 736-

7196 or by email at [email protected]

OLD BUSINESS

1) Revisions to Applications:

a. S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road – Update on Revisions to Site

Development Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan Application associated with plan to

demolish the existing structures and then construct a one-story 4,504 SF Car Wash

(Service Establishment) with associated site improvements. The subject properties total

2.07 +/- acres and are located east side of Saulsbury Road north of Forest Street and west

of Carver Road. The properties are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and

C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay

Zone). The owner of record for all properties is Faithwork LLC. Property Addresses: 21

and 27 Saulsbury Road; 20 (and 26), 30 and 34 Carver Road; 971, 975 and 983 Forest

Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.07-01-38.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-39.00-000, ED-05-

076.07-01-61.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-60.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-59.00-000, ED-05-

076.07-01-62.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-36.00-000, and ED-05-076.07-01-37.00-000.

Council District 4. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of Site Plan

S-19-22 on October 21, 2019.

NEW BUSINESS

1) SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College

Road – Review of the payment amount for Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area

Construction as associated with a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the

subdivision of two existing parcels a total of 1.79 +/- acres of land into five (5) lots. The

properties are located on the southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road.

The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Steven

D. Heiges. Property Addresses: 1504 & 1506 College Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-

01-02.00-000 and ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000. Council District 4. The Planning

Commission granted conditional approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan SB-20-01 and

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda

Public Hearing: March 16, 2020

Page 2 of 3






its Request for Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction on January 21,

2020.

NEW APPLICATIONS

1) AX-20-01 Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road – Public Hearing and

Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning

Request for a parcel of land totaling 0.21 acres +/- (9,435 SF) located at 1448 N. Little Creek

Road, Dover. The property is currently zoned RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone)

in Kent County. The proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is

located on the south side of N. Little Creek Road and east of Acacia Place. The annexation

category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority

Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. The owner is

Holly L. Mayer. Property Address: 1448 N. Little Creek Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.00-

01-02.00-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2020-02. The First Reading of this

Annexation Request was completed on February 10, 2020. Public Hearing before the

Planning Commission is scheduled for March 16, 2020, and Final Reading/Public Hearing is

scheduled before City Council on April 13, 2020.

2) AX-20-02 Lands of MEB Properties, LLC at 1385-1389 McKee Road – Public Hearing and


Request for a parcel of land totaling 78.60 acres +/- located at 1385-1389 McKee Road,

Dover. The property is currently zoned RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent

County. The proposed zoning is RG-2 (General Residence Zone) for 73.34 acres and C-2A

(Limited Commercial Zone) for 5.26 acres with the property frontage along McKee Road

subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The property is located on the east side of

Scarborough Road at the intersection of Scarborough Road and McKee Road. The

annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High

Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Mixed Use. The owner is MEB

Properties, LLC and Christopher Custis. The equitable owner is Louis J. Capano, III.

Property Address: 1385-1389 McKee Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000.

Proposed Council District 4. Ordinance #2020-03. The First Reading of this Annexation

Request was completed on February 10, 2020. Public Hearing before the Planning

Commission is scheduled for March 16, 2020, and Final Reading/Public Hearing is

scheduled before City Council on April 13, 2020.

3) C-20-01 Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park: Lot 4)

– Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to permit the

construction of four 1-story warehouse buildings totaling 30,955 +/- SF and associated site

improvements at 131 Rosemary Road. The subject property is 2.88 acres +/- and is located on

the north end of Rosemary Road north of Lafferty Lane. The property is zoned M

(Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise

Zone A and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II). The owner of record is Blue Collar Guild,

LLC. Property Address: 131 Rosemary Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.16-02-12.03-000.

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda

Public Hearing: March 16, 2020

Page 3 of 3

Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing, Elimination of

Sidewalk along Rosemary Road frontage, and Woodland Mitigation Plan. Consideration of

Performance Standards Review Application.

PROJECT UPDATES

1) Update on the Status of the City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan

Project website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan

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: March 6, 2020

https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan

1


JANUARY 21, 2020

The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January

21, 2020 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Vice Chairperson Ms. Maucher

presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hartman, Mr.

Baldwin, Mr. Tolbert and Ms. Maucher. Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh were absent.

Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian

Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, and Mr. Jason Lyon. Also present was Mr. Clifford

Mitchell, Mr. Mike Scali, Mr. William Ardito. Speaking from the public were Elisa Vassas.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Adams moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion

was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent.

APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF

DECEMBER 16, 2019

Mr. Tolbert moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of December 16, 2019,

second by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Mrs.

Welsh absent.

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS

Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,

February 18, 2020 in the City Council Chambers.

Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held

on January 13 and 14, 2020.

Mr. Hugg stated that in terms of Planning and Inspections updates, they welcome Mrs.

Bulkilvish aboard the Planning Office. The Planning Staff is now fully staffed; that hasn’t

happened in a while. Unfortunately, he can’t say that about the other divisions in our Department

but we are working hard on that matter.

Mr. Hugg stated that the University of Delaware’s Institute for Public Administration holds

regular training programs. On the agenda tonight there are three upcoming programs. These are

part of the introductory program that the Institute provides for Planning Commissioners and Staff

and they are very well done and highly recommended. The first is “Planning Your Community’s

Future.” It is a general discussion of the subject matter. It is being held on January 24, 2020 from

9:00AM-Noon. “Land-Use Law, the Constitution, and Takings” is one of the series of Planning

Law courses that the University offers. It is being held on February 14, 2020 from 9:00AM-

Noon. The third course is “Land-Use Administration” which will be offered on February 28,

2020 from 9:00AM-Noon. All of these courses are at the Kent County Levy Court Building and

if you wish to participate in any or all of them please see the Planning Staff to get registered.

OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2020

2

Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the

meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None

2) Continuation of Development Application Review:

a. S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan

(Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) – Continuation of the Review of Revised

Implementation Plan for the Residential District component of the Traditional

Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Revised Plan for the

Residential District proposes to revise Phase 2 areas; to extinguish lots 339-346 to create

a new clubhouse and active recreation space; to create two (2) clubhouses within the

Active Open Space; to build five (5) apartment buildings to contain 180 dwelling units on

lots 6-10, while using lot 11 as Open Space; and to change the unit types of lots along

Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street,

Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way) to achieve 665 total lots. The Residential

District consists of multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND

(Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street

and Wemyss Road and east of the POW-MIA Parkway. The owner of record for the area

of revision is Eden Hill Residential, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the

Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. The Implementation Plan

was previously reviewed as SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District

Implementation Plan consisting of 665 dwelling units with the Planning Commission

conditional approval granted June 19, 2006 and other subsequent approvals related to

lot layout and Pattern Book revisions. Related Applications: SB-07-01, MI-08-03, MI-08-

20, MI-09-03, MI-09-13, MI-10-04, MI-10-14, MI-10-20, and S-15-07.

The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and began Review of this Application S-

19-25 at their Meeting of December 16, 2019. Action was deferred seeking submission of

clarifying information.

Representatives: Mr. Cliff Mitchell, Karins & Associates; Mr. Mike Scali

Mr. Adams moved to lift this item from the table for discussion, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the

motion was carried 7-0 by voice vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application began its review at the December 2019

meeting. During that meeting, the public hearing was held on the application. The Commission’s

action asked that some additional clarifying information be provided in regards to the

application. In the packet, the Planning Office provided a copy of the original DAC Report and

comments and the original letter and plan submission that they had made. Also included is what

we see on the screen which is the colorful graphic that was presented at the December 2019

meeting that identifies the different pieces of this project. The red being what is already

constructed. The dark green being the proposed location for two clubhouses in what is an

existing open space area. The lighter green to the bottom of the screen is where they propose


3

with this Revised Implementation Plan to consolidate a number of lots in order to add a

clubhouse in the southern portion of the project. The purple area is an area where they are

looking to re-plat a number of lots to rebalance the number of housing units. There are some

changes in this area related to duplexes and townhouse lots. The blue area towards the top of the

screen is where a series of multi-family units in the form of apartments are proposed. With the

previous application, she wants to reference the DAC Report. This is a review of a Revised

Implementation Plan. There is an existing Implementation Plan in place for the Eden Hill Farm

TND Residential District, including a Comprehensive Design Standards Manual, also referred to

as the Pattern Book that is in place, along with a series of addendums to that Pattern Book. The

Revised Implementation Plan is really presentation of a concept for the overall Residential

District with the key changes being a revision of what’s included in the Phase II Area of the

project, the consolidation of lots for that south Clubhouse, the creation of a plan for two

Clubhouses in the northern area, a revision to the overall dwelling count which would take it

back to what was originally approved at 665 overall dwelling units and then a change in the mix

of unit types that’s primarily focused in that northeast portion of the project area. The Planning

Office provided DAC comments and recommendations for the project and you can see those in

the Report along with the other regulatory agencies. At your December meeting, the Planning

Commission as part of their motion asked for clarifying information. They did include in the

packet, a copy of what they call the Notice of Decision Letter. In this case, its a Notice of

Planning Commission Action Letter which noted the Planning Commission the beginning of the

review process and that the Commission had questions about the Pattern Book and the parking

for the multi-family apartment units. As a result of that, the applicant has supplied additional

information to the Commission. That starts with a letter that outlines their thoughts regarding the

Pattern Book and the parking questions that were raised. That letter also includes a series of

exhibits outlining information about parking with Exhibit A showing their initial concept for the

multi-family and also Exhibit A-1. Exhibits B, C and D of their submission show the information

that is in the currently approved Pattern Books and addendums to the Pattern Book for the

Residential District. She thinks what you will find in their letter is that they have outlined what

they are proposing in general for the parking overall and how that actually is proposed to exceed

what is currently in the adopted Pattern Books for the overall Residential District. The Eden Hill

is a little unique in that it is our Traditional Neighborhood Design Project. A TND has very

specific review processes attached to it. First, it goes through a Rezoning process which includes

a Rezoning Plan and an initial Pattern Book document. It is further established in detail with

concepts through the Implementation Plan process. It has an approved process plan in place

along with associated Pattern Book documents. In order to construct in the TND, it is either

through permit or the need for Administrative Site Plans prior to commencement of construction

activities. In this case, the apartment buildings are one of those areas that requires Administrative

Site Plan review so further detail on development of those types of units would be reviewed

through the Administrative Site Plan review process. Parking, like a number of the other bulk

standards, are governed by the Pattern Book and do supersede the provisions of the Zoning

Ordinance. There are a number of other references in general to parking in the TND Provisions

in the Code.

Mr. Mitchell stated that they submitted the document which he assumes the Commissioners have

all had a chance to review. Beyond that, they don’t have any additional information to submit at


4

this time. They think that what they did submit plus the previous Plans are adequate for what

they are going to build.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if the concerns that were expressed at the last meeting had been

adequately addressed at this point? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that

the motion from the December meeting asked for clarifying information about the Pattern Book

and about parking for the multi-family or apartment units. If you refer to their letter of clarifying

information, they do discuss the Pattern Book and note that there have been a number of people

involved over time with this project. So, there is an initial Pattern Book and then there have been

a series of addendums as various changes have occurred and been approved through this Body

over time. They do appear to indicate the intent to collectively re-establish one Pattern Book

including all of the addendum pieces that are approved and can be used today to actually amend

and re-state the Pattern Book so that it’s an ease of use for both the Planning Office and actually

the developers and builders in this location. The letter goes on to describe the parking

requirements both in text and in a series of exhibits. From the Staff point, she thinks that they

have satisfied your request for information. They have flushed out their intent to create a final

version of the Pattern Book. It does exist; it’s been approved but it’s just in pieces and she thinks

that they have provided enough information regarding the concept for parking for the multi-

family units. They have provided diagrams that include, based on the number of units, options

for parking under the building, options for parking in lots, and head in parking. All of which

would be considered off-street parking. They have also identified some of the on-street parking

that is in the vicinity of these units; it’s basically the parallel street parking that is immediately

adjacent to the frontages of these buildings. Overall, if you have done the math, based on a unit

count of 180 multi-family units, they achieve a parking rate of over two parking spaces per

dwelling unit based on that unit count and that is not including the on-street parallel parking. If

you do include that, considering only the parking that is immediately along the building

frontages of the apartment buildings, then you actually get to a parking rate of 2.76 parking

spaces per dwelling unit. There is basically a focus of almost 500 parking spaces in that general

area where the multi-family units would be proposed. She thinks that certainly meets the intent

of the TND which is walkable and pedestrian friendly. So, it does not anticipate the car being the

only mode of transportation in the TND.

Mr. Hartman stated that in light of the difficulties faced by the applicant in assembling a Pattern

Book and in light of the difficulties Planning has had with the absence of a Comprehensive

Pattern Book that rolled down to the Commission and gave him difficulties at the last meeting.

Going forward, is there intentions to establish this Pattern Book to meet the requirements of

Planning Staff? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, Staff can

certainly help them in identifying the key elements that need to be included in that Pattern Book.

They did that with both of the other Districts in the TND; the Neighborhood Commercial District

and the Professional Office District. There is a number of things, like one item on a page that has

been tweaked but it is certainly something that Staff can assist them with. Part of the difficulty in

dealing with the Pattern Book is not all of it is available in electronic format that can be easily

edited. They have paper hard copy but it started back in the age before they were requiring

everything to come to us electronically. She thinks that they can certainly move in a positive

direction that is helpful to all based on what they have and the applicant’s willingness to work

with Staff.


5

Mr. Adams questioned if he was correct in his understanding that a portion of the multi-family

will be apartments that will be owned by the developer and rented and then another portion of

the multi-family will be condos that will be sold? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Scali stated

that the apartments would be just one project owned by the developer. There would not be

condos involved. Unfortunately, condos are just a non-starter and they are not marketable

particularly in that area.

Ms. Maucher stated that the public hearing was held at the December 2019 meeting and would

require a motion to re-open the public hearing and re-notification.

Mr. Tolbert moved to approve S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised

Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) having heard the thorough

explanation of those concerns that the Commission had and the expressions from the applicant.

His motion to approve is conditioned upon the applicant’s continued cooperation with Planning

Staff, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones

and Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Adams

voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; he thanks the applicants for continuing to work with Planning

Staff cooperatively to achieve the goals of their project. Ms. Edwards voting yes; it will be good

to get this ball rolling and she thanked the applicant for their willingness to work with Staff and

for all of the clarification on the concerns that the Commission had in December. Mr. Hartman

voting yes; based on the clarifications provided and the applicant’s willingness to work with

Staff. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based

on the DAC Reports and the Staff recommendations as well as the clarifying information.

NEW APPLICATIONS

1) Z-20-01 Lands of William E. Ardito at 4 Lakeview Drive – Public Hearing and Review for

Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application for one parcel of land consisting

of 0.63 acres (27,443 SF +/-). The property is zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). The

proposed zoning is RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The property is located on the southwest

side of Lakeview Drive and southwest of Sunset Drive, immediately abutting Silver Lake.

The owner of record is William E. Ardito. Property Address: 4 Lakeview Drive. Tax Parcel:

ED-05-068.13-01-08.00-000. Council District 3. Ordinance #2019-22.

Representatives: Mr. William Ardito

Mr. Swierczek stated that this is an overview of a Rezoning for 4 Lakeview Drive. This is an

application which consists of one parcel of land totaling 0.63 acres located on the southwest side

of Lakeview Drive immediately abutting Silver Lake. The property is currently zoned R-7 (One-

Family Residence Zone). The proposed zoning is RG-1 (General Residence Zone) which is

consistent with the property’s land use designation of Medium Density Residential. As a quick

note of the current conditions on the site, there is an existing one family residential structure on

the property. There is one access point to the site via circular driveway. While there is a sidewalk

onsite from the circular driveway to the main entrance to the house, there are no pedestrian

facilities along Lakeview Drive and subsequently no pedestrian access to the site.


6

Staff is recommending that the Rezoning be granted to RG-1 (General Residence Zone) as

requested as the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Residential

Medium Density Land Use Classification. The use as a bed and breakfast, which is the reason for

the Rezoning request is to allow for that as a potential use, is permitted as a Conditional Use in

the RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The application for the Rezoning must be recommended by

the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, then the applicant

would still have to submit a Conditional Use Application to the Planning Commission for review

and approval to establish certain uses such as a bed and breakfast. During that review process, it

will be determined if any site improvements are required to meet conditions of approval. The

existing use as a one-family attached dwelling continues to be an allowed use in the RG-1

(General Residence Zone). Planning Staff also notes that the property is subject to the provisions

of the Zoning Ordinance related to its proximity to Silver Lake and regarding the Special Flood

Hazard Areas.

Mr. Hartman stated that one of the comments on the emails that we were handed today

mentioned a fear of this making it easier for an apartment building to be constructed nearby. Is

there any credibility to that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Swierczek stated that he believed

that Mrs. Melson-Williams spoke with that resident. There is an apartment complex that

immediately abuts this to the southeast. There is no discussion on the part of this property owner

to do anything in conjunction with that apartment building. He believes that was just a concern

that the resident had. Perhaps there was a prior discussion of this years ago that they would

expand onto this property but that is not what the current owner is looking to do and that would

not be permitted in either zoning.

Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that on the desks of the Commissioners are two series of email

correspondence from residents in the area. There is a series of emails with a Ms. Del Burkes who

included in her last email that she may not be present at tonight’s meeting, but she wanted to

ensure that the Commission received her thoughts. Her concern was the potential for it becoming

an apartment complex and Planning Staff did provide some information in regards to how the

Rezoning process works. The second email set is with a Ms. Elisa Vassas with similar concerns

about what the future development of the property could mean with a Rezoning application and

she also had some additional questions regarding the Public Notice process, our Tree

Preservation provisions, and then some other general neighborhood concerns. Since they

received them as written emails, they are including those as part of the public testimony this

evening for the Commission’s review.

Ms. Elisa Vassas – 478 North East Avenue Dover, DE 19901

Ms. Vassas stated that her concern is that she does live on the corner of Lakeview Drive so since

it’s a very small neighborhood, she just didn’t know also if there would be additional traffic

impacting. Her biggest question right now would be if there are plans to enlarge this property.

She was looking over everything and she believes that he would be able to enlarge like 60%. So,

she didn’t know if there were plans to take the existing home and double it or triple it in size. Is it

just going to be the home as it is, which is quite lovely on the lake, where you would have one or

two guest rooms or is the size going to be doubled or tripled? If that is the case, from what she is


7

hearing, there would possibly be a hearing if there are intentions of enlarging. Responding to Ms.

Vassas, Mr. Swierczek stated that this is the Rezoning application that would allow them to

potentially seek to establish a bed and breakfast on the property; however, that would only be

allowed if they first filed a Conditional Use Application. So, before that could even happen, they

would again have to come before the Planning Commission and that would involve Public

Notice as well.

Ms. Vassas questioned if right now, are there plans to double the size of the house? Responding

to Ms. Vassas, Mr. Ardito stated that there are not. He did just increase the size of one bedroom,

and he is actually somewhat reluctant to have it as a bed and breakfast and rent out part of his

house. If he did, it would only be just the one room. It is more like a suite. Like a triple sized

room with a bathroom and a deck overlooking the water which is really nice. He just went

through six months of restoration to increase the size of that room, so he doesn’t want to go

through anymore of that. He knows that it is a nice little area back there and he doesn’t want to

have a lot of traffic back there himself. It is kind of a nice little haven back there. He knows that

a lot of people do vacation rentals by owner and Air BNB, but this would just be a low key one

room only rented to someone once in a while. It wouldn’t be any volume whatsoever and he is

reluctant to even have some people. It is more or less on a trial basis.

Ms. Vassas stated that she was looking through the signage regulations, but it doesn’t sound like

you are looking to put a big sign up. Responding to Ms. Vassas, Mr. Ardito stated that you are

supposed to have a sign so there is a small sign that he could possibly have on the pillar if in fact

it gets approved.

Ms. Vassas questioned the difference between in terms of the City and maybe elaborate on why

you couldn’t have an Air BNB versus going ahead and changing the zoning to have a bed and

breakfast? She didn’t know if there was a stricter policy or how the City handles Air BNB’s.

Responding to Ms. Vassas, Mr. Ardito stated that he has never done an Air BNB or VRBO and

he is not interested in doing either one of those. He kind of just wants to make it a little more

high class, upscale thing. He has always been intrigued by bed and breakfasts so maybe do a

small scale one with just that one room with people enjoying not just the room but the whole lake

view experience there and the activities that he has set up outside there. He can see her concern

that she doesn’t want to have a lot of people back there. It is a very quiet, nice neighborhood

back there. He lives there by himself so it would be visitors just once in a while with that. That is

all that he has planned right now if it gets approved. It’s a good question of how people regulate

Air BNB’s. He did research and 162 people do Air BNB in Dover, DE and when he did the

search for VRBO, 1956 people in the Kent County are came up so a lot of people in the area do it

but he is not interested in doing that.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that technically our Zoning Ordinance does not allow for short

term rentals which are where Air BNB and VRBO kind of settings end up. We do have a Rental

Dwelling Permit Program but that is that you are renting basically the entire house. It has

become a question recently. The whole short-term rental is something new that our Zoning

Ordinance probably did not anticipate. Our definition of a dwelling unit is actually a “single not

for profit housekeeping unit” so that when you are renting a room it becomes for profit and that

gets a little complicated. The concept for a bed and breakfast has a very specific set of conditions


8

and procedures that have to be established for that hence the RG-1 (General Residence Zone)

does allow a bed and breakfast type use through a Conditional Use type process which is a

separate application process. She just wants to remind the Commissioners that tonight they are

making a recommendation on the zoning. The zoning of the property is currently R-7 (One-

Family Residence Zone) and they are looking to go to RG-1 (General Residence Zone).

Basically, what that means is that each zoning district has a list of permitted uses and conditional

uses. This would only change which list you get to look at as a starting point or what the rules

are on how you can utilize your property. It does not grant approval to a bed and breakfast by

your taking action tonight. In any case, you are a recommending body to City Council in regards

to the Rezoning anyway.

Ms. Maucher closed the public hearing.

Mr. Tolbert moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-20-01 Lands of William E.

Ardito at 4 Lakeview Drive in view of the fact that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan

and there are no real problems involved with this and it is limited to the zoning, seconded by Mr.

Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent.

Mr. Tolbert voting yes; for the reasons stated. Mr. Adams voting yes; he appreciates the public

comment period and the applicant’s willingness to answer questions from the public. He too is a

neighbor across the lake from the applicant, so he appreciates the applicant providing that

explanation as well. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; it’s consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan and thank you to the applicant for the answers to the neighbor’s questions.

Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the Comprehensive Plan and what’s been said here tonight by

the applicant. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on reasons previously

stated.

2) MI-20-01 Text Amendment: General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) – Public Hearing

and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning

Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 9 – General Residence and Office Zoning

(RG-O). The proposed Ordinance allows for barbershops to be included as a preferred use

permitted subject to conditional use review within the City’s H (Historic District Zone) in the

RG-O zone. The Ordinance also seeks to remove the word “zoning” from the section heading

and replace it with the word “zone.” Ordinance #2019-19.

• A copy of the Proposed Ordinance #2019-19 is available on the City’s website

www.cityofdover.com under the Government Heading: Ordinances, Resolutions &

Tributes. https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions

• First Reading was held by City Council on December 9, 2019 where the Public

Hearing dates were set for Planning Commission on January 21, 2020 and City

Council on February 10, 2020.

Representatives: None

This is a text amendment to a portion of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Article 3, Section 9

which is the General Residence and Office Zoning. This is a proposed ordinance that was a

constituent request that was sponsored by two members of City Council. They presented the

proposal to the Council Committee of the Whole the Legislative, Finance and Administration

http://www.cityofdover.com/

https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions


9

Committee back on November 26, 2019. That Committee forwarded the proposed Ordinance

with their support to City Council and a First Reading was held on December 9, 2019. Because it

is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, it then has to go through a review process here with

the Planning Commission that is subject to Public Hearing and then Public Hearing and Final

Action on the Ordinance would be at a future City Council Meeting. This is Proposed Ordinance

#2019-19. The summary of it is that it is a proposal to allow barbershops to be included as a

preferred use permitted subject to the Conditional Use Review in those areas of the RGO

(General Residence and Office Zone) which are also located in the Historic District Zone. If you

look at the Ordinance itself under Article 3, Section 9.14 (b) in order to stimulate limited

commercial activity in the RG-O (General Residence and Office Zone) where the Historic

District Overlay Zone also exists, there are a number of uses listed there in b1 that include things

like antique shops, art galleries, gift and card shops, book stores, specialty hobby stores, bakeries

and restaurants. This Proposed Ordinance would add the term “barbershops” to that list. In

looking at the Text Amendment, it did go through review with our Development Advisory

Committee. There were no real oppositions or objections to the proposed Text Amendments.

Some of the entities did note that in order to take advantage of the said Ordinance if it is adopted,

there may be additional review processes that would be necessary to establish that use or any of

the other uses listed.

Planning Staff also looked at this Proposed Ordinance. They do note that the proposal is not

specific to any one particular property; however, there is one very interested party that if it was

to be established a Conditional Use Application would be necessary to be filed in order to

establish it for any particular property. Planning Staff does have some recommendations in

regards to this Text Amendment. The first one they are suggesting is for consistency proposes.

They found that most of our other commercial zones rather than using the term “barbershops”

actually use the term that is more inclusive and that is “personal service establishments.” In our

Report, you can see that the definition of a “personal service establishment” is “establishments

primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs such as a

hair salon.” The other thing that they did look at is for these limited commercial activities is that

there are a list of conditions related to their establishment and they deal with things like floor

area, the Architectural Review Certification process which is if you are making exterior changes

to a building that is in the Historic District, some provisions related to parking and new

construction bulk standards. Those items of conditions currently as they are described in the

Code refer to the retail user; however, if you actually look at this list of limited commercial

activity, there are more than just retail users in that list. Things like antique shops are certainly

retail but things like bakeries and restaurants typically are not considered retail in how we look at

the Code and barbershops would not either. They are recommending as part of their Staff

Amendment #1 that the references that limits those conditions to just retail uses be removed and

make all of the limited commercial activity that’s listed there subject to them. So those

conditions relate to a floor area limitation, the requirements for the Architectural Review

Certification which would be required by other parts of the Code anyway, and it would also

clarify that there is no requirement for parking based on the specific use. What they have

presented at the end of the DAC Report is what they call Staff Amendment #1 and it has the four

components to it. The first being to replace the term “barbershops” with the term “personal

service establishments” as they find that it is more inclusive and it’s consistent with the other

references in the Zoning Ordinance. Items number 2, 3 and 4 would remove the reference to


10

retail use and thus establish those general conditions to all types of uses for that limited

commercial activity. Very specifically, it actually clarifies what the parking requirements in the

RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) would be related to these uses because we have had

some difficulties with that in the past. The rest of the DAC Report is included, and the Planning

Staff is recommending the series of Staff Amendment #1 to the Proposed Ordinance.

Mr. Hartman stated that in Staff Recommendation #1 the substitution of “personal service

establishments” for “barbershops” which is fairly specific. In that paragraph that the original

Text Amendment was proposed, all of those shops are specific: antique shops, art galleries, gift

and card shops and bookstores. Those are specific establishments and he doesn’t understand the

need to put in “personal service establishment.” What else besides hair salon does that include?

Does that include massage parlors? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated

that personal service establishments in the Zoning Ordinance would include the variety of

different beauty shop, barbershop, hair salon, nail salon, and things like any other kind of body

work; whether it’s massage or tattoos. It is all collectively gathered under the term “personal

service establishments.” If you are interested in just keeping it barbershops, then if someone

walked in a wanted to be a beauty salon, the answer would be “no, you are not a barbershop.”

So, the Zoning Ordinance, a number of years ago actually did individually list hair salon, barber

shop, beauty shop, beauty salon and a variety of terms and it was simplified to the more

generalized term of personal service establishments. Each of them tends to have their own

Business Licensing provisions, if you are concerned about that which is another aspect of our

Code. But they felt that it was a more inclusive term than just limiting it to just barbershops. It is

put forth as a recommendation and this Proposed Ordinance is before the Commission and you

can make your own recommendations.

Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the

public hearing.

Mr. Adams moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-20-01 Text Amendment:

General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) inclusive of Staff Amendment #1, seconded by Ms.

Edwards and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mrs. Welsh absent.

Mr. Adams voting yes; he is supportive of the Staff Amendment to broaden the definition for

personal service establishment. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms.

Edwards voting yes; based on the more inclusive terminology of personal service establishments.

Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on

Staff recommendations. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; since Staff has made a thorough understanding

for the need of the clarification of the Zoning Code. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff

recommendations.


Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the


properties are located on the southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road. The

property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Steven D.

Heiges. Property Addresses: 1504 & 1506 College Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-01-

02.00-000 and ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000. Council District 4. Request for Consideration:


11

Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area.

Representatives: Mr. Brian Turner, Mountain Consulting

Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that this application is a Minor Subdivision Plan for the Lands of Steven

D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road. It is to permit the subdivision of two existing parcels

a total of 1.79 +/- acres of land into five (5) lots. The properties are located on the southeast side

of College Road and east of Kenton Road. The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence

Zone). The owner of record is Steven D. Heiges. Property Addresses: 1504 & 1506 College

Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-01-02.00-000 and ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000. Council

District 4. There is also a request for consideration of a Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area.

There are two existing parcels now totaling 1.79 acres that Mr. Heiges wishes to subdivide into

five lots. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, depth, and area requirements. As part

of the Subdivision Application, the applicant has requested that the Commission consider a Cash-

in-lieu donation in place of the required Active Recreation Area. This project is eligible for this

exemption as it is a residential development with less than five acres and less than ten dwelling

units. The donation amount will be determined at a later Planning Commission meeting after the

applicant has provided an appraisal of the property. Staff notes that any further development on

these lots will require additional Building Permits and Plan Review.

Mr. Turner stated that they reviewed the DAC Comments and plan on complying with the

comments in the DAC Report.

Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public

hearing.

Mr. Roach questioned if there was a reason for the discrepancy as far as the size of Lot 1 versus

Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Turner stated that there was no real specific

reason. They just tried to keep the first four relatively similar and because of that shape and how it

extends in the back there was no way to really divide it up evenly between the other four lots.

Mr. Hartman moved to approve SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at

1504 and 1506 College Road based on the DAC comments and the comments of the applicant.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if the motion should include the Cash-in-lieu in place of the Active

Recreation Area? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it is a request as

part of the Subdivision to consider the Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area construction.

Mr. Hartman moved to amend the motion to include the Cash-in-lieu for the Recreation Area as

well, seconded by Mr. Roach and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and

Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on what has been said. Mr. Baldwin voting

yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Mr. Adams voting yes; he appreciates the applicant’s investment in

Dover. Mr. Roach voting yes; he appreciates the applicant adding some additional homes to this

area. It is greatly appreciated and greatly needed. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on reasons

previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations.


12

NEW BUSINESS

1) Update on the Status of the City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan

Project website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that we are almost there. As Mr. Hugg reported earlier, the City

Council just over a week ago adopted the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and included the various

Planning Commission recommendations on the series of requests if you remember them;

Requests #1-6 and then Requests A-D which are the housekeeping/editing things. Some of which

Mr. Hartman noted that the Table numbers didn’t match up and those kinds of things. What that

means is that Staff now has to know move into creating what is the final publication document

including all of the changes to Map 12-1 and the final edits of the text document itself so that

they may submit the final copy to the State for certification by the Governor. They have also

received the concurrency letters from our adjoining jurisdictions: Camden, Wyoming, Little

Creek, Cheswold, and Kent County. They have reviewed our Plan and are pleased with it as well.

Staff has to submit that proof. Staff is starting on the final editing this week to create that final

document. It will be posted ultimately on the City’s website and will be the document that is

certified hopefully shortly for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The next step if you look to

Chapter 15 is the Implementation Plan. The first is kind of the adoption of the Plan itself and its

Certification and then a series of projects including a Comprehensive Rezoning that they will be

focusing on next. Then it’s the ongoing tasks by the Planning Office and all City Departments

related to the various studies, code amendments, projects and other activities to implement to

goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your efforts over the last two years since they

have started. Thanks to Staff; they got a lot of kudos during the hearing process both from the

Planning Commission and at the City Council meeting.

Mr. Hugg thanked everybody who was involved from Day 1 to the approvals by the Planning

Commission and City Council.

Meeting adjourned at 8:09 PM.

Sincerely,

Kristen Mullaney

Secretary

https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan


QUARTERLY WORKSHOP

FEBRUARY 19, 2020

The Quarterly Workshop Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on

Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:00 noon. Members present were Mr. Roach, Mr. Hartman,

Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Tolbert and Dr. Jones. Mr. Adams, Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Welsh and Ms.

Maucher were absent.

Staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Harvey, Mrs. Bulkilvish,

Mr. Swierczek and Mrs. Purnell.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND CONCERNS

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an opportunity to voice any questions that you may have.

If you don’t think of any right now, there is a discussion at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Hartman stated that he is still a little unclear on the Cash-in-lieu of the Active Recreation Area.

How does the City look at that and approve this? It seems like a builder can build a lot and then

just automatically pay a Cash-in-lieu. Does the City ever reject those requests? Responding to Mr.

Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is not sure that one has ever been rejected. The

process is established for Active Recreation Area requirements in the Zoning Ordinance and that

means that you either build or you can seek to utilize the Cash-in-lieu of construction. They have

had projects depending on the scale of them and the conditions of the property that they are

developing, either seek to do straight Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area or satisfy part of their

requirement through that Cash-in-lieu process. You have had examples of both recently. The

apartment project on White Oak Road was building some amenities and then the balance of the

required area would be satisfied with Cash-in-lieu. The most recent Minor (Small Scale)

Subdivision is going through the process to totally be Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area

requirements just because of the configuration of what was proposed. It was for five lots with no

street network so it didn’t really make sense to have these five lots have some area that is Active

Recreation when the Cash-in-lieu option is there which then places the funds in a Park Land

Reserve Fund that can be used for City parks citywide. It is a discretionary thing with the Planning

Commission about what is appropriate given the type of residential development that is being

proposed so it gives that flexibility with site conditions.

Mr. Hartman questioned if they would be within their rights to defer an application based on

disagreeing with the Cash-in-lieu in place of the Recreation Area? Responding to Mr. Hartman,

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that you could but most of the time that they are asking for it, it’s

because it flat out does not fit or work for their project for space reasons or various other reasons.

The Code does have provisions for exceptions to our Active Recreation Area requirements for

certain types of projects and certain densities which also help to balance that Active Recreation

component. In a number of instances, the Planning Commission has also kind of looked more long

range. The long-term care of an Active Recreation Area in certain instances is potentially more

problematic than actually having them go the Cash-in-lieu route where the funds would be utilized

to maintain or increase amenities in what are City managed park areas that the citizens could

access.

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS UPDATE

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2020

2

Summary of 2019 Applications

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the summary of the 2019 gives applications that were filed

with the Planning Commission, those that might have been Administrative in nature and also the

other two boards and commissions: the Board of Adjustment and the Historic District

Commission. The Planning Office assisted in processing 62 different applications. That was up

from our rate in 2018. Not all of them necessarily make to the Planning Commission. Some are

tracked for informational purposes and those are the Miscellaneous items. Some of the Site Plans

are actually Administrative Review meaning it does not go to the Planning Commission for full

public hearing. Those are smaller scale projects that meet lesser thresholds. They are still

building something but it’s not a building over five thousand square feet. They are not adding

more than five thousand square feet of impervious cover to their project. You can see the

tracking over the years and, overall dating back to 2002 on the chart. More detailed information

about the application activity in 2019 will be part of the Department’s 2019 Annual Report

which they are in the process of finishing preparation now for the City Council meeting being

held next week. That actually includes a full listing of all of the applications that came before the

various Boards and Commissions.

Current Studies and Projects

• Project to Update City’s Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is actually being done by consultant work. It is a

partnership with the Dover Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization and the lead City

Department is the Parks and Recreation Office. They have a consultant WRA that has been

working on it. They have had at least one public outreach meeting at this point. There will be

more once they get a Draft in place. The current Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans are from 2015.

This is something that they do every five years. She believes that in this effort these two will be a

combined plan. The last time through, they were separate documents. They look at those

amenities Citywide and suggest a prioritization for activities for improving those types of

facilities in the City. If you want to take a look at the current Plans, they are posted on the Dover

Kent County MPO’s website and the Planning Office also has copies of it. She believes that it

will be something you will hear more about in the Spring as they move toward a Draft for

review.

• Project for 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan (CDBG Program)

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this Plan is part of the CDBG Program. Mrs. Harvey will talk a

little bit about what that is and what is going on with that project.

Mrs. Harvey stated that the Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan mandated by HUD. This Plan

identifies the particular needs concerning affordable housing, homeownership assistance,

housing rehabilitation, homelessness and community development needs such as public service

needs. Part of the Consolidated Plan component includes the Annual Action Plan that specifies

how the grant projects would further the community development needs over a five year period.

The City is an Entitlement Community that receives around $300,000 annually. The following

multi-year grants will be considered for recommendation at the March 3, 2020 Council

Committee of the Whole: Milford Housing Development Corporation Homeowner and

Emergency Home Repair Programs and that is for rehabs for owner occupied housing within the

City of Dover; Homeownership Down Payment and Settlement Assistance Program that is

managed by the City; NCALL Research the demolition for two vacant buildings within central

Dover; Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing Operations for costs for the shelter and renovation


3

costs for the new location of the shelter once it has been identified; and the Central Delaware

Housing Collaborative for the operations cost for a women’s shelter. The Draft Action Plan will

be available for review for 30 days beginning March 12, 2020 and the Final Plan will be

submitted to HUD by May 15, 2020.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if the CDBG Program was administered by one department or several

departments? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Harvey stated that it is administered by one

department.

Mr. Tolbert questioned what effect it will have on homelessness? Responding to Mr. Tolbert,

Mrs. Harvey stated that the City is not a social service agency. She gets a small pool of funding.

Two homeless shelters have submitted requests for funding so those will help the homeless

indirectly but not directly. We don’t give the money to the individuals directly but they do give

to the housing providers that service homes.

Mr. Tolbert stated that the shelters can only keep people for thirty days. To him, that doesn’t

seem adequate for a homeless person. If they are homeless, they need a lot of time. Responding

to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Harvey stated that they have transitional housing programs where after

thirty days, if they have employment they can transition into transitional housing. They are

provided services while they are in there for thirty days. There is a Resource Center where they

can look for employment and find additional housing if they have an income.

Dr. Jones questioned what the grant would do for Interfaith? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs.

Harvey stated that without the assistance of CDBG and other grants out there, those shelters

would not be able to survive.

Dr. Jones stated that she knows that Dover Interfaith is looking for a new home. She doesn’t

know if it has found one yet or not, but does the grant support the day-to-day operations and

programs of that nature? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Harvey stated that it is strictly for the

operations cost to keep the shelters running.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they have received funding in the past for utility bills.

Dr. Jones questioned if these were one year grants? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Harvey stated

that these are multi-year grants; it’s a five year grant. Each year within those five years, they will

get an allocation.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if they have to justify getting the funds each year? Responding to Mr.

Tolbert, Mrs. Harvey stated that all they have to do is submit a request for what they are asking

for to cover the utilities. It’s going to be approved for five years so they just submit a request for

what they need for that program year.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mrs. Harvey is actually working with a consultant on some of

that but it is a lot of writing and the Draft is due shortly. To start, the Consolidation Plan has a

public hearing and review process to it. There will be future public hearings and then actual

action by City Council that is required with it.

• Project for Proposed Ordinance on Wireless Communication Facilities


4

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for over a year, various City Staff have been working on what

will be a Proposed Ordinance for Wireless Communications Facilities. The purpose for that is to

establish standards for how these are sited, designed, placed, how you Permit them, and

installation throughout the City. There are a range of things that must be addressed in dealing

with location, the design of them and what they look like to establish the formal procedures for

reviewing and authorizing them. As with any zoning Ordinance, it is complicated to say the least.

There are a number of decisions that have to be addressed related to policy, land use and right-

of-way considerations. There is also a number of Federal and State requirements that have

already been put in place and established certain rules that the City’s processes then also have to

work well with and can’t be in conflict with. After a lot of work, the targeted path forward at the

moment appears to be that there will be provisions added to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to

address these types of facilities. There was a Draft Ordinance that was initially started by Cohen

Law under the direction of the City Manager’s Office. The Electric Department was previously

very heavily involved in trying to start to craft how this Ordinance works in the City. The

Planning Office now has been asked to take the lead on this. A lot of the early drafts of the

Ordinance didn’t quite work with how our Ordinance currently functions. And there is the added

dynamic of a number of these small wireless facilities potentially being located in the right-of-

way which means likely attachment to what are City utility poles. That carries with it a whole

other realm of dealing with issues in that situation for things such as pole attachments and

processes and approvals. It has not been a simple thing to deal with. They have reported a couple

of times to the Utility Committee. The Historic District Commission actually heard a

presentation about how these elements could be designed to kind of fit in certain character areas

of our City.

Just so you are aware, there will be an Ordinance that will have to move through the Planning

Commission’s review and process. We are talking about wireless communication facilities.

There is a whole lingo about what they are. There are basically three types of facilities. One is a

small wireless communication facility. That is by definition restricted in its size. In general, a

wireless communication facility is some type of antenna facility and the support structure that

goes along with it that provides for wireless service. The small ones are small in size; both the

antenna and the associated equipment that goes along with them. These are something new and if

you keep hearing the 4G and 5G world, small wireless facilities are really the carriers for that.

The other types of wireless communication facilities are what we call non-tower wireless

communication facilities. This is an existing facility that the antenna is then placed on. A non-

tower situation would be like an existing building, an existing pole or an existing structure like a

water tank or water tower. The third kind is what they call tower based. That is where the

primary structure, the tower or the monopole, is there for exactly being the wireless

communications facility. They have had a couple of towers move through the Planning

Commission process over the years.

They have the most recent Draft of the Ordinance. The Assistant City Manager did some re-

organization to it because when they first looked at it, it was very confusing. If Staff can’t

explain it to you, she is not sure how they are supposed to administer it. They have been trying to

find time to work on this. Obviously, the Comprehensive Plan took a little more precedence and

now with this being fully tossed to them, they have to find time. There are things that they need

to deal with from a process and procedure standpoint. How can they make some of the processes

strictly administrative in nature and not have to bring it to a Board or Commission, whereas,

things like building a new tower would likely need the involvement of a Board or Commission.


5

There will be ongoing coordination necessary with the Electric Department especially on the

small wireless facilities. They like to be on things that are already there and some of those things

are City light poles, City electric poles, and the like. So stay tuned, there will probably be

something headed your way in the next couple of months to establish the processes and

procedures for wireless communication facilities.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if there was any chance of wireless communication facilities having a

problem with being located in residential areas? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hugg stated

yes; the smaller the facility the more likely that it’s going to have at least a visual impact if not

other impacts in residential neighborhoods. The small wireless communication facilities kind of

envision a traffic light with an antenna sticking up on top of it. Some of the designs are

decorative street lighting with a pole with a paddle like device that is incorporated. They have a

couple of impacts. One is the visual impact itself. Some versions of them are less noticeable than

others. Spacing becomes a problem in the 5G world; somewhere between 300 and 500 foot

spacing is required for optimum service which means that you are going to see a lot of these

things throughout neighborhoods. They are going to create a problem in those neighborhoods

where all of the existing utilities except light poles are underground because the light pole

spacing may not match and light poles tend to be a different kind of thing than the street. Mrs.

Melson-Williams made the point that one of the concerns that the Electric Department has is

anybody being in the “power space.” The area from the first and second set of wires from the

ground up are telecommunications and the ones on top are the actual power lines and in order for

them to function properly, the antenna should not be above that highest line. The Electric

Company doesn’t want anybody in its “power space”; particularly anybody working in the

“power space” for obvious reasons of the potential to be electrocuted for one but even just the

proximity to that transmission device could be a health hazard. The large tower or monopole

kind of things, the Planning Commission has seen. They are easier to deal with because they are

a big structure with a bunch of zoning requirements. The ones that go on things like water

towers, the City has regularly dealt with them but they have dealt with them from a physical

location standpoint.

Mr. Tolbert stated that if an application comes before the Commission for a facility of a wireless

communication, one of our main concerns is that the applicant addresses the issues of safety and

security for the residential areas. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hugg stated that one of the

problems in putting this all together is that there are certain Federal requirements. It is very

difficult for them to say no. There is also some very rigid Federal requirements called shot clocks

where you have to make a decision in so many days or else. Some of those make it difficult to

match our program process. Part of our thinking so far is to treat the small wireless

communication facilities almost through a Building Permit process because the turnaround on

them is short. 9 times out of 10 they are in the right-of-way on an existing pole outside what they

normally zone for.

Mr. Hartman questioned why we are doing this? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated

that in part it is an economic development initiative because the communities that have 4G and

5G capabilities are obviously very attractive for businesses and for many residents. It is also a

Federal and State mandate that they have provisions to deal with these kinds of uses. They really

don’t have much ability to push back hard. It is more of a question of how do we make it work so

that it is not any more erroneous than it has to be. There are only three communities in Delaware

so far that have satisfied this first step. Newark, whose Ordinance is apparently quite a bit of a


6

mess to deal with. Rehoboth, who basically just adopted the Cohen Law version and said we will

figure it out and live with it but they have a different government structure. The Town of

Fenwick Island who only adopted a portion that deals with the very small facilities. There is a

State Law that passed in 2017 that basically mandates the authority of these people to locate on

DelDOT owned facilities in DelDOT right-of-way. That is not so much of a problem on Route

13 but remember that State Street, Division Street, and a whole bunch of these other roads in

Dover are also State maintained roads. How we make that work is going to be a challenge.

Particularly on some of those roads, nobody knows where the right-of-way is because it has been

around for so long.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if they receive an application for a wireless communication facility, will

they be given enough information to make an adequate decision? Responding to Mr. Tolbert,

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that right now there is actually a Code Interpretation Memo for

telecommunication facilities that identifies a process. It’s a Conditional Use process in

residential areas and at least a Site Plan process in non-residential areas. So it’s somewhat fit into

the interpretation of our Code because it is like building a building; it is just a different type of

structure. What gets tricky is probably the stuff that is in the right-of-way because we are not

used to dealing with the stuff that is in the right-of-way for construction. They do right now deal

with antenna placements on things like water towers through a Building Permit process. So a lot

of this is where we may have at least interpreted certain procedures but this Ordinance would

formally make this part of the Code. Then it also deals with the small wireless communication

facilities which is really a new technology that wasn’t anticipated by our Code.

Dr. Jones stated that you mentioned that this particular responsibility used to be somewhere else.

Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that things tend to sometimes happen and it arrived at

the City Manager’s Office who promptly hired Cohen Law who is a firm out of New York who

has created a niche in writing these kinds of Ordinances. After it floundered a little while up

there, the Electric Department got involved because of the pole attachment and safety issues.

Under a previous Electric Director, they collectively decided to do some pilot work. Let’s

actually let a Verizon or Sprint company come in for say six poles and run through the process of

actually installing them and kind of write the regulations. That hasn’t gone very well and now

that we have people actually knocking on the door. They decided that maybe the Planning Office

is the place that this ought to be housed to begin with. While they were gently involved in the

beginning, they have slowly become the experts.

Dr. Jones stated that for the most part it is usually never challenged from the Planning

Commission. She never really feels the need to question or challenge anything because she

knows that it has been looked at inside out and upside down. Is this one different to the extent

that they don’t really have a lot of choices at any rate? You said that some aspects are mandated

through the FCC? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated yes, they are the primary agency.

Dr. Jones stated that it seems as sort of a cursory kind of activity. You have to do this but you

have to do this but really you have to do this. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that the

technical specifications are pretty well prescribed by the FCC Rules. He doesn’t envision that at

any level they will be challenging things like what the transmission frequency is or some of the

technical aspects of the communication device. The tower side is really a structure and they have

experience in dealing with those kinds of things. He thinks that the real challenge in this is going

to be figuring out how to allow this technology at the smallest level in a way that doesn’t create


7

major disruptions to the community. They are about as blank on that right now as everybody

else. We can deal with the smallest communication facilities in kind of a Building Permit mode.

The original thought was if they are in the City right-of-way on a publically owned pole then

really it is a Building Permit question; there is not much of a zoning question other than maybe

what it looks like in the Historic District or some of those kinds of things. To the extent that it

goes beyond that, it becomes more and more a question of is there some kind of Site Plan review

or is there some kind of a variation of something that will require more consideration on our part

and he just doesn’t know.

Dr. Jones questioned if they should have to consider the non-tower and the tower types? Are

those the types that would probably go out for public hearing? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs.

Melson-Williams stated that probably the tower ones but maybe not the non-tower ones.

Grant Project Activities

• FFY2019 Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant Project: Update to Design

Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Historic District Commission and the City of Dover was

actually designated a Certified Local Government. That is a Federal designation through the

Historic Preservation Act that allows for governments meeting certain standards, one of which is

that you have a Historic District Commission and that you have regulations to help protect

historic resources. Under that program, the State of Delaware receives monies that they then sub-

grant back to Certified Local Governments. It is a yearly grant. This past year, the City of Dover

utilized that CLG Grant to help write the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Comprehensive

Plan. The grant project activity for this year is to look at updating the Design Standards and

Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone which is the document that tells you what

the appropriate materials and methods for making improvements or doing construction in the

Historic District. The grant project which will make use of consultant services is to target more

specifically looking at modern materials and technologies. Our Design Standards and Guidelines

are from the 1990’s and it’s not real clear about some of the more modern materials, composite

materials, what approaches would be taken if you are going to be utilizing your Historic District.

This grant will allow us to obtain consultant services to then work on that project. They are like

in the middle of the grant year; however, the project has not commenced because they were

focused on the Comprehensive Plan. It is something that we will be getting started with this

spring. Ultimately, there may be some involvement of the Planning Commission. They will keep

the Commission updated as to the progress on the Design Standards and Guidelines. Whatever

document is ultimately created will actually have to go through a hearing and adoption process

but she doesn’t anticipate that happening this spring. That is probably much later in the summer

or fall before they would even be at that point. This is something that was identified in the

Comprehensive Plan as something to work on related to the Historic District Commission. If you

read the Project Narrative, that was something that was submitted as part of the grant request.

This is a grant that requires a match so there are Federal monies and then City match monies that

are involved in the project. It is just under $20,000 to focus on this project. That will be one of

the key things that Staff will be dealing with this spring.

Mr. Tolbert stated that there was a drainage situation at a certain park place that it was their

understanding that money was supposed to be coming from the State. Responding to Mr.

Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it is likely something that the Public Works Office

may have been involved in. This type of grant money is not connected to that. This deals


8

specifically with historic resources.

Updates of Program and Plan Activities

• Downtown Development District Program

Mr. Swierczek stated that the Downtown Development District Program is something that the

Commission deals with occasionally but probably don’t have a lot of familiarity with it. It is a

program that was started on the State’s initiative to encourage development into Downtown areas

of different towns and cities across the State. Dover was one of the original ones; we have been

in that program since 2015. The main work of the incentive program on the part of the State is

that they offer a series of rebates for qualifying investments. If you put the money on a project up

front, the State might rebate part of it. The City compliments the State’s incentive with things

like Tax Incentives, Building Permit fee waivers, and Business License fee waivers depending

on what the type of investment in the Downtown Development District is. He brought some

brochures if you want to take one with you. The area in Dover is roughly from State Street in the

east, to the railroad in the west, to Mary Street in the north and Water Street to the south. Last

year, the program was doing really well. There was a lot of development on Kirkwood Street

with Habitat for Humanity and NCALL. Those developments largely went through the DDD

Program with both the City and the State. In total for the calendar year of 2018, the City recorded

31 properties and this year (2019) it was down to 14 properties. Similarly, the value of incentives

went down by half. It has just slowed in the Downtown area for various reasons. There are two

levels of projects: the houses would be considered a small project since they are under $250,000.

But if you remember last summer we had a development proposal come in on West Division

Street for NCALL for their new offices. That is an example of a large project investment because

that investment would be upwards of a couple million dollars. On the whole since 2015, which is

when Dover started with the program, the State has issued just over $1 million is rebates towards

over $8 million in large scale projects for Downtown Dover and about $650,000 for small

projects. He thinks that in total, there have been 31 total small projects to date. It’s definitely

been seeing some return on investment. The State is very eager to continue with this program as

is the City. They are just hoping that next year, they can start seeing the trend go upwards again.

• Restoring Central Dover Community Plan Implementation

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that both Mr. Hugg and Mrs. Harvey participate in various Steering

Committees related to this program.

Mrs. Harvey stated that NCALL is the lead for that program and that initiative started about five

years ago. They received $750,000 Implementation Grant from Wells Fargo to develop

Downtown Dover. She is not sure the number of houses that they have built here today but they

are in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity and Milford Housing. If you go down that

corridor between New Street and North West Street, there are a number of new houses in

between those areas. As of last week, they are applying for another round to continue another

five years. The goal is to increase the homeownership in that area to at least 75%. When they

started the initiative it was at 25% homeownership.

Mr. Hugg stated that it is a fairly holistic approach to looking at that central portion of Dover. It

is heavily focused on improving homeownership but it also has goals and programs aimed at

neighborhood involvement, safety, recreation , and health. It is the umbrella for things like

“Lights on Dover Strong” and those kinds of programs that have targeted that Queen Street, New

Street, Kirkwood Street neighborhood for not only blight removal and new housing but also


9

improving the general neighborhood. They do neighborhood cleanups. They do safe streets pop-

up parks. They have a program where they have events to get the neighborhood involved and

things for children. It has the feel of a Comprehensive Plan but it’s more at the neighborhood

level in terms of the activities. They just did complete a five year review and they now have a

draft of the new plan that they are asking for money for implementation. Part of their objectives

through the parent organization is to get some non-residential things, particularly on Division

Street so that this is not just a housing program.

Dr. Jones stated that she was glad to hear Mr. Hugg mention the programs that facilitate

community and that kind of thing. It really makes a difference as you are driving down the street.

Do these homeowners receive some loan assistance or do they go through the channels like

everyone else? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Harvey stated that she has a homeownership

program where she provides up to $20,000 for first time home buyers and with Habitat, they hold

their mortgages.

Dr. Jones stated that the one thing that she has noticed is that part of the program is that there

could be some things lacking in the attitude of the appearance of your home on the outside. She

came to Delaware as a very small child and Capitol Green at that time was basically military and

there was a friendly competition with beautifying your yards. Is that a part of it? Those are the

few things that she sees that sort of distract from the area where the houses are very nice.

Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that they do have a program for improvements to

housing.

Mrs. Harvey stated that she has programs and NCALL has programs for the existing houses that

remain in the community. There is money available to fix those houses up. They have had a

number of cleanups during that process but ten days later the trash is back out there.

Mr. Hugg stated that he doesn’t think that we are at that tipping point yet. One of the hopes is

that we will reach a point where a number of people who either own their home as a new home

or own their home as a result of having lived there for a long period of time kind of outnumber

the out-of-town/ out-of-mind landlords. It’s a neighborhood that was 25% homeowners.

Mrs. Harvey stated that with the number of homeowners increasing, you are going to see a

gradual change hopefully.

Dr. Jones stated that those of us who are passing through are grateful for what is going on and it

is reassuring to see people own their homes.

Mr. Hugg stated that there is a block or two of Kirkwood Street where almost every house on

that block has been either renovated or replaced with a new house. Although it is urban density,

it is surprisingly suburban in the sense that you can really tell when you drive through that this

area is pretty much owner occupied and these are people who care for their houses. There still

are some pockets where that is not the case.

Dr. Jones stated that this could be the incentive. She knows someone who was in on the early

part; she thinks that it was Habitat for Humanity. Needless to say there was a certain level of

qualification by being in that house that has moved almost to a level of superintendent of

schools.


10

Mr. Roach stated that he remembers having a conversation when he first joined the Commission

in regards to those streets and how it pertains to homeowners who own multiple homes in the

City in this target zone and one person owns most of these homes. Where are we at with that

because I live in an area where he owns like seven homes and where the standards aren’t really

good? He does care because that is his neighborhood and he will live there regardless. But as far

as us trying to revitalize those areas, he doesn’t feel like we should ever try to put certain

restrictions on specific people but when you are trying to give a shot of adrenaline to a certain

area when there are 8 or 9 houses in the area that aren’t being held to the same standard.

Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Hugg stated that we are slowly tightening the screws on a number

of those landlords. Last July when the Mayor gave his state of the City address, one of the things

that he did was declare war on blight. They have substantially increased our Code Enforcement

efforts; actually adding a new Code Enforcement Officer next week to give us some night and

weekend flexibility that they haven’t had. They are also taking on average four houses every six

weeks to City Council as Dangerous Buildings to have them demolished. That is starting to make

the difference and we are not picking on any one particular landlord but that particular landlord

has had a couple of houses fall. The hope is that homeownership and new housing rehab

initiative will be bringing a lot more of that activity. At the same time, the word is out there that

you may come up on the list that the City is making and you will find yourself in front of City

Council. The chances are probably 99% to 100% that Council is going to say that the Staff

recommendation to tear down the house down or repair it stands. Mr. Pitts’ original house was

one of the houses that fell into serious disrepair and was cited as being a Dangerous Building.

They had a lady stand up and say that she was not going to let that house come down and she

bought it and is renovating it. Sometimes what happens is they are not coming down; they are

actually getting redone. One way or the other, there are about four houses every six weeks or so.

They will be going back to Council sometime in March with four more.

Mr. Roach stated that it is a Catch 22 in regards to certain things but let’s be honest, some people

can only afford these slumlord properties. That’s why you will see him at the Commission

meetings, if it’s apartments going up or anything that is in regards to affordable housing for

people to live here; he doesn’t care what anybody says his recommendation is that it’s a need.

It’s a very fine line to knock down houses that aren’t appealing to the eye and then saying that

you are going to put someone out into the street because they don’t have a home regardless if

they were renting it for $500 or $600. It may not be safe but it’s something. He hopes that we all

continue to work in the best interest of the City and continue to move forward for our

community. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Hugg stated that is one of the concerns that came up

in this latest round of the RCD Initiative. It is a concern that a couple of them seem to be being

displaced. Those people who simply can’t afford even at a subsidized rate, can’t afford to buy a

house and to some degree, elderly people who have lived in the neighborhood their entire lives

and they have a house that is in need of repair but they can’t really afford to do it. There are

people who are not quite homeless but awfully close. They are kind of sensitive to that issue too.

A roof over their head is a place that they can call home even if it is pretty marginal.

Mr. Roach stated that he works at Booker T. Elementary School and he has a lot of clients who

rent those homes and the fact that he walks into them and doesn’t feel safe but to know that

that’s all they can afford is a very fine line. That is why he’s said that he appreciates the

revitalization of Downtown Dover but he also thinks that we should be sensitive in regards to the

fact that we are putting up as much of the affordability that we are taking down. Responding to


11

Mr. Roach, Mrs. Harvey stated that part of the initiative for NCALL is being able to afford it.

Mr. Roach stated that we are taking down rental properties and putting up purchasing homes that

to him doesn’t do anything for the people who truly can’t afford it. He is not saying that these

people can’t pull themselves out of the circumstances; whether it is laziness or generational. He

just knows that some people aren’t into ownership. Some people may not want to be here that

long. Some people may not want to deal with that stress that has to go with the idea of if my

washing machine breaks. If my landlord has to fix it that is one thing versus me having to replace

it myself. These are some things that you don’t think about on a day to day basis. The idea for us

is freedom by buying a house. That is if you want to stay here that long and if you can afford the

major purchases that go along with having to buy a home. He would just like to make sure that as

we continue to bring applications and buildings and things of that nature, that we continue to

look towards projects that hopefully are tailored more towards low income properties for

individuals. That renovation that was done on Walker Road is beautiful. He would love to see

more of that because he knows how long the waiting list is for housing. Some of the issues that

he sees sometimes is that it is difficult to get people out when they have been in there forever.

You don’t want people to feel as if they are taking advantage of the benefits to be able to have

that assisted living, but how do you tell somebody to change their circumstances in your time

limit. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Harvey stated that you have to have developers that want

to build affordable housing. But NCALL has stepped up to the plate.

Dr. Jones questioned if there was a Blue Ribbon Committee step up? Responding to Dr. Jones,

Mr. Hugg stated yes, the Mayor had a Commission or Committee on homelessness. They have

completed their initial work. It was driven initially towards the veterans but it expanded to be a

broader initiative. A couple of things came out of that; one was a resource guide for people who

are homeless or potentially homeless so that they know where to get food, clothing or medical

supplies. That was one output that the County sponsored and then a spin-off group, the Central

Delaware Housing Collaborative was established from the Blue Ribbon Committee.

Dr. Jones stated that they are the group working on 801. Is that going to be for the homeless?

Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Harvey stated that it was going to be a women’s shelter.

Mr. Hugg stated that they have kind of assumed an umbrella of some of the services that weren’t

well coordinated and then there is the relocation of the Interfaith Mission Housing Project. There

is still a large population of homeless people who have fallen through the cracks. They have

concentrated on some pretty identifiable populations and are making progress but then there is

the “tent city” that pops up every night.

Dr. Jones stated that her church feeds there every month and you almost never see the same

people because of that transient nature of their lives.

• Delaware Population Consortium

Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that she has been involved with the Delaware Population Consortium for

two years. It has been in existence since 1975. Last year in May 2019, Governor Carney actually

signed Senate Bill 7 to make it official so it is a formal group that reviews the Census Data and

also creates 30 year projections for the population for not only the whole State of Delaware but

also each County and certain municipalities as well. With the signing of the Bill, it is now the

official population data that all municipalities, Counties and the State have to use for any policies


12

that they are looking to create or update. This is the data that everyone is using so that it is

formalized. Basically every year from here on out in October, the new projections and population

data will be voted on by this group and then it is posted on the State’s website under the Office

of State Planning.

• Census 2020

Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that they are really excited that this year is the Census. April 1, 2020 is

Census Day. The Population Consortium uses the Census data to work on their projections along

with a bunch of other factors and methodology developed by the University of Delaware’s

Center for Demography and Survey Research. With this new data, they will be getting a whole

new set of projections which is really exciting. She is sure that everyone has probably

participated in the Census. Usually it comes in the mail or someone may come to your door

depending on where you live. This year they are rolling out an online version so you can take it

online. The Census is just really important to really get a handle on what the population is like to

base things like housing, people’s incomes and whether they are renting or own their house. All

of this information that gets gathered by the Census is really important for funding projects and

just being able to divide up Federal funding because that all works down into State and then to

municipalities.

Dr. Jones stated that she is especially happy for this Workshop because it gives them an

opportunity to ask questions. Given what is perceived to be the growth of population in Kent

County and Dover and surrounding areas; she can remember that we have been in

communication with Camden and Wyoming and they are not quite ready to give up but they

want to work with us. Why does it appear to her that Dover is not growing? Dover is not growing

in a way that supports many of the needs, cultural needs and social needs in the area. Our retail

needs and grocery needs are being met. She would say that we are lacking in having what we

would call a five star restaurant and she is just thinking that we have people coming in now. Why

are we having problems attracting this? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that they are

generally growing at about 1% a year which is not a very fast growth but it’s steady. The Region

is growing at pretty much the same rate. Kent County is by far the slowest growing County in the

State and Sussex County is the fastest growing right now. You are correct, places to eat and shop

are booming in Dover. Our economy from a non-residential side is really healthy and we are

gaining market share. The difficulty is that we are not seeing new residential construction,

particularly not above the apartment, townhouse and starter home level. Almost all of that seems

to be going somewhere outside in the County and a lot of it is in Smyrna. They had an interesting

discussion yesterday with the State Prosperity Partnership. He said to the City Manager in

Smyrna, give me some of your houses and I will give you a restaurant or two. Dover is getting

the commercial side, not the residential. Some of it is that there aren’t too many parcels left to do

that kind of development on; so that is a limiting factor. From what he is told, lenders are not as

favorable to stuff in the City of Dover as they are outside. They are apparently much more

favorable to Camden-Wyoming and Smyrna. There is a shortage of developers generally so you

have this handful of big builders who are inclined to look for large tracts of land and build 600

houses.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the City has been participating in the Delaware Population

Consortium for years so Dover has had the ongoing population projections. What Mrs.

Bulkilvish said with the Senate Bill, it just formalized that organization as an entity and forces

the use of their data on the population side because one jurisdiction could come up with their


13

own and they used to. With the Population Consortium and what the CADSR over at University

of Delaware does, she can’t even begin to understand the methodology; they have their own

language that no one else speaks. Dover has grown steadily. Certainly our growth in the 1960’s

and 1980’s, a lot of it was by your land acquisition. The Mayor at the time was very much into

annexation and that annexation, in some cases, brought already developed areas in and then in

other cases, land that has since developed. In our Comprehensive Plan, if you want to dig out

your Chapter 3, there is a lot of that data that is there. Dover continues to grow in the projections,

it is just slow. It is that 2% or 3% a year, hopefully. We do not have a lot for land mass of

residential development. Eden Hill and then Stonebrook East and West are the ones that are

platted that there are just under 1,000 units amongst all of that that could be developed.

Dr. Jones questioned where are Stonebrook East and West? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs.

Melson-Williams stated that they are located at the intersection of McKee Road and Denney’s

Road. They went through the review processes in 2006 timeframe. They are fully platted but

nothing has happened. A lot of our other residential areas have been built out or the lots have

been finished up. Cannon Mill, Village of Westover and Clearview Meadow are done. Patriot

Village is being built out now. Rojan Meadows will be the next one that will probably start at

some point. We have some lots but we are not seeing new residential because there are notthe

big, huge land masses to do that. Unless you have annexation of additional lands that would then

turn into residential development, we are just not seeing that. We see a lot more of rehabilitation

or renovation of existing; even on the commercial side.

Dr. Jones stated that we haven’t really been able to attract someone with a Dinner Bell tone. She

has always been concerned because they get the restaurants and they get the chains. Responding

to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that we have a large number of new restaurants to try out. The one

plus is that we are getting considerable ethnic variety in our restaurants now so you can pretty

well get whatever food type you want somewhere in Dover. That is kind of one of the things that

you try and do if you are trying to go after the food market; it is to do it this way and not get

necessarily all hamburger joints. He doesn’t really quite understand it. He tries to track some of

it. The most interesting example that he can think of is Michelle’s at Dover Downs. It went from

being a 7 day a week gourmet restaurant upstairs, white table cloth to only open on weekends

and downsizing into the first floor. That tells him something but he is not sure what.

Mr. Roach stated that it’s hard for him to go to Michelle’s and spend $60.00 on a meal when he

can go next door to the Buffet and eat whatever he wants for $20.00. Responding to Mr. Roach,

Mr. Hugg stated that the market research that they have done and if you look at what’s coming,

the hottest areas are cafes and buffets; one step up from the traditional fast foods but still not the

white table cloth with the white china and silver. That doesn’t seem to be the market trend.

Mr. Tolbert questioned if the Golden Corral was coming back? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr.

Hugg stated yes.

Mr. Roach stated that he was ready for Red Robin. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Hugg stated

that Red Robin should open relatively soon. Friday night at 5:15PM, he stopped into Tasty Crab

and there was not a seat to be had in that entire restaurant. He got takeout and the food was

decent but he just couldn’t believe that there wasn’t a seat in that restaurant at 5:15PM on a

Friday. The other thing too is that we are not seeing the kind of McMansion construction that

was going on. Even in the County we are not seeing that. That price point has come down so we


14

don’t have the Fox Halls and the things like that being built in Dover that we experienced a

couple of decades ago.

Some of our 50 to 60 year-old neighborhoods and some of the construction that occurred later

than that, are getting really old. We are going to need to think about renovations or rehabilitation.

He looks at a couple of the townhouse neighborhoods that were built quite some time ago and

they have transitioned from ownership to rentals to out-of-town landlords. This is going to be a

concern. It may not be for another 10 to 20 years but at some point we are going to have some

really blighted neighborhoods. Our focus on New Street, Queen Street and Kirkwood Street is

great but we’ve got some other pockets of pretty scary housing that they will have to think about.

Dr. Jones stated that in a development, we talked about the Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation

Areas and then it was mentioned here that a new Code Enforcement Officer is coming on board.

What part of code enforcement is that person going to cover? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr.

Hugg stated that they will cover the full range. It does two things; it allows them to break the

City down into 5 or 6 enforcement zones so the zones get a little smaller and allows for more

regular observation. The other thing is, that person will carry some Citywide responsibilities for

some nights and some weekends so that we are actually able to extend the hours. Right now, the

Code Enforcement Officer is on the job from 7:30am or 8:00am to 4:30pm or 5:00pm, Monday

through Friday. Some of us weekend warriors build our decks and things without permits on

Saturday. It is an attempt to get a little more attention on some of the things that happen after

hours but it will also give us a little more higher concentration of enforcement action.

Dr. Jones questioned in the areas where the developers come in and everything has been

approved and then the builder is there and there is supposed to be an Active Recreation Area but

because Schutte Park was right there, there was supposed to have been access from her

development to Schutte Park. As she goes down Hazlettville Road every single day, she may

understand why it hasn’t been done. That hasn’t been done and building hasn’t stopped.

Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in a subdivision, they can only issue

Permits for 80% of the lots at which point all of the Active Recreation Area must be complete

before they get the last 20% of their Permits.

Dr. Jones questioned what happens if they start building? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-

Williams stated that they wouldn’t issue the Permit once we are at that 80% threshold. If they

don’t want to build on the last 20% of their lots, that is their problem.

Dr. Jones stated that the development may never be complete. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs.

Melson-Williams stated that could be the case.

2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

• Status of Adoption and Certification of Plan

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Commission addressed it in December 2019 and

made recommendations for its approval. On January 13, 2020 City Council held their public

hearing and went through the six specialized requests and adopted the Ordinance to adopt the

Comprehensive Plan. What Staff has done has created the Adopted version of the Plan and they

have submitted it to the Office of State Planning, which as of last week had forwarded it to the

Governor which is the final step; the Governor has to certify it. So they await that letter. Once


15

they have that in hand, they will push for the full final publication. They made the updates to the

Maps as a result of the series of requests that they dealt with and the other comments that we

received regarding proofreading. They don’t have any reason to believe that we won’t achieve

that, it is just timing for getting the official letter.

• Implementation Plan

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the immediate actions are the adoption of the Plan so they are

working to complete that whole step.

• Comprehensive Rezoning Project

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that one of the things that is actually prescribed in State Code is the

Comprehensive Rezoning Map Revisions. In that case, the Zoning Map for the City of Dover

needs to match our Land Development Plan. In the packet, they gave a copy of the Land

Development Plan Map, the City view of it. What they have to do as a Planning Office to then

bring to the Commission is to compare this Land Development Plan Map with the various land-

use categories to our existing Zoning Map. The link between the two is that Land Development

Plan Matrix Chart. Where they have the Residential Low Density Areas which are the lightest

yellow, the properties in those areas need to be in one of the equivalent zoning districts that’s

listed on the Matrix Table. This will be a project. They have not officially started it yet but they

have a lot of work to do identify where there may be issues between the Land Development Plan

Map and our Zoning Map. In which cases properties will be brought forward for Rezoning to an

appropriate zoning district that meets the Land Development Plan classification. This whole

project has to be completed within 18 months of the adoption of the Plan. They are certainly

targeting that for a 2020 project. Also in the Implementation Plan, there are a number of what

they identified as ongoing activities as well as what they would call the Short Term

Implementation as implementation projects for the first initial couple years for coming out of an

adopted Comprehensive Plan. That is a range of projects, studies, code amendments and other

activities. A couple of things that you heard about today are already sort of on this list either as

ongoing or things that they already knew would be in these upcoming first initial years like the

Consolidated Plan that Mrs. Harvey talked about and the Design Standards item that she spoke

about. Some of these Short Term Implementation Plans and items that may already be somewhat

underway, they will be tackling those as well. Depending on what the project is, it may be other

City Departments that are the true lead on those in addition to the ongoing activities.

She would encourage the Commission to look at Chapter 15 and if anyone has questions, please

reach out to Staff.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITES

• University of Delaware, Institute for Public Administration Trainings to be held at

Kent County Levy Court Building. See Planning Staff to Register.

i. “Land-Use Law, the Constitution, and Takings” on February 14, 2020, 9:00am to

Noon

ii. “Land-Use Administration” on February 28, 2020, 9:00am to Noon

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that “Land-Use Law” was held last Friday and Mr. Hartman

attended that training. The next one coming up is “Land-Use Administration”. This really

focuses on how do you do more of the plan review side of things and how that equates to the


16

procedures that plans go through for review. That is scheduled for February 28, 2020. It is held at

the Kent County Levy Court Building and if you are interested in attending please let Staff

know. This class is probably the one that is closest to what they do as a Planning Commission.

OPEN DISCUSSION

Mr. Tolbert questioned if the City had any opportunities for HOA members to advised and

informed on what duties are as HOA member? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-

Williams stated that the City’s involvement in HOA’s is fairly minimal. The Code requires them

for new subdivisions. There is a tracking mechanism where the Officer’s contact information is

supposed to be reported yearly to the City Clerk’s Office. They do maintain what we know of as

the last list of Officers for HOA’s. There are some HOA’s or neighborhood associations that

actually City Staff will go to their meetings. There are a couple of neighborhood organizations

that Code Enforcement Officers regularly attend their meetings to kind of hear questions and

concerns.

Dr. Jones questioned how we know if there is a HOA? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-

Williams stated the regulation says that it remains with the developer until it’s turned over to the

HOA. When a Subdivision is first platted there are kind of the initial declaration of restrictions

and the early provisions for the HOA and how it’s to function. Most of them, the developer

keeps until they reach a certain percentage of the lots and then they have to turn it over to a HOA

Board to then take ownership of the common areas and to continue the maintenance of them.

Dr. Jones stated that she came out a development where they moved into 25 years ago and the

HOA was active. Now she has been a development for five years and there is no HOA. Does that

have to do with the fact that it was technically not completed because there was a stoppage with

the building? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it could be related to

that and that it’s still technically with the developer.

Mr. Tolbert questioned where HOA members can get the information to be good mangers of the

development that they are overseeing? HOA members are often not aware of what their duties

are and they bring their own thoughts to the situation and often, they are very wrong. Responding

to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in most cases there are some legal documents

that exist.

Mr. Tolbert stated that if they can’t read it or understand it, what good is it? Responding to Mr.

Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she knows the County has some informational

brochures on HOA’s. They offer a number of things to help HOA’s manage certain elements.

She believes that there is some general information about it on their website. The County has a

number of things. They offer Stormwater Management Districts that would help manage a storm-

water facility in your neighborhood. They also do Light Districts and Trash Districts. Even

communities in the City are eligible for the Stormwater Management District concept that exists

in the County.

Dr. Jones questioned if we are at the point where we are going to hold Quarterly Workshops

again? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they thought this was an

opportunity to restart them. They are typically held in the second month of the quarter.

Sometimes if there is only one agenda item for the regular Planning Commission meeting, they

have kind of combined it into the regular meeting. She thinks that the Commissioners find it


17

helpful to report on these other kinds of things.

Dr. Jones stated that she thinks that it is a time where she can ask questions that you don’t want

to ask in a meeting. She has always enjoyed them and has had some clarity from them. She

would like to see them continue with the meetings.

Meeting adjourned at 1:49 PM

Sincerely,

Kristen Mullaney

Secretary

City of Dover

P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

DATA SHEET FOR RECREATION PLAN REVIEW Approval of Cash Donation

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF March 16, 2020

Plan Title: Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 & 1506 College Road, SB-20-01 Plan Type: Active Recreation Area – Approval of Cash Donation

(Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction) Associated with Subdivision Plan SB-20-01

Property Location: Southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road Property Address: 1504 & 1506 College Road, Dover Owner/Applicants: Steven D. Heiges Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000 ED-05-067.18-01-02.00-000 Present Zoning: R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) Site Area: 1.79 acres +/- (prior to 0.10 acre +/- dedication to R.O. W.) Proposed Use: Total of five (5) single-family dwelling lots. Proposed Cash-in-lieu Donation: $4,250 Project Summary: This project proposes the subdivision of two existing parcels, a total of 1.79 +/- acres of land, into five (5) lots. The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The properties are located on the southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road. See attached Subdivision Plan. Active Recreation Area Plan Summary: Due to the property size and unit density, this project qualifies for Active Recreation Area exemption for small developments under Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.511. The project has less than five acres of land and proposes less than ten dwelling units. It is therefore exempt from the active recreation land dedication requirements set forth under Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.1 and §10.2. The applicant was not required to provide a plan sheet showing land area on the site to be used for recreational purposes. However, under Article 5 §10.511 the developer is still required to make a full cash donation in lieu of a dedication of land. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.52 specifies that “this cash donation shall be equivalent to ten percent of the appraised value of gross land area.” Article 5 §10.52 also

SB-20-01 Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 & 1506 College Road: Active Recreation Area – Approval of Cash Donation Report to Planning Commission – March 16, 2020 Page 2 of 4

specifies criteria the appraisal must meet for it to be a valid basis of calculation. The applicant submitted an appraisal meeting the criteria to Planning Staff, who reviewed the appraisal to determine the required cash-in-lieu amount. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will review the Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction amount for the Subdivision of the Lands of Steven D. Heiges on College Road at their meeting on March 10, 2020. The Subdivision Plan for the Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 & 1506 College Road was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission following a public hearing on January 21, 2020. As part of the approval, the Planning Commission indicated that approval was conditional on a Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction donation being made, with the amount of payment to be accepted at a future meeting of the Planning Commission. CODE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: Article 5 §10 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities. This includes Article §10.5 where exemptions for small developments are outlined with reference to the process and calculation of the amount for cash-in-lieu of recreation area construction. Article 5 §10.7 further specifies that City Council, through the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee, must approve the cash donation amount prior to final acceptance by the Planning Commission. (The appraisal is on file with the Planning Office). Regarding the calculation of the amount of the cash donation, the Zoning Ordinance in Article 5 §10.52 specifies that the “cash donation shall be equivalent to ten percent of the appraised value of gross land area” and that this value shall be “based on the appraisal prepared for the developer to secure construction financing.” An appraisal performed by Kaplan Appraisals, dated February 10, 2020, was submitted to the Planning Office. This appraisal identifies the value of the gross land area as $42,500. Based on this value the required amount of cash donation would therefore by $4,250. See calculation below:

2020 Appraisal of Land Value: $42,500 Cash-in-Lieu Amount = $42,500 x 10% = $4,250

CODE CITATIONS: Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 – Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities (select excerpts). Article 5 Section 10

10.1 Recreation Areas. 10.17 Cash in lieu of recreation area construction.

10.171 Determination of suitability for cash donation. If the commission determines that the construction of recreation is not practical due to close proximity to existing available recreation facilities or infeasible due to natural characteristics of the land or will not benefit the residents of the development, the commission shall require a full or partial cash in lieu of areas of donation to be made by the developer in lieu of a full or partial dedication of land.


10.172 Separate recreation account. The cash donation shall be deposited in a separate account to be used for parks, playgrounds or recreational purposes.

10.173 Amount of cash donation. The cash donation shall be equivalent to the appraised value of land area required in section 10.16. 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 Standards 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.

10.174 Appeal of appraised value. If the city does not accept the land value established by the appraisal detailed in [sub]section 10.173, the city may, at the developer's expense, require another appraisal be performed. This appraisal will be let on a bid basis between at least three appropriately qualified, certified appraisers selected by the city. The appraiser(s) who prepared the original appraisal in [sub]section 10.173 cannot be a party to this appeal appraisal.

10.175 Payment of cash donation. One hundred percent cash donation provided under this section shall be collected prior to issuing the first building permit for the development.

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.

10.7 Council approval. Prior to acceptance by the planning commission, all areas planned for public dedication, or cash donations provided under this section must be submitted to, and approved by the parks, recreation, and community enhancement committee of the City of Dover, and shall be subject to final review and approval by [the] city council.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceptance of the $4,250 Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction donation, as the amount complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Park, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will pass on their recommendation to City Council who must also approve of the amount before the Planning Commission reviews and accepts this Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction donation amount. Ultimately, the payment of the determined donation amount is required prior to the issuance of the first building permit for these lots. The donation amount is deposited in the City’s Parkland Reserve Fund account.


OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS The City Council Committee of the Whole: Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee will be reviewing and recommending acceptance or denial of the Cash-in-Lieu for Active Recreation Construction donation of $4,250 at their Meeting of March 10, 2020. The City Council will then decide to accept or deny the Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction donation amount on Monday, March 23, 2002. Attachments:

• Subdivision Plan SB-20-01 Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 & 1506 College Road • Select pages from the appraisal of 1504 & 1506 College Road completed on February 10,

2020

LO

CA

TIO

N M

AP

1"=

80

0'

PA

RC

EL

M

AP

1"=

20

0'

KE

NT

CO

UN

TY

GIS

MA

PP

ING

1504 &

1506 C

OL

LE

GE

RO

AD

P.O

. BO

X 5

58D

OV

ER

, DE

199

03

T-3

02-7

44-9

875

F-8

66-6

72-6

428

103

S. B

RA

DF

OR

D S

T.

DO

VE

R, D

E 1

9904

KE

NT

CO

UN

TY

GIS

MA

PP

ING

PA

RC

EL

LO

CA

TIO

N

KENTON ROAD

CO

LL

EG

E R

OA

D

CO

LL

EG

E R

OA

D

KENTON ROAD

PA

RC

EL

LO

CA

TIO

N

DATE: March 6, 2020

TO: Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Planning Office

SUBJECT: Site Development Plan: S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road,

Dover, DE

Property Addresses: 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road; 20 (and 26), 30 and 34 Carver Road;

971, 975 and 983 Forest Street

Update on Revisions to Lot Consolidation Plan and Site Plan

At its October 21, 2019 meeting, the City of Dover Planning Commission moved to grant

conditional approval to Site Development Plan S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver

Road for a series eight parcels. This also included approval for determination of the property as

Superior Urban Design. This Site Development Plan and associated Lot Consolidation Plan

proposes to demolish the existing structures and then construct a one-story 4,504 SF Car Wash

(Service Establishment) with associated site improvements. The subject properties to be

combined total 2.07 +/- acres and are located east side of Saulsbury Road north of Forest Street

and west of Carver Road. The properties are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and

C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The

owner of record for all properties is Faithwork LLC.

As the project design has progressed in the Site Plan Check Print review process there have been

design refinements. The design professional working on the project contacted Planning Staff

regarding revisions to the consolidation of lots for the project, stormwater management planning,

and associated impacts to the plan layout (dumpsters and landscaping).

The Plans proposed a series of Revisions. The communication from the Applicants highlights the

following changes to the Site Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan:

1. Lot Consolidation Plan: A Revision to the consolidation of the eight (8) parcels into one

parcel to a proposal to consolidate land area into three (3) parcels.

a. Lot 3: This will leave the 34 Carver Road parcel as it is existing. It is zoned

C-1A/COZ-1 and includes a single family detached dwelling.

b. Lot 2 will consist of most of the land area of 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road and will

contain a cross access easement for the entrance drive that crosses through it. Lot

2 is reserved for future development and would be subject to a new application

and review process.

c. Lot 1 is the land area of the parcels fronting on Forest Street and Carver Road

(except for 34 Carver Road). Lot 1 contains the layout of Car Wash, parking, and

stormwater management area.

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Inspections

P.O. Box 475

Dover, DE 19903

Phone: (302) 736-7196 Fax (302) 736-4217

Memo on Revisions to S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road

March 6, 2020

Page 2 of 2

2. Site Plan: Several plan design changes have been identified as follows:

a. The property at 34 Carver Road will not be included in the development. As it

includes a residential use, an opaque barrier is required for the non-residential

development to its south. A fence and the evergreen tree planting are proposed.

Also, with the required COZ-1 buffer, the Dumpster enclosure was relocated.

b. Dumpster relocated and provided with enclosure and additional planting

screening. It appears to be set up for private collection.

c. Stormwater Management Area was enlarged at the southeast corner of the

development area to accommodate the over-management required of this

watershed. This elimination a previously identified ‘future development’ area.

d. Landscape Plan was revised with the changes to the opaque barrier, COZ-1 buffer

plantings, Dumpster screening, stormwater management area and plantings, and

other tree planting adjustments.

Attached are copies of the Revised Lot Consolidation Plan and Landscape Plan including

annotations of the proposed revisions. Planning Staff has reviewed the general concepts

presented in these plan changes and will continue review Check Print submission to ensure

compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission’s

conditional approval of S-19-22. The information is presented to the Planning Commission as an

update on the project as it is completing the Check Print Review process to finalize the Site Plan.

The applicant will be working with Planning Staff and the various other agencies to seek

approval of the Lot Consolidation Plan and Site Plan which will incorporate these revisions.

City of Dover

PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF March 4, 2020


File Number: AX-20-01

Ordinance Number: 2020-02

Applicants: Holly L. Mayer

Owner of Record: Holly L. Mayer

Property Address: 1448 N. Little Creek Road, Dover DE

Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-077.00-01-02.00-000

Lot Size: 0.22 acres (9,453 SF)

Present Zoning: RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone)

Proposed Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone)

Comprehensive Plan

Designation:

Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas

Comprehensive Plan

Land Use Designation:

Residential Medium Density

Present Use: Single Family Dwelling

Proposed Use: Single Family Dwelling

Utility Availability: Electric: 1448 N. Little Creek Road is currently served by City

of Dover Electric.

Water and Sanitary Sewer: 1448 N. Little Creek Road is not

currently served by the City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer.

Water service is available on the adjacent side of N. Little

Creek Road. Sanitary Sewer is available; however, it is

approximately 310 feet away from the property, on Acacia

Place. The developer would be responsible for extending the

sanitary sewer main from Acacia Place to the property. This

P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903

Community Excellence Through Quality Service

property is situated on the south side of the road. Installation of

utilities will require DelDOT approval. The property owner is

responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and

providing service to the proposed development including

tapping the water main, extending and tapping the sewer main,

paying impact fees and obtaining permits.

Staff Recommendation:

The Electric Department has no objection to the annexation.

The Department of Public Works has no objection to the

annexation.

City of Dover Planning Office

CITY OF DOVER

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY

D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 4, 2020

APPLICATION: Annexation of Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road

FILE #: AX-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning

CONTACT PERSON: Samantha Bulkilvish, Planner PHONE #: (302) 736-7196

Summary

This application is for the Annexation and Rezoning of the property at 1448 N. Little Creek

Road, Dover. It is a parcel of land totaling 0.21 acres +/- (9,435 SF). The owner of record is

Holly L. Mayer. Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.00-01-02.00-000.

Existing Property

The property is located on the south side of N. Little Creek Road and east of Acacia Place. The

boundary of the City of Dover is currently across N. Little Creek Road and along the eastern

boundary of the parcel. This annexation will include the adjoining right-of-way of N. Little

Creek Road equal to the property’s frontage width to connect the property to the existing City

boundary on the north side of N. Little Creek Road.

The property includes an existing single family dwelling. The property is currently zoned RMH

(Residential Manufactured Home Zone) in Kent County. The owner would like to continue to

live in the dwelling as they seek to connect to City utilities.

Surrounding Land Uses

To the east of the parcels fronting N. Little Creek Road, is a vacant parcel and two manufactured

home parks. A little further to the east are three single family lots similar in size to the subject

parcel that are within Kent County. To the west and south of the parcel is a large agricultural

field which is also in Kent County. The parcels on the north side of N. Little Creek Road are a

mixture of single family dwellings (many of which are in Kent County), duplex units of Acorn

Farms (directly north of the subject property), and townhomes.

Comprehensive Plan

In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Potential Annexation Areas (Map 13 -1) identifies the

property in the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas. The Growth and Annexation Plan

Chapter (Chapter 13) notes that “Lands in this category are primarily enclaves of unincorporated

territory mostly surrounded by the City of Dover. In all or most of these cases, the City provides

these parcels with one or more essential service (sewer, water, police, fire, trash).” For Category

1: High Priority Annexation Areas, it notes in the Recommendations that “the City will not

extend sewer and/or water infrastructure to Category 1 areas unless the property owners annex

into the City” with consideration given for issues of health, safety and welfare.

AX-20-01 Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road

DAC Report of March 4, 2020

Page 2

The Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for the review of zoning for parcels being

proposed for annexation. Chapter 13, page 13-9 notes that the Zoning Review may include:

• Proposed zoning be in compliance with the land use category shown on Map 13-2 and used

in conjunction with Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix;

• Character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses and properties;

• The street type and capacity serving the property;

• Environmental concerns and conditions that may influence land use and zoning;

• Market concerns and conditions;

• The compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use for this property to

be Residential Medium Density. The Land Development Plan Chapter (Chapter 12) makes the

following recommendation for Residential Medium Density Land Use in the East Dover

Neighborhood area of the City:

East Dover Neighborhood: Residential Medium Density

The East Dover Neighborhood is essentially developed in older established developments such as

Towne Point, White Oak Farms, Baytree, Edgehill and Schoolview. Recent development has

occurred primarily along North and South Little Creek Road. These developments such as

Lexington Glen PND and Clearview Meadows have built-out with a mix of housing types that

includes single family detached homes, duplexes and townhouses. The area includes the

extensive highway and entertainment-based commercial zones as well as Garrison Oak Business

and Technology Center and the Dover Air Force Base to the south. The East Dover

Neighborhood area also includes agricultural lands and several areas of manufactured housing in

the MH zone. There is potential for additional residential construction with Patriot Village and

potential development of Rojan Meadows (vicinity of Acorn Lane and North Little Creek Road).

Challenges include maintaining the character and value of older developments, many of which

have significant proportions of rental units, managing traffic issues, and minimizing conflicts

between uses.

As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that

the following zones are compatible with this land use classification of Residential Medium

Density.

R-8 (One Family Residential)


RM-1 (Medium Density Residential)

RM-2 (Medium Density Residential)

RG-1 (General Residential)


RG-3 (Group Housing)

RGO (General Residence and Office)

MH (Manufactured Housing)

C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)

Request for R-8 (One Family Residence Zone)

The applicant has requested the zoning of R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The types of

permitted uses in the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) are given in Article 3 §1 of the Zoning

Ordinance. See the following Code excerpt:



Page 3

Article 3, Section 1. – One-family residence zone (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7).

1.1 Uses permitted. In a one-family residence R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following:

1.11 The raising of field and garden crops, vineyards and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries, and the seasonal sale of the products thereof, provided no building is erected and signs conform with article 5, section 4.

1.12 One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one such dwelling per lot.

1.13 Public buildings, structures and uses, including parks and playgrounds, subject to approval of site plans by the planning commission in accordance with article 10, section 2.

1.14 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 section 10.1 and to any specified requirements set forth below:

(a) Places of worship, including parish houses; [and] schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens and day care centers in accordance with article 5, Supplementary Regulations, section 14. Child day care facilities; philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions; hospitals and sanitariums for general medical care; and funeral homes subject to the following requirements:

i. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder.

ii. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)], other than a kindergarten, nursery school, or day care center, shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than two acres, plus one acre for each 100 pupils for which the building is designed.

iii. Any kindergarten or nursery school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in zones R-8 thru R-20 and a maximum of 100 children in all other zones. At least 100 square feet of outdoor play space per child shall be provided. Outdoor play space shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed on all sides and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or land unsuited by other usage or natural features for children's active play space. Fencing or other enclosures shall be a minimum height of four feet. The minimum lot area for each ten, or remainder over the multiple of ten, children shall be the same as the minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling unit in the districts in which such uses are to be located.

iv. No such building or part thereof shall be erected with less than a 50-foot front yard or nearer than 25 feet from any other street or property line.

v. The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the lot.

vi. Courts shall conform to the requirements of article 5, section 3 hereof.

(b) Railroad and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city, subject to such conditions as the planning commission may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed.



Page 4

(c) Country clubs or other annual membership clubs, catering exclusively to members and their guests, and accessory private playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and recreation buildings not conducted as business enterprises, provided that the following operations shall be prohibited:

i. Outdoor entertainment, live or mechanical;

ii. The use of outdoor public address systems for any purpose; and

iii. Exterior lighting producing glare at the lot line other than that essential for the safety of the users of the premises.

No building erected under the provisions of this paragraph [subsection 1.14(c)] shall be so erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line.

(d) Adult day care facilities in accordance with Article 5—Supplementary Regulations, Section 22—Adult Day Care Facilities.

1.15 Accessory uses, limited to the following:

(a) Professional office or studio of an artist, dentist, musician, teacher, or physician, but not including veterinarians, provided that:

i. Such office or studio is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on by a resident thereon with not more than one nonresident assistant; and

ii. Such office or studio shall occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of one floor of the main building.

iii. Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess of four pupils at one time or where concerts or recitals are held are prohibited.

iv. Medical centers, barbershops, beauty parlors, real estate offices, funeral homes or similar uses shall not be considered permitted accessory uses.

(b) Garden house, tool house, playhouse, greenhouse or pool incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain.

(c) Private garage, provided that, in the case of a one-family dwelling, such garage shall have a capacity of not more than three passenger automobiles. One such space may be leased to a person not [a] resident on the premises.

(d) Keeping domestic animals as pets, provided not more than three (3) dogs over six months old, shall be permitted.

(e) Keeping of chickens for individual domestic purposes subject to the following restrictions:

i. Keeping of chickens shall not be permitted on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet in lot area.

ii. No more than five (5) chickens shall be permitted on a residential lot.

iii. Chickens shall be registered with the Delaware Department of Agriculture.

iv. Chickens shall be penned in a coop that shall be at least four (4) square feet per chicken.

v. All chicken coops shall be located in a rear yard and shall be a minimum of 20 feet from side and rear property lines.

vi. Any odor associated with the chickens shall not be discernable from property lines.

vii. Keeping of roosters shall be prohibited.



Page 5

viii. Any lot with chickens shall either comply with these requirements by June 1, 2016 or remove the chickens.

(f) Dormitories accessory to schools, provided that such dormitories conform to the bulk regulations of the RG-1 zone. For purposes of computing bulk requirements, each four rooms shall be considered one dwelling unit. Parking shall be calculated as identified in Article 6—Off-Street Parking, Section 3—Required off-street parking spaces, Paragraph 3.1—Schedule of requirements.

(g) Customary home occupations, provided that:

i. No display of products, goods and/or signs shall be visible from the street.

ii. Such home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and shall be conducted in the principal building by the resident or residents that reside therein.

iii. Nonresident assistants or co-workers shall be prohibited.

iv. Such home occupation shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of one floor in the principal building.

v. There shall be no exterior effect such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference.

1.16 [1.2] Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use.

1.17 [1.3] Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1.

1.18 [1.4] [ Closed zone. ] Zone R-7 is a closed zone in accordance with article 10, section 5.19.

1.19 [1.5] [ Signs. ] Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations.

Recommendation of Planning Staff:

Staff recommends the annexation of the property at 1448 N. Little Creek Road and its rezoning

to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) be approved as submitted. The subject property is in the

City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as Category 1: High Priority

Annexation Areas with a Land Use Designation as Residential Medium Density. The R-8 zoning

is consistent with the development in the area and is consistent with the Land Use Designation of

Residential Medium Density. The R-8 zoning is appropriate for the current use of the property as

a one family detached dwelling and the size of the parcel (minimum lot size in R-8 is 8,000 SF).

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) From the agency comments received, it appears that ability to provide City water is

extremely feasible due to the proximity to existing infrastructure. It may be a little more cost



Page 6

intensive to connect into the sanitary sewer service due to its location on Acacia Place

(entrance road to Acorn Farms) which is approximately 310 feet from the existing dwelling.

2) Upon annexation into the City of Dover, the property will be subject to the provisions of the

Dover Code of Ordinances. This includes procedures such as review processes for plans and

permits for construction activities, etc.

3) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does

not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate

application submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of permits by

the City of Dover.

4) Regarding connection to City services (water and/or sanitary sewer) the applicant must

contact the City’s Department of Public Utilities for procedures, permitting and impact fees.

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.

CITY OF DOVER



STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2020

APPLICATION: LANDS OF HOLLY L. MAYER AT 1448 N. LITTLE

CREEK ROAD

FILE #: AX-20-01

REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Works Department

CONTACT PERSON: Sharon J. Duca, P.E.

CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025

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. Our office has no objection to the annexation of tax parcel ED-00-077.00-01-02.00-000.

RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES:

1. None.

ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:

1. Residential uses within the City of Dover are required to have City of Dover trash service.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE CONTACT

PERSON AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: LANDS OF HOLLY L. MAYER AT 1448 N. LITTLE

CREEK ROAD

FILE #: AX-20-01

REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments

CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric

Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Water / Wastewater

CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Water / Wastewater – 302-736-7025

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

ELECTRIC

1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-077.00-01-02.00-000

WATER / WASTEWATER

1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-077.00-01-02.00-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook. Impact fees will be applied to this property.

RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES

ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER

1. None



1. As per the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property, as heard by the Council Committee of the Whole, February 25, 2020, please find the following:

a. 1448 N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by the City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer. Water service is available on the adjacent side of N. Little Creek Road. Sanitary Sewer is available; however, it is approximately 310 feet away from the property, on Acacia Place. The developer would be responsible for extending the sanitary sewer main from Acacia Place to the property. This property is situated on the south side of the road. Installation of utilities will require DelDOT approval. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development including tapping the water main, extending and tapping the sewer main, paying impact fees and obtaining permits.



CITY OF DOVER



D.A.C. MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020

APPLICATION: 1448 N Little Creek Rd FILE #: AX-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Matthew Brown, Deputy 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:

ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL:

1. No specific comments.

2. All building will require permits and be code compliant.

APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

C F I I T R Y E O M F A R D S O H V A E L R

AX-20-01

CITY OF DOVER




===============================================================

APPLICATION: Lands of Holly Mayer (1448 N. Little Creek Road)

FILE#: AX-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT

CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768

=============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:

No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any

crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications

leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and

regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department.

Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin

permit process.



1. DelDOT has No Objection to the Annexation.

2. If the property develops the property shall submit a pre-submittal meeting request through the PDCA

to begin the plan review process.

D

E

L

D

O

T

CITY OF DOVER



February 2020

APPLICATION: Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road

FILE #: AX-20-01

REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District

CONTACT PERSON: Jessica L. Verchick, EIT PHONE #: (302) 608-5370

THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND

COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE

FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE

APPLICANT:

Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations


1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the annexation of the above referenced site.

2. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the re-zoning plan for the above referenced site.


1. 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.

City of Dover

PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF March 4, 2020


File Number: AX-20-02

Ordinance Number: 2020-03

Applicants: MEB Properties, LLC c/o Martha E. Baynard

Christopher Custis

Louis J. Capano, III

Owner of Record:

Equitable Owner:

MEB Properties, LLC c/o Martha E. Baynard

Christopher Custis

Louis J. Capano, III

Property Address: 1385-1389 McKee Road, Dover DE

Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000

Lot Size: 78.60 acres

Present Zoning: RS1 (Single Family Residential Zone)

Proposed Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) 73.34 acres

C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) 5.26 acres

COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1)

Comprehensive Plan

Designation:

Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas

Comprehensive Plan

Land Use Designation:

Mixed Use

Present Use: Residential/Agriculture

Proposed Use: Residential/Commercial

Utility Availability: Electric: 1385-1389 McKee Road is not currently served by the

City of Dover. Electric Service can be provided from a

connection on the opposite side of McKee Road.



Water and Sanitary Sewer: 1385-1389 McKee Road is not

currently served by City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer.

Water and Sanitary Sewer are available on the opposite side of

McKee Road. This property is situated on the northeast side of

the road. Installation of utilities will require DelDOT approval.

The property owner is responsible for any and all costs

associated with extending and providing service to the proposed

development including tapping the sanitary sewer and water

mains, upgrading capacity at downstream pump stations, paying

impact fees and obtaining permits.

Staff Recommendation:

The Electric Department has no objection to the annexation.

The Department of Public Works has no objection to the

annexation.


CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: Annexation of Lands of MEB Properties and Christopher Custis at 1385-1389

McKee Road

FILE #: AX-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning

CONTACT PERSON: Samantha Bulkilvish, Planner PHONE #: (302) 736-7196

Summary

This application is for the Annexation and Rezoning of the property at 1385-1389 McKee Road,

Dover. It is a parcel of land totaling 78.60 acres +/-. The owner of record is MEB Properties,

LLC and Christopher Custis. Tax Parcel: ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000.

Existing Property

The property is located on the east side of Scarborough Road at the intersection of Scarborough

Road and McKee Road. The boundary of the City of Dover is currently across McKee Road and

Scarborough Road along the southwesterly and northwesterly boundaries respectively of the

parcel. This annexation will include a large portion of right-of-way at the intersection of McKee

Road and Scarborough Road as well as the right-of-way of both roads equal to the property’s

frontage width to connect the property to the City boundary on the west side of both McKee

Road and Scarborough Road. (Railroad?)

The property includes an existing farmstead with a dwelling and many outbuildings in addition

to a manufactured home. The property is currently zoned RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone)

in Kent County. It includes areas of agricultural fields, woodlands, and wetlands.

Surrounding Land Uses

To the northwest of the across Scarborough Road is an industrial manufacturing park with access

from McKee Road (1525-1585 McKee Road). To the west and south of the parcel on the

southwest side of McKee Road is mostly residential with single family detached dwellings and

the residential subdivision of Emerald Point. To the southeast are multiple offices and the

College Business Park, the North Dover Elementary School, and a few residential parcels some

of which are in Kent County. The parcel to the northeast and east of the railroad tracks is a large

parcel within Kent County that is owned by DNREC.

Comprehensive Plan

In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Potential Annexation Areas (Map 13 -1) identifies the

property in the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas. The Growth and Annexation Plan

Chapter (Chapter 13) notes that “Lands in this category are primarily enclaves of unincorporated

AX-20-02 Lands of MEB Properties, LLC and Christopher Custis at 1385-1389 McKee Road


Page 2

territory mostly surrounded by the City of Dover. In all or most of these cases, the City provides

these parcels with one or more essential service (sewer, water, police, fire, trash).” For Category

1: High Priority Annexation Areas, it notes in the Recommendation that “the City will not extend

sewer and/or water infrastructure to Category 1 areas unless the property owners annex into the

City” with consideration given for issues of health, safety and welfare.

The Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for the review of zoning for parcels being

proposed for annexation. Chapter 13, page 13-9 notes that the Zoning Review may include:

• Proposed zoning be in compliance with the land use category shown on Map 13-2 and used

in conjunction with Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix;

• Character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses and properties;

• The street type and capacity serving the property;

• Environmental concerns and conditions that may influence land use and zoning;

• Market concerns and conditions;

• The compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use Category for this

property to be Mixed Use. The Land Development Plan Chapter (Chapter 12, Pages 12-7 and 12-

8) sets the following goals for Mixed Use areas of the City: 1. Encourage creation of neighborhood centers.

2. Within the close-knit neighborhood fabric there are opportunities for the creation of urban

centers. These centers should be established along major roadways and feature mixed use

development, pedestrian-friendly public environments and opportunities for connection to

future transit.

3. In order to encourage non-automobile access to the center, the activities should be clustered

within one-half mile radius (or 10-minute walk) and be located so as to draw upon residents

from a number of surrounding neighborhoods.

4. Develop strategies that will encourage the creation of well-defined public street spaces and

pedestrian-friendly village areas that encourage walking and bicycle use. This may include

on-street and behind building parking, and the creation of build-to lines for new development.

5. Improve access that limits public access to open space areas such as pedestrian, bicycle, and

transit networks to parks and natural areas.

6. Encourage the Mixed Use of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown area.

As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that

the following zones are compatible with this land use classification Category of Mixed Use.





RG-4 (General Residence Multistory Apartments)

RGO (General Residence and Office) (Downtown Redevelopment Target Area Only)

TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design)

C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)

C-1A (Limited Commercial)

C-2 (Central Commercial) (Downtown Redevelopment Target Area Only)

C-2A (Limited Central Commercial)



Page 3

C-3 (Service Commercial)

CPO (Commercial and Professional Office)

IO (Institutional and Office)

Request for RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone)

The applicant has requested the zoning of RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and C-2A (Limited

Residence Zone). The types of permitted uses in the RG-2 and C-2A zones are given in Article 3

§2 and §14 respectively of the Zoning Ordinance. See the following Code excerpts:

Article 3, Section 2. - General residence zones (RG-1 and RG-2).

2.1 Uses permitted. In a general residence zone, 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:

2.11 Any use permitted in one-family residence zones.

2.12 Garden apartments limited to placement within the RG-2 district only.

2.2 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1.

2.3 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use.

2.4 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) Townhouses subject to the following restrictions: i. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a lot.

ii. No more than four dwelling units shall be permitted in a group of townhouses.

iii. Each group of townhouses shall be physically separated from another by no less than two dwelling units of a different housing type from other groups of townhouses on the same side of the street.

iv. Townhouse groups shall be designed to minimize points of access to the public street and to take access from an alley or other shared access where such access is available.

(b) Duplex dwellings subject to the following restrictions: i. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a lot

ii. Duplex dwellings shall be designed to minimize points of access to the public street and to take access from an alley or other shared access where such access is available.

(c) Bed and breakfast inns in the RG-1 district only, subject to the following: i. A bed and breakfast inn may only be established within a primary residential structure

or an associated accessory structure.

ii. The owner of the property shall reside on the premises of the bed and breakfast inn or in an adjacent premises. However, if ownership of the property is in the name of a corporation, partnership, trust, etc., a full-time resident manager/operator/inn-keeper shall reside in the principal structure on the subject property or adjacent property.



Page 4

iii. The principal structure shall contain at least one full bathroom for the exclusive use of the owner or resident manager and other members of the immediate household. In addition, one full bathroom shall be provided for each two guestrooms. Each full bathroom shall contain a minimum of one water closet (toilet), one lavatory (sink) and one bathtub or shower stall and shall comply with all applicable building and plumbing codes.

iv. The number of guestrooms requested shall be set forth in the application for conditional use. The planning commission shall expressly establish the maximum number of guestrooms permitted for any application for which approval is granted. In no case shall a bed and breakfast inn contain more than ten guestrooms.

v. Off-street parking shall be provided at a minimum of two spaces, plus one space per guestroom. Off-street parking shall be prohibited in the front yard, except that such parking which may be customarily accommodated on a single width driveway may be permitted. Required parking may be provided on the premises or off the premises, provided that such off-premises parking is located within 150 feet walking distance of the bed and breakfast property.

vi. Lot coverage for a bed and breakfast inn shall not exceed 60 percent of the lot.

vii. Signage is limited to one sign not to exceed six square feet in area. Signs may be illuminated, provided that internally illuminated signs shall be prohibited.

viii. Meals may be served to residents and overnight guests only. No cooking appliances or kitchenettes shall be permitted within the guestrooms, except small refrigerators and microwave ovens.

ix. The stay of overnight guests shall be limited to 30 consecutive days.

x. The owner/operator of a bed and breakfast inn shall maintain a current City of Dover business license, and the establishment shall be inspected by the City of Dover Fire Marshal and the City of Dover Health Inspector for compliance with all applicable life safety and health and sanitation codes.

(d) Student homes subject to the following siting and bulk criteria: i. No student home shall be located closer than 500 feet from any other student home.

ii. The maximum allowable occupancy shall be four persons or the occupancy limit as determined by the building and fire codes adopted by the City of Dover, whichever is less.

iii. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit.

iv. A student home shall not be permitted to be established within any semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, group dwelling, or townhouse dwelling unit.

v. Buildings or groups of buildings on the same lot with 15 or more units on the lot shall not be subject to the student home regulations.

vi. Student homes shall be licensed under chapter 10, Housing Code [chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations], article V [X], Rental Dwellings, of the Code of Ordinances.

vii. Student homes shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 10, Housing Code [chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations], article III [VIII], Leases, of the Code of Ordinances.

(e) Multiple dwellings limited to placement in the RG-2 district only. (f) Professional offices may be permitted on Governors Avenue between Water Street and Mary

Street, and on Route 8, subject to the following restrictions:



Page 5

i. The office operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to maintain the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood, and no changes or improvements shall be made to the premises which might preclude utilization of the premises for residential purposes in the future.

ii. There shall be no other professional office located in the same zoning district within 250 feet of the premises.

iii. No display of products or goods shall be visible from the street.

iv. There shall be no exterior effects such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference.

v. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be required.

vi. No more than four off-street parking spaces shall be permitted. Furthermore, all off-street spaces shall be visually screened from adjacent residential uses, to the greatest extent possible, by employing a landscape screen no less than six and one-half feet high, which landscape screen shall be properly maintained throughout the duration of the professional office use on the subject premises.

vii. Signage shall be limited to one sign, not to exceed six square feet in area. No sign may be illuminated.

viii. The hours of operation shall not commence prior to 6:00 a.m. and shall cease no later than 8:00 p.m., with no more than four employees engaged in the operations upon the premises at any given time.

ix. The planning commission shall have the authority to impose such additional conditions and restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of surrounding properties.

(g) In order to stimulate limited commercial activity in the RG-1 and RG-2 zones within the city's historic district zone and/or where a historic district property or a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places exists, and to make this area of historic Dover more attractive to tourists and residents, antique shops, art galleries, gift and card shops, book stores, specialty hobby stores, and restaurants with no alcoholic beverages may be permitted as accessory uses incidental to the principal residence, subject to the conditional use approval of the planning commission in accordance with Article 10—Planning Commission, Section 1—Approval of conditional uses, and subject to the following:

i. Total floor area of any nonresidential accessory use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.

ii. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be required to serve the residence and the accessory use.

iii. Signage for the accessory use is limited to one sign not to exceed six square feet in area. Signs may be illuminated, provided that internally illuminated signs shall be prohibited.

(h) Off-street parking.

2.5 Reserved.

2.6 Administrative waivers:

(a) The city planner shall have the authority to waive the bulk standards and parking requirements of article 4, section 4.2 for all non-conforming lots that existed in the RG-1 zone prior to January 1, 2007, when deemed necessary for redevelopment. The applicant must request such waivers in writing, stating the reasons that such waivers are necessary for development for redevelopment of the subject parcel.



Page 6

(b) The city planner shall have the authority to adjust the lot dimension requirements of article 4,

section 4.2 in the approval minor lot line adjustment plans, where no additional lots are created, and to waive the bulk standards of article 4, section 4.2 for the placement of a structure on associated lots when deemed necessary for redevelopment. The applicant must request such waivers in writing, stating the reasons that waivers are necessary for redevelopment of the subject property.

(c) The city planner shall have the authority to allow alternative parking surface, other than those specified in article 6, section 3.6 provided that such off-street parking areas where alternative surface is used are located within a rear yard. The applicant must request such a waiver in writing, stating the reasons that waivers are necessary.

Article 3, 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.

14.3 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants and outdoor sales areas approved by the city planner.

14.4 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1.

14.5 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use.

COZ-1: Corridor Overlay Zone

The subject site area involved with this application is located within the COZ-1 (Corridor

Overlay Zone). The Zoning Ordinance details the requirements of the COZ-1 in Article 3 §27

and its subsections. The Corridor Overlay Zone as a planning and growth management tool is

designed to foster an attractive, efficient, and economically vibrant urban corridor along Route



Page 7

8/Forrest Avenue and Saulsbury/McKee Roads. To this end, more stringent standards are

applied to development taking place in the corridor.

Recommendation of Planning Staff:

Staff recommends the annexation of the property at 1385-1389 McKee Road and its rezoning to

RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) be approved as

submitted. Staff also recommend that the property frontage area be subject to the Corridor

Overlay Zone (COZ-1) following the established depth of approximately 450 ft. The subject

property is in the City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as Category 1: High

Priority Annexation Areas with a Land Use Designation as Mixed Use. The RG-2 and C-2A

zoning is consistent with the development in the area and is consistent with the Land Use

Designation of Mixed Use.

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) From the agency comments received, it appears that ability to provide City water and

sanitary sewer is feasible as there is current infrastructure on the opposite side of McKee

Road. However, any installation of utilities will require DelDOT approval (to cross the right-

of-way).

2) Upon annexation into the City of Dover, the property will be subject to the provisions of the

Dover Code of Ordinances. This includes procedures such as review processes for plans and

permits for construction activities, etc.

3) Development of this tract of land may be subject to the Preliminary Land Use Services

(PLUS) review process under the provisions of the City’s Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) for PLUS.

4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does

not represent a Site Development Plan approval, a Building Permit or other construction

activity permit approval. Separate application submissions are required before plan

approvals and issuance of permits by the City of Dover.

5) Regarding connection to City services (water and/or sanitary sewer) the applicant must

contact the City’s Department of Public Utilities for procedures, permitting and impact fees.

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.

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: LANDS OF MEB PROPERTIES, LLC AT 1385-1389

MCKEE ROAD

FILE #: AX-20-02




THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT:


1. Our office has no objection to the annexation of tax parcel ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000.


1. None.


1. Residential uses within the City of Dover are required to have City of Dover trash service.



CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: LANDS OF MEB PROPERTIES, LLC AT 1385-1389

MCKEE ROAD

FILE #: AX-20-02

REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments



CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Water / Wastewater – 302-736-7025





ELECTRIC

1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000.

WATER / WASTEWATER

1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook. Impact fees will be applied to this property.



1. None



1. As per the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property, as heard by the Council Committee of the Whole, February 25, 2020, please find the following:

a. 1385-1389 McKee Road is currently served by another utility. City of Dover would be able to serve the property from an access point on the south side of McKee Road.

b. 1385-1389 McKee Road is not currently served by City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer. Water and Sanitary Sewer are available on the opposite side of McKee Road. This property is situated on the northeast side of the road. Installation of utilities will require DelDOT approval. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development including tapping the sanitary sewer

and water mains, upgrading capacity at downstream pump stations, paying impact fees and obtaining permits.



CITY OF DOVER



D.A.C. MEETING DATE:

APPLICATION: 1385-1389 McKee Rd FILE #: AX-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Matthew Brown, Deputy Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457



1. No specific comment until plans are submitted

2. All building will require permits and be code compliant.

3. All Current structure are vacant and will require registration.



AX-20-2

CITY OF DOVER




===============================================================

APPLICATION: MEB Properties (1385 – 1389 McKee Road)

FILE#: AX-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT

CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768

=============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:

No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any

crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications

leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and

regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department.

Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin

permit process.



1. DelDOT has No Objection to the Annexation.

2. If the property develops the property shall submit a pre-submittal meeting request through the PDCA

to begin the plan review process.

3. There is a Denial of Access along McKee Road/Scarborough Road. The access location to the

property shall comply with the Denial of Access along the road.

D

E

L

D

O

T

CITY OF DOVER



February 2020

APPLICATION: Lands of MED Properties, LLC at 1385-1389 McKee Road

FILE #: AX-20-02






APPLICANT:



1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the annexation of the above referenced site.

2. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the re-zoning plan for the above referenced site.


1. 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.

City of Dover



DATA SHEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN REVIEW

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF March 4, 2020


Plan Title: Rosemary Road Warehouses, C-20-01

Plan Type: Conditional Use Site Plan

Location: North end of Rosemary Road, north of Lafferty Lane

Tax Map #: ED-05-077.16-02-12.03-000

Owner/Applicant: Blue Collar Guild, LLC

Site Area: 2.88 acres +/-

Zoning: M (Manufacturing Zone), AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone):

Noise Zone A and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II)

Prior Use: Vacant Land

Proposed Use: Wholesale Storage and Warehouses

Manufacturing

Building Contractor’s Yards

Building Area: Building 1: 9,940 SF Building 2: 7,500 SF

Building 3: 7,155 SF Building 4: 6,360 SF

Total Area: 30,955 SF

Off Street Parking: Required – 39 spaces

Proposed – 67 spaces

Sewer & Water: City of Dover

Waivers Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing

Requested: Elimination of Sidewalk along Rosemary Road frontage

For Consideration: Woodland Mitigation Plan

Performance Standards Review Application

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road

FILE #: C-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning

CONTACT PERSON: Julian Swierczek, Planner I PHONE #: (302) 736-7196

I. PLAN SUMMARY

This application is for review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to permit the


improvements at 131 Rosemary Road. The subject property is 2.88 acres +/- and is located on the

north end of Rosemary Road north of Lafferty Lane. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing

Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zone A and APZ II

(Accident Potential Zone II). The owner of record is Blue Collar Guild, LLC. Property Address:

131 Rosemary Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.16-02-12.03-000.

Previous Applications:

The overall property was originally subdivided with Application SB-95-04 Simpson Industrial

Park with Planning Commission approval granted at their August 18, 1995 meeting, and

receiving Final Plan approval in August 1997. This application did not show sidewalk to be

provided along Rosemary Road but did note that the Rosemary Road was to, in the future, be

completed to City Standards and subsequently be dedicated to the City of Dover. This plan also

identified specific areas to be designated as Reforestation areas, some of which are located on the

site subject to this Conditional Use Site Plan Application C-20-01.

Application MI-04-18 was a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan that received Final Plan approval

in October of 2004. This application proposed a revision of the existing property lines of the

overall Simpson Industrial Park creating four (4) new total parcels.

Application S-07-12 Lands of MC5, LLC for development of this Lot received conditional

approval by the Planning Commission at their March 19, 2007 meeting. This Site Plan

application proposed three (3) warehouse buildings with a total of 25,280 SF of floor area and

associated site improvements. This application similarly requested a waiver from the Zoning

Ordinance for the requirements of providing a sidewalk along the Rosemary Road frontage as

well as a partial waiver from the requirements of providing upright curbing. The waiver request

for the sidewalk requirements was denied while the partial waiver request for the requirements

for upright curbing was approved. This application did not achieve Final Plan approval and has

since expired.


C-20-01 Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road


Page 2

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject property is located at the northern end of Rosemary Road. The applicant is proposing

to construct a total of four (4) one-story structures totaling 30,955 SF to be utilized primarily for

the following uses: wholesale storage and warehouses, manufacturing, and building contractor’s

yards. No specific type of manufacturing has been identified. The site will be subject to a

Performance Standards Review Application to ensure all proposed uses comply with Zoning

Regulations.

Neighboring properties on Rosemary Road are also zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The

property immediately to the south is the site of another recent Conditional Use Plan C-19-08:

Grotto Pizza Dough Production & Storage at 122 Rosemary Road which received Conditional

Approval from the Planning Commission at their October 21, 2019 meeting. The parcel to the

east is currently vacant, as is part of the parcel immediately adjacent to the north which is zoned

IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone). The property to the west is also zoned M

(Manufacturing Zone) and is the site of a Contractor Business (George & Lynch, Inc).

Properties immediately adjacent to the subject site and to the north are also subject to the AEOZ

(Airport Environs Overlay Zone) Noise Zone A, as well as the APZ II (Accident Potential Zone

II). Properties to the south are subject to the AEOZ as well as the APZ I (Accident Potential

Zone I).

III. ZONING REVIEW

M (Manufacturing Zone)

The application is a Conditional Use Site Plan for the proposed construction of a series of

warehouse style buildings for multiple tenants. Manufacturing, building contractor’s yards, and

wholesale storage and warehousing buildings in the M Zone are Conditional Uses which require

approval from the Planning Commission. (Zoning Ordinance Article 3 Section 19.1)

Article 3 Section 19.1 Manufacturing zone (M) 19.1 Uses permitted. 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, and conditional upon approval as to use by the planning commission in accordance with the provisions of article 10, section 1 and in accordance with performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8: 19.11 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or any other processing, handling, or storage of products or materials involving the use of only oil, gas or electricity for fuel.

19.12 Research, design and development laboratories. 19.13 Wholesale storage and warehousing. 19.14 Building contractors' yards. 19.15 Public utilities uses. 19.16 Ministorage facilities, subject to the following regulations:

(a) No unit shall be placed within 30 feet of any other structure on the lot or a residential property line.



Page 3

(b) No outside storage, except for recreational vehicles, boats or personal automobiles when completely screened from view and parked in specifically approved locations. Parking for these vehicles shall not count toward the required parking set forth in subsection (e) below. (c) No individual unit may be used for retail, garage sale or any other commercial activities. (d) No storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive or other hazardous products may occur in the individual unit. (e) Parking must be provided at a ratio of one space for each 25 rental units, plus a minimum of three spaces for an office outside of the enclosure. One row of parallel parking is permitted between buildings at a ratio of one space per 25 feet. (f) All other bulk requirements of this ordinance are met.

This Conditional Use Site Plan is subject to the requirements of Article 10 §1 further discussed

below.

With Conditional Use Site Plan applications, the Planning Commission reviews the proposed

project to determine whether or not the intended use is appropriate in type and scale for the

immediate neighborhood. The Commission must also consider whether or not the proposed use

will have an adverse impact on the future orderly development of the surrounding area. The

following sections of the Zoning Ordinance which relates to the role of the Commission in

reviewing Conditional Use Site Plan applications are particularly relevant when reviewing this

application:

Article 10 §1.1 [Accessibility for fire and police protection.] That all proposed structures, equipment or material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection;

Article 10 §1.2 That the proposed use be of such location, size, and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the zone in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties in accordance with the zoning classification of such properties;

AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone)

The application is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zone A, and

APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II), both of whose requirements may be found in the Zoning

Ordinance, Article 3 Section 22. Article 3 Section 22.6 provides a Land Use Compatibility Table

that specifically lays out permitted as well as restricted uses within the various Airport Environs

Overlay Zones. The site is located within Noise Zone A (65dB-69dB), and within Accident

Potential Zone II (APZ II). Noise Zone A allows for most uses permitted within the M

(Manufacturing) zoning district with an interior noise level reduction of twenty-five (25)

decibels.

The proposed land uses (including any tenants within the buildings) must comply with the

permitted uses of the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District (Article 3§19) and the Land Use

Compatibility Table of the AEOZ (Article 3 §22.6). The application generally meets the

requirements of the M zone for the proposed uses. As each specific tenant is identified, the use

must be reviewed for compliance with the M zone and the Land Use Compatibility Table.



Page 4

IV. PARKING SUMMARY

The parking requirement for a warehouse in the M (Manufacturing Zone) is based on a rate of

one parking space per 800 square feet of floor area or one parking spaces per employee, per

largest working shift (if greater than the requirement under the floor area calculation). Based on a

total floor area of 30,955 SF the facility would require 39 parking spaces. The plan appears to

show a total of 67 parking spaces including 3 handicapped accessible spaces.

Loading Berths

Article 6 Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that for manufacturing, wholesale, or

storage uses in the M or IPM zone, and for buildings in excess of 150,000 square feet in any

zone, sufficient off-street loading berths shall be provided. Staff will determine the sufficiency of

the loading berths after reviewing written documentation from the applicant through the site plan

review process. The plan currently shows four (4) loading berths being provided. One measures

12’ x 60’ while each of the other three are shown to measure 12’ x 40’. All loading areas appear

to be placed directly into the drive aisles. Loading areas can not impede fire lanes.

The applicant will need provide a written description of all proposed activity to take place on site

before Planning Staff may determine the sufficiency of the proposed loading berths.

Bicycle Parking

Bicycle parking is required at a ratio of one space for every twenty parking spaces. If the site is

to be served by 67 parking spaces, four (4) bicycle parking spaces are required. Bicycle parking

is placed on a parking lot island east of the site entrance.

V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS

Access

There is one entrance proposed to the site from Rosemary Road. The parking lot is shown to

have two-way traffic throughout parking areas of the site. There is an existing entrance from

Rosemary Road to the easternmost portion of the site that will not be utilized as it is to be

demolished and returned to grass with curbing added along Rosemary Road. There is no

proposed cross access to adjoining properties.

Rosemary Road - Status of Dedication

It should be noted that a previous application involving these series of lots in an industrial park

(SB-95-04 Simpson Industrial Park) was approved by the Planning Commission and included a

note stating that a street (Rosemary Road) shall be constructed in accordance with the City of

Dover standards and specifications, and that the said street would ultimately be dedicated to the

City of Dover. The dedication of Rosemary Road was stated to occur following completion by

the developer to the satisfaction of the City; to date this has not occurred. Before that point, the

City of Dover assumes no maintenance responsibilities within the street right-of-way of

Rosemary Road.

Lighting

Exterior building wall-mounted lighting is proposed in appropriate locations around the site to

illuminate the parking areas. One light pole is also shown near the main entrance to the site.



Page 5

Dumpsters

Industrial/warehousing buildings require two (2) dumpster pad for the first 80,000 S.F. of

building area and one (1) for each additional 40,000 S.F. of building area or a fraction thereof.

Based on this calculation two (2) dumpster pads are required for the overall building area of

30,955 SF at this site. The Site Plan currently indicates two (2) dumpster enclosures with pads.

A Reserve Dumpster and a method of private trash collection has also been identified on the

Plan.

Flood Hazard Area

Portions of the subject property are within the special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain/

1% chance of annual of flooding). These properties are found on the FEMA FIRM Panel of Kent

County Delaware Map Number 10001C0188J effective date July 7, 2014. A Letter of Map

Revision Based on Fill, LOMR-F #12-03-1661A issued August 30, 2012 identifies the site areas

within the 100-year floodplain for Simpson Industrial Park-Lafferty Lane and Rosemary Road

associated with portions of Lots 1-4.

The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.21 requires that flood hazard areas (100-year floodplain)

remain as open natural areas with no impervious surfaces. There are areas in the eastern portion

of the property and the adjacent stormwater facility that are in the floodplain. With this project,

the redevelopment activities to close the second (southern) entrance will remove impervious

areas from the floodplain.

Sidewalks

Waiver Request: Elimination of Sidewalk

Sidewalk is required along all street frontages. There are currently no sidewalks provided along

any other property’s Rosemary Road frontage within the Simpson Industrial Park. To that end, a

recent Conditional Use application for 122 Rosemary Road (C-19-08: Grotto Pizza Dough

Production and Storage) conditionally approved by the Planning Commission at their October

21, 2019 meeting was granted a waiver from the requirement of placing a sidewalk along its

Rosemary Road frontage. A written Waiver Request for the elimination of sidewalks along

Rosemary Road for this property at has been submitted for consideration of the Planning

Commission.

Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Curbing

Article 6 §3.6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires upright, 6-inch curbing for all parking and drive

aisle areas. The applicant has submitted a Waiver Request from the requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance Article 6 Section 3.6 (b) for uprights curbing, stating that the Waiver Request is to help

facilitate stormwater runoff. Planning Staff has granted the Waiver Request.

VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE

The Plan submission includes Architectural Renderings presenting all four (4) of the warehouse

buildings. See attached elevation color renderings and site plan drawings for detailed information

on building dimensions, locations, and material choices.

The exterior finish for all four (4) warehouse structures are similarly composed of a stone or

masonry wainscoting, and then vertical blue siding. The exact materials proposed are not



Page 6

specifically identified. The roofs are all composed of a dark gray material but again, the exact

material has not been identified.

VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN

Consideration of Tree Mitigation Plan

The site is subject to a Tree Mitigation Plan wherein the development of the Simpson Industrial

Park required that 28,695 SF of reforestation occur on the subject parcel. Additionally, there are

11,346 SF of woodlands on the site. As the areas of the site utilized for reforestation are meant to

be fulfilling the requirements for the development of the Simpson Industrial Park and in

accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Section 16.5 on Woodland Preservation

requiring that no more than 50% of existing woodland may be cleared from a site, the applicant

has proposed a Tree Mitigation Plan to address the woodland clearing proposed for their project.

Below is a chart identifying the existing areas of both reforestation and woodland preservation as

they exist now and what the applicant has indicated they will remove so as to accommodate new

construction on this property at 131 Rosemary Road.

Existing (SF) To be Removed

(SF)

Remaining (SF) Mitigation

Proposal (SF)

Reforestation 28,695 21,083 7,612 21,083

Woodland 11,346 7,532 3,814 10,744

Total Woodland 40,041 28,615 11,426 31,827

When clearing more than 50% of woodland area on a property, mitigation for that woodland

cleared (over 50%) must be provided at a rate of 1.25% of the area cleared. Based on the

requirements of Zoning Ordinance and the area of trees to be cleared, the applicant proposes a

total Tree Mitigation Plan to plant 31,827 SF of woodland area.

The applicant has submitted a request for a Tree Mitigation Plan in which they propose to

accommodate 100% of the tree plantings required for the woodland mitigation at 151 Garrison

Oak Drive, within the City of Dover. The applicant has noted that an initial Letter of Agreement

between both property owners will be provided along with this Waiver Request for review once

completed. The initial proposal for the mitigation planting at 151 Garrison Oak Drive may be

found on Sheet C117 of the Plan Set.

While there is continued discussion on the Planting Plan for mitigation, it should be noted that

the applicant has actively been consulting with Planning Staff over the details of the Plan. It is

the Planning Staff’s determination that any proposed Tree Mitigation plantings at 151 Garrison

Oak Drive would not be allowed to be located within the Drainage Easement located in the

southeast corner of the site. Planning Staff will however allow for plantings in the further upland

areas of the floodplain of the property located outside of the Drainage Easement.

Tree Planting Requirements

The Zoning Ordinance further requires a tree planting/landscape plan for at a rate of one tree per

3,000 SF of development area. The parcel is identified as 126,342 total SF. The applicant has

indicated that 11,426 SF of existing woodland/reforestation area is to remain; therefore, the



Page 7

applicant must provide trees for the remaining 114,916 SF of site. This would put their tree

planting requirement at 39 trees, whereas, they currently only indicate a planned 29 trees. These

trees are shown to be a variety of shade trees including several species Dogwood, Elm, and Oak

trees which are shown to be located evenly spaced around the perimeter of the parking lot.

VII. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW

Uses in the M Zone are subject to the Performance Standards Procedure set forth in the Zoning

Ordinance, Article 5, Section 8.1 and 8.2 and referenced sections.

Article 5 §8.1 Dangerous and objectionable elements. No land or building in any zone shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause any one or more of the following conditions to exist and to be dangerous, injurious, noxious or offensive beyond the boundaries of such premises in such a manner or in such amount as to adversely affect the reasonable use of the surrounding area or adjoining premises: Fire, explosive or other hazard; noise, or vibration; smoke, dust, odor or other form of air pollution; heat, cold, dampness or electromagnetic disturbance; glare, liquid or solid refuse or waste; traffic congestion causing roadways or intersections in the surrounding highway network to fall below acceptable levels of comfort and convenience; or other substance, condition or element (referred to hereinafter as "dangerous or objectionable elements"), provided that any use permitted or not expressly prohibited by this ordinance may be undertaken and maintained if it conforms to the regulations of this section limiting dangerous and objectionable elements at the point of the determination of their existence.

The project’s compliance with a series of performance standards for the “dangerous and

objectionable elements” is to be considered by the Planning Commission. The “dangerous and

objectionable elements” are as follows:

• Fire and explosion hazards (activities with and storage of)

• Radioactivity or electromagnetic disturbance

• Noise (sound pressure level)

• Vibration

• Smoke

• Odors (Odorous gases or odorous matter)

• Fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution

• Glare (from lighting or high temperature processes)

• Liquid or solid wastes

• Traffic congestion (Level of Service E)

The project cannot cause the above conditions to exist so that they adversely affect the

surrounding areas or adjoining properties. The specific limits of each performance standard are

described in the Zoning Ordinance. Where the performance standards conflict with regulations

established by other state or local agencies such as the Delaware Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), the more restrictive regulations apply.

As part of this procedure, a separate Performance Standard Review Application is required to

accompany the application for Site Plan approval. The applicant has submitted a Performance

Standard Review Application letter indicating how the proposed development will restrict the

emission of dangerous and objectionable elements detailed in Article 5, Section 8.5. The

Planning Commission may refer the Application to expert consultants for review if deemed



Page 8

necessary. The Planning Commission is charged with determining if the proposed of the facility

conforms to the applicable performance standards.

VIII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:

The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness

in accordance with the agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been

identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant:

1) Review and Approval of the Performance Standards Review Application is required for the

property development in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §8.6. A Letter of the

Performance Standards Review Application was submitted for consideration by the Planning

Commission.

2) Review and approval of the Tree Mitigation Plan is required for the previous Reforestation

area to be removed and for the removal of the woodland areas (above the 50% limit). This

Review also must consider the location of the Plan for the new woodland planting.

3) Sidewalk/pathway must be provided along the entire street frontage of Rosemary Road in

accordance with the Zoning Ordinance unless a Waiver is granted by the Planning

Commission. A written Waiver Request was received to eliminate the sidewalk along

Rosemary Road.

4) Please add a note to the plan regarding the City Planner’s approval of the request to eliminate

upright curbing in select areas.

5) Cover Sheet:

a) For the scale provided for the “Vicinity Map,” please confirm the written vs. graphic

scales provided.

b) Please note the landscape and tree planting requirements as well as the number of tress

proposed.

c) Please correct the Tax Parcel ID number to read ED-05-077.16-02-12.03-000

d) Please include the Application File Number of C-20-01.

e) Please correct the zoning by including both the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone):

Noise Zone A, and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II) overlays, noting the related bulk

standards requirements as well.

f) In the data column, please note the square footage of each building individually, as well

as collectively.

g) Under Item # 3 for Waiver Requests, please note the address of the site for

implementation of the proposed Tree Mitigation Plan.

6) Page C105/ Landscape Plan:

a) Please add a note that describes the planned Tree Mitigation Plan.

b) Please identify the woodland areas (reforestation and new growth woodland) to remain on

the site.

c) Please note the Airport Environs Overlay Zone zoning district.

d) Please be aware that the first tree to the west of the main entrance appears to conflict with



Page 9

proposed utilities.

e) Confirm that the new proposed tree planting do not conflict with any of the woodland areas

on site.

f) Please add 10 additional trees and update the tree calculation for the development area.

g) Please provide further detail on the proposed bike rack, noting in particular the number of

bikes to be accommodated.

7) The Final Plan set must include notes documenting any action taken by the Planning

Commission regarding requested waivers and must list any additional conditions of approval.

8) Please indicate the status of Rosemary Road. It must be clearly stated as to whether

Rosemary Road is to remain in private ownership or if it is to be improved to City standards

and dedicated to the City of Dover as stipulated in SB-95-04 Simpson Industrial Park.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET

CODE OBJECTIVES:

In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §1, the Planning Commission in

considering and acting upon Conditional Use Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and

safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the

public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken

into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed

intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed

in subsections 1.1 to 1.3.

1) Recommendation on Waiver Requests:

a) Elimination of Sidewalk: Staff recommends approval of the request for the elimination of

sidewalk along the Rosemary Road frontage. No other parcel with frontage on Rosemary

Road within the Simpson Industrial Park provides a sidewalk and the site in general is

rather remote in relation to other pedestrian facilities. Similarly, a recent Conditional Use

Application (C-19-08 Grotto Pizza Dough Production and Distribution Facility) requested

and was granted a waiver from the requirements of a sidewalk along Rosemary Road for

similar reasons.

b) Partial Elimination of Curbing: Staff grants approval of the waiver request to relax curbing

requirements in areas adjacent to the parking lots and select circulation drive aisles. The

upright curbing requested to be waived is adjacent to stormwater management facilities

(swales). Therefore, the elimination is appropriate to allow sheet flow of water into these

areas.

2) Tree Mitigation Plan: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Tree Mitigation Plan,

noting that the applicant has already identified a location (151 Garrison Oak Drive) for the

required tree plantings. The proposed planting location is also located on the east side of

Dover and will reforest previous agricultural land creating natural woodland areas in a

floodplain area. Staff again notes that the square footage of trees to be provided in the Tree

Mitigation Plan are to be 1.25 times the square footage over the maximum 50% woodland

allowed to be removed. The Tree Mitigation Plan must also account for the previous

Reforestation (Woodland) area being removed.



Page 10

3) Performance Standard Review Application: Staff recommends the Commission affirm that

the site’s potential use as a wholesale storage and warehouse, manufacturing, and building

contractor yards is generally anticipated to conform to all the applicable performance

standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 8. The proposed use is not expected to

generate excessive dangerous or objectionable elements or emissions. This will be further be

evaluated upon identification of each specific tenant.

For a number of the performance standards that are related to air quality, there are state or

federal level permitting requirements that ensure the compliance both during construction

and operation of certain types of facilities, thus limiting impacts to air quality resources.

Some of the performance standards are governed by regulations and policies adopted and

enforced by various City Departments such by fire protection regulations administered by the

City of Dover Fire Marshal and liquid and solid waste disposal which are subject to the

City’s Water/Wastewater Regulations administered by the Department of Public Works in

conjunction with other agencies.

4) The developer should note if they intend to complete Rosemary Road to City of Dover

standards and ultimately dedicate the road to the City of Dover for maintenance in

accordance with the Subdivision Plan SB-95-04 Simpson Industrial Park, or if they intend

instead to keep Rosemary Road in private ownership. This applicant has verbally indicated

that there is no intent to dedicate Rosemary Road.

IX. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:

1) The Planning Commission should act upon the request for waivers as part of any motion

regarding this project application, or as a separate motion as necessary. Note: All waivers

are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may approve or deny

waiver requests.

2) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Conditional Use Site Plan occur in

the finalization of the Conditional Use Plan contact the Department of Planning and

Inspections. Examples include relocation of site components like paving and increases in

floor area. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development

Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making

recommendations in regard to the Plan.

3) Following Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use 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 the other commenting 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 (Final Plan Approval).

4) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory

Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code



Page 11

requirements.

5) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory

Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code

requirements.

6) For building new construction, the requirements of the building code and the 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 shall be aware that Conditional Use 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. Building

Permits will be required for each building and for each tenant space fit-out/ occupancy.

8) In the event that there are changes to the architecture, building footprint, layout or square

footage of the building contact the Planning Office. These changes may require review by

the Planning Commission.

9) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on

the site the appropriate Site Plan approvals, Pre-Construction meetings, site inspections

and permits are required.

10) The applicant shall be aware that 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 may require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to

placement of any such sign in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.

If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the

above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park: Lot 4)

FILE #: C-20-01








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. Rosemary Road is a private street. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office, if applicable.

SANITATION

1. The proposed site development will require private sanitation services.

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).


STORMWATER

1. None.

STREETS

1. None.

SANITATION

1. None.

GENERAL

1. None.

Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park: Lot 4) File #: C-20-01 February 26, 2020 Page 2 of 2


STORMWATER

1. None.

STREETS

1. None.

SANITATION

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.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE

CONTACT PERSON AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park)

FILE #: C-20-01

REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Water / Wastewater Departments



CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 WATER / WASTEWATER – 302-736-7025





ELECTRIC

1. Owner is responsible for locating all existing underground facilities to include electric, water and gas.

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 receipt of final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

WATER

1. Our office has no objection to the conditional use proposed for the subject property.

2. 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.

3. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan.

4. Valves shall be provided at all water main intersections.

5. The water service line shall be installed five feet (5’) to the right of the sewer lateral as viewed from the centerline of the street. The requirement may be waived by the Water / Wastewater Manager if deemed appropriate.

6. Curb stops shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way or easement line for the lot, in a non-traffic bearing location.

7. Based on the information provided, a two inch (2") Mueller 500 Series water meter with Itron ERT shall be installed for this property. The meter must be purchased through the City of Dover. Please contact our office a minimum of six (6) weeks prior to requiring the meter. A dual check valve must be installed downstream of the meter. A water meter

Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park) File #: C-20-01 February 26, 2020 Page 2 of 3

bypass line is not permitted for this type of building application.

WASTEWATER

1. Our office has no objection to the conditional use proposed for the subject property.

2. 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.

3. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures.

4. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”).

5. The minimum slope for all sanitary sewer laterals shall meet the current plumbing standard accepted by the City of Dover, typically 0.0104 feet / foot for a six-inch (6”) sewer lateral.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be connected directly to the main, not manholes, unless impracticable, as determined by the Department of Public Works.

9. Please add language to note #18 on Sheet 1, 2, and 3 under General Notes that includes connections to City of Dover sanitary sewer mains.

10. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the wastewater discharge approval from Kent County Department of Public Works is submitted to our office.

GENERAL

1. The final site plan must be submitted in a digital format compatible with AutoCAD 2010 (.dwg format) and Adobe Reader (.pdf format).


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 / WASTEWATER / GENERAL

1. None


ELECTRIC

1. City of Dover will need proposed load sheets to validate current electrical equipment is adequate. Load sheets can be found on the at the following location: https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13110.pdf

WATER

http://www.cityofdover.com/government/citycouncil/packets/

https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13110.pdf

Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park) File #: C-20-01 February 26, 2020 Page 3 of 3

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 may be required for this proposed site plan.

WASTEWATER

1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development.

2. Prior to plan approval, the sanitary sewer system plans may be required to be submitted to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC.

3. Wastewater impact fees may be required for this proposed site plan.

4. 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.

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 Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88.

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.

https://imageserv9.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf

https://imageserv9.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: 131 Rosemary Road FILE #: C-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Matthew Brown, Deputy Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457


CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed building is Storage.

2. Building Access shall be no further than 50 feet from a primary entrance

Where buildings are provided with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, access shall be no further than 100 feet from the primary entrance. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3)

3. Parking shall be prohibited in front of the primary entrance for a width of not less than 1.5 times the width of the door(s) or for 10 feet, whichever is greater. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.2)

4. Perimeter access shall be 50% and clearly shown on the plans. Perimeter Access minimum width shall be 15 feet measured from the face of the building at grade with a maximum slope of ten percent (10%). Plantings and utility services (includes condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall be permitted within the perimeter access, and shall not interfere with emergency services fire ground operations. If a physical barrier (fence, pond, steep slope, etc) prevents access, that portion of the building perimeter shall not be included in the calculation of Percent of Perimeter Access. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3)

5. Fire lanes shall cover 25% of the proposed building. Fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and run along the front of the building as determined by the primary entrance(s). In cases where there is more than one primary entrance(s), each shall be served by a fire lane even if this exceeds the percentage as required.


C-20-01

The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the exterior wall and the closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 feet from the exterior wall if one or two stories in height; 40 feet if three or four stories in height, or 30 feet if over four stories in height. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5)

6. Where parking is located between the building and the fire lane, parking shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the exterior wall. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.4.1)

7. All Fire Lanes shall be marked as follows: both the inner and outer edges of the fire lane shall be marked, where curbs are present, the top and face of the curb shall be painted yellow, where no curbs are present, a four inch (4”) solid yellow demarcation line shall mark the edge(s) of the fire lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7)

8. The specific color yellow shall be the uniformly accepted yellow as utilized by State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Only vivid and durable paint shall be used and shall be suitable for street surfaces

9. Fire lane signs shall be located as follows: see Figure 5-16 – Approved Sign For Marking Fire Lanes, fire lane signs shall be spaced at 150 foot intervals maximum, all fire lane signs shall be located no less than six feet (6’) and no higher than eight feet (8’) above the pavement, signs shall be placed at each end of the fire lane, and signs shall face all oncoming traffic. Where parking is not restricted roadway markings shall utilize the words "FIRE" and "LANE" in lieu of fire lane signs, and shall conform to the specifications of 7.6. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7)

10. Where overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building or site features must project over any fire lane, an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6” above the fire lane shall be provided and the portion of the building perimeter which contains overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building features shall not apply towards the fire lane accessibility requirements of Section 4.0, Table 5-1 in this chapter. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.8)

11. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment.

12. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process.

13. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the

system. A letter of agreement shall be created, and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created, and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6)

14. All fire hydrants shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All fire hydrants shall have minimum of four-inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, where fire hydrants are located along a curb line with permitted parking, the area between the fire hydrant and the street or fire lane shall be stenciled with four inch (4") demarcation lines and the words "NO PARKING", demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the fire hydrant and extend for a distance 15 feet on both sides. Where fire hydrants are located in parking lots or other areas susceptible to blockage by parked vehicles they shall be treated as follows: fire hydrants shall be protected in all directions for a distance of seven feet (7') with barriers or curbing, Minimum four-inch (4") diameter steel bollards filled with concrete and marked yellow shall be installed at the outermost corners of the fire hydrant demarcation area. The minimum height of the bollard shall be 36 inches above the finished grade of the adjacent surface, and the steamer connection of all fire hydrants shall be positioned so as to be facing the edge of the street, or traffic lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 2) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private.

15. Hydrant barrels shall be provided with reflective material, such as paint, durable for highway/roadway markings or a reflective tape of a minimum of 2” in width around the barrel under the top flange, hydrant bonnets shall be color coded based on the following criteria: class AA 1500 GPM - painted light blue, class A 1,000 GPM -1499 GPM - painted green, class B 500 - 999 GPM - painted orange, class C 250 - 499 GPM - painted red, class D under 250 GPM - painted black. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 703, Chapter 3. 4) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private.

16. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements. Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install

a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171)

17. Sprinkler system required. System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. This chapter shall apply to all buildings, structures, marine vessels, premises, and conditions which are modified by more than 50% after the effective date of these Regulations. The 50% figure shall be calculated utilizing the gross square footage of the building, structure, marine vessel, premises and conditions as to arrive at the correct application.

Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for review and approval for a building rehabilitation as defined in the 101 Life Safety Code, for less than 50% of the gross square footage of a non-sprinklered building, may not have another such project for the same building submitted for review and approval any sooner than three (3) years after the date of the final inspection unless sprinkler projection is provided throughout the entire building.

In all buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of aggregate, gross floor area. In all buildings in excess of 40 feet in height or more than four (4) stories in height. In all buildings or areas thereof used for the storage, fabricating, assembling, manufacturing,

processing, display or sale of combustible goods, wares, merchandise, products, or materials when more than two (2) stories or 25 feet in height.

In all basement areas exceeding 2,500 square feet floor area. In residential occupancies when of: Type V (0,0,0) or Type III (2,0,0) construction and

exceeding two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. Type V (1,1,1) and Type III (2,1,1) or Type IV (2,H,H) construction exceeding three (3) stories or 3In all residential apartment

buildings storage areas except individual unit closets that are located within individual residential living units.

In all buildings used as health care occupancies as defined in the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. In all buildings or areas classified as "high hazard" under the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, or "extra hazard" under the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations.

All buildings used as dormitories, in whole or in part, to house students at a public or private school or public or private institution of higher education. (16 Del.C. Ch. 88) This applies to all such dormitories regardless if new or existing.

(2015 State of Delaware fire Prevention Regulations, 702, Chapter 4) Places of assembly shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Any interior renovations of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 150 persons. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly that would create an occupant load of 150 persons or greater.

Places of assembly where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any interior renovation of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 100 persons and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly which would create an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. New educational occupancies of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162)

18. Fire Department Connection is to be a 5-inch stortz connection on a 30 degree elbow located within 50 feet of main entrance. Access to the Fire Department Connection must be clear unobstructed access as defined by the AHJ.

19. Parking and/or obstructions shall be prohibited in front of fire department connections for a distance measuring from the center line and extending four feet on both sides.

(2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.4)

20. Fire Department Connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment.

21. If there is any type of rack storage, the following will be required: 1) a diagram showing the layout and type of rack system 2) a list and quantity of items being stored 3) a letter from an authorized/licensed fire suppression contractor stating that in rack sprinklers are or are not needed. If in rack sprinklers are not needed, a letter may be requested from an authorized/licensed fire suppression contractor to ensure that the sprinkler system is adequate for the storage presented.

22. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection.

Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4)

23. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following:

Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals,

24. A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection. Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings. Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127)

Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level

25. 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.

26. All new passenger elevators in a building shall be provided with a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches (609 mm) by 84 inches (2133 mm) in its horizontal open position. Where two or more new passenger elevators are located in a single hoist way and serve all or the same portion of the building, only one elevator car that provides a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches by 84 inches in its horizontal position for each hoist way shall be required. Elevator cars required to comply with 15.1 or 15.2 shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist way door frame. Firefighter recall keys shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the local fire department. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 1, 15)

27. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done by Delaware State Communications prior to Final CO. This must be scheduled in advance with Delaware State Communications.

28. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan.

29. Full building and fire plan review is required.

30. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved.

31. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved.

32. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained.


1. Final use of space may require additional comments.

2. Perimeter access needs to be clearly shown on the plan.


CITY OF DOVER



February 2020

APPLICATION: Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park:Lot 4)

FILE #: C-20-01






APPLICANT:



1. Based on previous design for the Simpson Industrial Park, Lot 4 is grandfathered in as there is no increase

beyond the initial design. The initial pond design accounted for 83,766 sf impervious from Lot 4, and the

proposed impervious is 77378 sf. No additional pond design is required to meet regulations. 2. 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.

3. 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.

ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. Green Technologies (infiltration, bio retention, bio swales, filter strips etc.) must be implemented to comply with the

Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations.

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.


CANCELLED MEETING

Monday, March 16, 2020 – 7:00 P.M.

City Hall, City Council Chambers

15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware

The Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, March 16, 2020 has

been cancelled due to the recommendations on public gatherings as

noted in the Declaration of a State of Emergency for the State of

Delaware (effective March 13, 2020).

The following Applications will be postponed and rescheduled for the

Monday, April 20, 2020 meeting of the Planning Commission to be held

at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers at 15 Loockerman Plaza,

Dover.

For questions regarding the status of agenda items and project

applications, contact the City of Dover Planning Office at (302) 736-

7196 or by email at [email protected]

OLD BUSINESS

1) Revisions to Applications:

a. S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road – Update on Revisions to Site

Development Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan Application associated with plan to

demolish the existing structures and then construct a one-story 4,504 SF Car Wash

(Service Establishment) with associated site improvements. The subject properties total

2.07 +/- acres and are located east side of Saulsbury Road north of Forest Street and west

of Carver Road. The properties are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and

C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay

Zone). The owner of record for all properties is Faithwork LLC. Property Addresses: 21

and 27 Saulsbury Road; 20 (and 26), 30 and 34 Carver Road; 971, 975 and 983 Forest

Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.07-01-38.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-39.00-000, ED-05-

076.07-01-61.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-60.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-59.00-000, ED-05-

076.07-01-62.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-36.00-000, and ED-05-076.07-01-37.00-000.

Council District 4. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of Site Plan

S-19-22 on October 21, 2019.

NEW BUSINESS


Road – Review of the payment amount for Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area

Construction as associated with a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the







mailto:[email protected]

Meeting Cancellation Notice: City of Dover Planning Commission

Public Hearing: March 16, 2020 Cancelled

Page 2 of 2

its Request for Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction on January 21,

2020.

NEW APPLICATIONS

1) AX-20-01 Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road – Public Hearing and


Request for a parcel of land totaling 0.21 acres +/- (9,435 SF) located at 1448 N. Little Creek

Road, Dover. The property is currently zoned RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone)

in Kent County. The proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is

located on the south side of N. Little Creek Road and east of Acacia Place. The annexation

category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority

Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. The owner is

Holly L. Mayer. Property Address: 1448 N. Little Creek Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.00-

01-02.00-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2020-02.

2) AX-20-02 Lands of MEB Properties, LLC at 1385-1389 McKee Road – Public Hearing and


Request for a parcel of land totaling 78.60 acres +/- located at 1385-1389 McKee Road,

Dover. The property is currently zoned RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent

County. The proposed zoning is RG-2 (General Residence Zone) for 73.34 acres and C-2A

(Limited Commercial Zone) for 5.26 acres with the property frontage along McKee Road

subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The property is located on the east side of

Scarborough Road at the intersection of Scarborough Road and McKee Road. The

annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High

Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Mixed Use. The owner is MEB

Properties, LLC and Christopher Custis. The equitable owner is Louis J. Capano, III.

Property Address: 1385-1389 McKee Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-067.00-01-01.00-000.

Proposed Council District 4. Ordinance #2020-03.

3) C-20-01 Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park: Lot 4)

– Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to permit the


improvements at 131 Rosemary Road. The subject property is 2.88 acres +/- and is located on

the north end of Rosemary Road north of Lafferty Lane. The property is zoned M

(Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise

Zone A and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II). The owner of record is Blue Collar Guild,

LLC. Property Address: 131 Rosemary Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.16-02-12.03-000.

Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing, Elimination of

Sidewalk along Rosemary Road frontage, and Woodland Mitigation Plan. Consideration of

Performance Standards Review Application.

Posted Agenda: March 6, 2020

Posted REVISED Agenda due to meeting cancellation: March 13, 2020

Documents

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION CANCELLED MEETING … · City Hall, City Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware The Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, March