CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April … · 2019. 4. 10. · CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April 15, 2019 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall, City Council

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA

Monday, April 15, 2019 – 7:00 P.M.

City Hall, City Council Chambers

15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1) The Re-evaluation Review of Conditional Use Application C-17-04 House of Pride Office at 45 S. New Street will not be heard by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2019 due to

incomplete public notice. This Re-evaluation Review and its Public Hearing will be

rescheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting and will be subject to Public Notice

requirements for the new meeting date.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING of March 18, 2019

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS

1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for MONDAY, May 20, 2019 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers.

2) Update on City Council Actions

3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates a. Education and Training Opportunities

OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES

OLD BUSINESS

1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None

NEW APPLICATIONS

1) SB-19-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the subdivision of

105.6689 +/- acres of land into: the new Lot 1 of 16.3949 acres and the Residual of 89.2740

acres. The property is located on the south side of West North Street and west of POW-MIA

Parkway. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The owner of record

is General Foods Corp. (Kraft Foods Group, Inc.) Property Address: 1250 West North Street.

Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.00-01-12.00-000 and ED-05-076.00-01-10.00-000. Council District 2.

2) S-19-07 Retail Facility at 515 South DuPont Highway – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of a one-story 8,050 SF retail building

and accompanying site improvements. The site is currently vacant. The subject area is 0.91

+/- acres located on the east side of South DuPont Highway south of Cowgill Street and

north of Public Safety Boulevard. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone).

The owner of record is Kent Del Properties, LLC. Property Address: 515 South DuPont

Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-12.00-000. Council District 2. The site was subject

of Site Plan S-08-08 Nastatos Office Building granted conditional approved by the Planning

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda

Public Hearing: April 15, 2019

Page 2 of 2

Commission at their March 2008 meeting; it did not achieve Final Plan approval and has

since expired. Waivers Requested: Reduction in Number of Loading Spaces: Reduction of the

Arterial Street Buffer; Elimination of Fence Component of Opaque Barrier Requirement.

NEW BUSINESS

1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities

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: April 5, 2019

1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION

MARCH 18, 2019

The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, March

18, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Vice-Chairwoman Dr. Jones

presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, and

Ms. Maucher. Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert were absent.

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

Julian Swierczek, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney and Deputy City Solicitor Mr.

Williams Pepper.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Ms. Maucher moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion

was unanimously carried 6-0 with Ms. Edward, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent.

APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF

FEBRUARY 19, 2019

Mr. Holt moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of February 19, 2019,

seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Ms. Edward, Mrs.

Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent.

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS

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

April 15, 2019 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers.

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

on February 25 & 26, 2019 and March 11 & 12, 2019.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the University of Delaware’s Institute for Public

Administration continues their training series. They do have one scheduled for Friday morning of

this week, March 22, 2019. It is titled “Advanced Land-Use and Development Administration.”

If any of the Commissioners are interested in attending that training please see Planning Staff

and they will see if there is any space available for that training. In the future, they are planning

another class related to “Creating a Flood Ready Community.” When they have the actual date

for that class, they will pass it along.

OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

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

meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: a. S-17-02 Mitten Industrial Park at 141 Lafferty Lane (Revised 2/28/2017) – Request for

One Year Extension of the Planning Commission conditional approval granted March 20,

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2019

2

2017 for a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a 9,600 S.F.

building, an equipment processing & storage area, and associated site improvements. The

40.09 acre+/- subject site is located on the east side of Lafferty Lane north of the Kings

Cliffe Manufactured Home Park. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park

Manufacturing Zone) and MH (Manufactured Housing Zone) and is partly subject to the

AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone: Accident Potential Zone I and Noise Zone A).

The project is subject to Performance Standards Review Application. The owner of

record is Matthew E. Mitten. Property Address: 141 Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcels: part of

ED-05-077.00-01-26.00-000, ED-05-077.00-01-27.00-000, and part of ED-05-086.00-01-

08.00-000. Council District 2.

Representatives: Mr. Matt Mitten, Owner

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a request for an extension of Planning Commission

approval. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission back in March 2017. With

that action taken by the Planning Commission in March 2017, they had two years to finalize the

plans and commence construction of the project. With a letter of February 27, 2019, they are

asking for a one-year extension of that approval. The letter submitted by Merestone Consultants,

who is now the engineer of record working on the project, has been working to complete the

engineering and final site approvals necessary from the various agencies. They took over the

project according to their letter in September 2018. Their letter goes on to outline the progress

that has been made with submittals to DelDOT, the Kent Conservation District, and the City’s

Public Works Office with submittals forthcoming to the City’s Fire Marshal’s Office and

Planning Office, once landscape designs are finalized.

Mr. Mitten stated that they have no statements at this time.

Ms. Maucher moved to approve S-17-02 Mitten Industrial Park for the request for a one year

extension, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion carried 6-0 by voice vote with Ms. Edward, Mrs.

Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent.

b. S-17-06 Secure Storage Revised Site Plan, Phases 2 & 3 – Request for a One Year Extension of the Planning Commission conditional approval granted March 20, 2017 for

a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of Phases 2 & 3 of a mini-

storage facility consisting of five (5) storage buildings, on a site already containing 14

storage buildings (Phase 1), for a total of 19 buildings. The new buildings total 94,500

S.F. Associated improvements including a boat and RV parking area and a second site

entrance are also proposed. The project is subject to Performance Standards Review

Application. The 18.68-acre subject site is located on the north side of Lafferty Lane, east

of South Bay Road. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone).

The owner of record is Secure Storage LLC. Property address: 640 Lafferty Lane. Tax

Parcel: ED05-077.00-01-25.00-000. Council District 2. The Final Site Plan approval was

granted October 16, 2017.

Representatives: None


3

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a request for a one-year extension. This application was

also heard at the March 2017 meeting of the Planning Commission and at the time was approved

for what is Phases 2 and 3 of the Secure Storage Mini-Storage Facility project to add five storage

buildings on the site continuing what was a build-out from Phase 1. The project ultimately has

moved through the plan approval process. They received Final Plan Approval in October 2017.

In doing so and achieving approvals from the agencies, the plan was ultimately revised from five

buildings to four buildings as a design refinement that did not require its appearance back before

Planning Commission. All of the agencies granted approvals at that time and the project is

eligible to pull Building Permits; however, while they are anticipating a late Spring or early

Summer start in 2019 because they will not be underway by the end of March, they are seeking a

one-year extension of this Site Plan Application. That is presented to the Planning Commission

for consideration by their letter dated February 12, 2019.

Mr. Holt moved to approve S-17-06 Secure Storage Revised Site Plan, Phases 2 & 3 for a one-

year extension, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion carried 6-0 by voice vote with Ms.

Edward, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent.

2) Continued Review of New Application: a. S-19-01 Tommy Car Wash at 656 North DuPont Highway – Continued Review of a

Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of a new 5,194 SF Car

Wash structure and accompanying site improvements. The previous structures on the

site have been demolished, and the site is now vacant. The property consists of a total

0.940+/- acres and is located on a site bounded by North DuPont Highway to the

northeast, and Lepore Road to the southeast. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway

Commercial Zone) and is partly subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection

Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Kathleen J. Gray. The equitable owner is

Manpreet Mattu. Property Address: 656 North DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-

068.09-01-09.01-000. Council District 3. Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial

Street Buffer. The Public Hearing and Review of Application S-19-01 began at the

February 19, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting; it was tabled seeking additional

information.

Representatives: Mr. John Paradee, Baird, Mandalas and Brockstedt; Mr. Kevin Minnich,

Minnich Engineering; Mr. Matt Dehahn, Tommy Car Wash

Ms. Maucher moved to lift application S-19-01 Tommy Car Wash at 656 North DuPont Highway

from the table, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 6-0 by voice vote with Ms.

Edwards, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent.

Mr. Adams has recused himself from deliberations on this application due to previous business

interactions with one of the speakers who provided public testimony in February.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there continue to be five members of the Planning Commission

present. That is a quorum in order for the Commission to conduct business.


4

Mr. Paradee stated that he represents Blue Sky Dover Properties, LLC dba Tommy Car Wash.

With him tonight is Mr. Kevin Minnich who is the engineer for the project as well as Mr. Matt

Dehahn from Tommy Car Wash. He is an equipment and component sales manager for the

company and he is available to answer any technical questions about the facility that you might

have. Also, the principals are here along with Realtor Mr. Carl Kaplan.

He has handed on a copy of a supplemental submission that he would like to submit for the

record. Rather than bore you by reading it, he will try to summarize it quickly. It is his

understanding that some of the people who testified in opposition at the last hearing had

submitted a letter as well and he would like to briefly address that letter in his response.

The first important point that the Commission should take note of is that under Delaware Law,

competitors such as the gentleman who spoke to the Commission last month in opposition of this

application have no legal standing to object. In this particular case, if you think about it, it makes

sense because the people who spoke in opposition before you don’t own any property anywhere

near the site. They haven’t articulated any specific or particularized injury that would show how

their property would be impacted if this application were approved. Instead they were motivated

perhaps by concerns about competition and tried to raise some issues that frankly they don’t

believe would have standing to raise. They questioned the Planning Director’s interpretation of

some language in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and they also challenged

the Commission’s ability to grant a waiver request. First, the Planning Staff got it right as they

most always do. Delaware Law provides that an administrator’s interpretation of their own

regulations is entitled to some difference. These are the professionals who deal with the Code

every day; they helped draft it and they understand how it works. When they interpret it and tell

you that they think it mean this, you should listen to them. Secondly, Delaware courts have

repeatedly held that if there are two reasonable alternative interpretations of a statute, the

interpretation that favors the land owner controls. In other words in the event of a tie, if it is

ambiguous or vague and you are not really sure, you give the benefit of the doubt to the property

owner. Here, they submit that the Department’s interpretation of Article 3 Section 29.5 of the

City’s Zoning Ordinance is not only entitled to a presumption of validity but the burden of

rebutting that presumption rests on the party who would challenge it. His submission goes into

all of the reasons why they think the Planning Department got it right. He won’t belabor that

except he will come back and rebut some of the things that the opposition had said.

There is another legal doctrine that is at play here. It has a really funny sounding Latin name

called “ejusdem generis” and he almost always butchers it. What it really means is that where

general words follow an enumeration of things or items by words of a more particular and

specific meaning. The general words are not to be construed in their widest extent but are to be

held as applying only to things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

In Article 3 Section 29.5, you have the words “automobile service station” following the phrase

“gas station”. The point is that “automobile service stations” are limited to those things which are

a subset of gas stations. It is an important point; probably not something that you will stay up late

tonight worrying about but it is an important point. In the letter dated March 12, 2019 from Mr.

Shawn Tucker, he respectfully submits that Mr. Tucker is simply wrong when he says that the

use of the property as a car wash constitutes a “motor vehicle service station”. He then talks

about whether or not there are definitions in the Code that may help you here. For example, in


5

Section 26-31 of the City Code, the definition of car wash is “operating a continuing business of

cleaning, washing or waxing motor vehicles for profits.” It doesn’t say anything about repairing

them or reconditioning them in any way. By contrast, in Section 26-31 of the Code, although

there is no definition for “motor vehicle service station”, there is a definition for “motor vehicle

serviceman” because that job requires a Business License under the City Code. It defines motor

vehicle serviceman as “every person operating a business of repairing, rebuilding, repainting or

otherwise reconditioning motor vehicles or their parts.” That is a very different definition than

car wash. There is really no interaction or interplay between the two. If you look at the structure

of the Zoning Ordinance, you realize that motor vehicle repair or service is very tightly regulated

under the City Zoning Ordinance. There are many instances where it is addressed as a permitted

use subject to conditions or a prohibited use outright. For example, it is an accessory use in the

IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and it’s prohibited in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone),

C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) but it’s permitted in C-3

(Service Commercial Zone) and C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) subject to several qualifying

conditions dealing with things like hydraulic jacks and that kind of stuff. All of the stuff that

talks about service stations and nothing to do with car washes. Of course motor vehicle service is

prohibited in the shopping center district. There are plenty of places in the Code that talk about

what motor vehicle service repair means and then you have a definition of car wash and they are

distinctly two different things. That is the point that he wanted to make in response to Mr.

Tucker’s letter.

With regard to the waiver request, respectfully Mr. Tucker’s letter is wrong when he says that we

or the staff has failed to articulate how they satisfy the four criteria. His letter addresses those

four criteria so he won’t belabor that. But it is interesting that Mr. Tucker admits that they meet

Numbers 1 and 4. He disputes whether they meet 2 or 3 but he will submit to you that they very

easily meet Number 2 which is that the character of the surrounding built environment, that it is

the other properties adjacent to them don’t have any buffers at all. The Staff Report addresses all

of those criteria very carefully and he would defer to Staff and suggest that they do the same.

They got it right on the waiver request.

Mr. Tucker’s reliance in his letter on the NEPA vs. City of Lewes case is simply unfounded and it

sounds nice to cite it but it’s really not on point. That case deal with a Board of Adjustment case

in the City of Lewes. The City of Lewes had given its Board of Adjustment some powers that

were greater than the General Assemblies had given to Boards of Adjustment under Title 22

Chapter 3. That case simply stands for the proposition that the City couldn’t give greater powers

to the Board of Adjustment than the General Assembly did; therefore, the Court found that any

reliance on that additional authority was inappropriate because it conflicted with the State statue.

You don’t have that here. What you have here is the City of Dover has said in the Zoning

Ordinance that you can have certain uses and certain uses are prohibited. There are some uses

that the Planning Commission is empowered to grant waivers for. You have the legislative body,

the authority of the City government saying these are all of the rules for the Zoning Ordinance

and by the way we are going to condition this one slightly because we are going to let the

Planning Commission grant waivers. That is an expressed delegation by the City of Dover to the

Planning Commission that is not violated by any provision in the Delaware Code whatsoever.

He will submit to the Commission that there are multiple jurisdictions (he can’t think of any that

don’t have this ability), other municipalities in the State of Delaware similarly give their


6

Planning Commission the ability to grant waivers for certain things. It’s permissible and the

exercise of that waiver here is appropriate. This is a Site Plan application; it is not a Rezoning

and it meets all of the Code requirements. They would respectfully request that the Planning

Commission grant approval.

Mr. Swierczek stated that this is the continued review of S-19-01 Tommy Car Wash at 656 North

DuPont Highway. The review of this application was tabled at the February 19, 2019 meeting.

The application is to permit construction of a 5,194 SF car wash facility on the site previously

occupied by Kirby and Holloway Family Restaurant. Along with the Site Plan application, the

applicant had submitted a waiver request from the requirements of the Arterial Street Buffer

mainly to reduce it from thirty feet to ten feet. The available area for the buffer was reduced

since a portion of the property on this frontage area is being dedicated as right-of-way to Route

13. Staff continues to recommend approval of this waiver request. A public hearing on this

application was opened and closed at the February meeting of the Planning Commission. During

that meeting, members of the public had challenged the City’s interpretation of Code, mainly

Article 3 Section 29.5 which specifically lists prohibited uses in the SWPOZ (Source Water

Protection Overlay Zone) as well as the City being able to administratively approve the waiver of

the arterial street buffer. For these reasons, the body moved to table the review of this

application. In the packets, all members of the Planning Commission should have received a

memo updating the status of this application from the Planning Office. The Director of Planning,

Mr. Dave Hugg consulted with the City Solicitor who agreed with the interpretation of the

Planning Office in stating that the use of a car wash was not prohibited in the SWPOZ – Tier 3

Excellent Recharge Area (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The waiver request can be

reviewed by the Planning Commission directly. For these reasons, Planning Staff continues to

support approval of Application S-19-01 under the conditions as stated in the DAC Report of

February 6, 2019. In the motion, the members of the Planning Commission should act according

to the recommendations as described in the DAC Report and agency comments from February 6,

2019. Specifically, the DAC Report lists three recommendations found on Pages 6 and 7.

Number 1 that in an effort to eliminate any potential question of compliance, Planning Staff had

recommended that the applicant either move and/or condense the building so that all car wash

activities contained within the structure are located outside the boundary of the SWPOZ (Source

Water Protection Overlay Zone). Number 2 for the waiver request, Staff had recommended

approval of the waiver request as related to the Arterial Street Buffer reducing the requirement of

thirty feet to ten feet in width. The plan proposes a landscaped area with tree and shrub plantings

between the on-site drive aisle and the new street frontage sidewalk. The available area for the

buffer was reduced again since a portion of the property on the frontage area was being dedicated

as right-of-way to Route 13. Number 3 is regarding the historic sign. To further subsection 2.28

related to architectural characteristics of proposed buildings, Staff had recommended that the

Planning Commission request that the applicant keep, maintain and refurbish the historic Kirby

and Holloway sign in its current location on the property. The architectural characteristics of this

pylon sign including the shapes and arrangements of the five sign panels and the curving arrow

are unique and should be kept; however, the sign panels may otherwise be refaced to suit the

needs of the new business as part of the sign refurbishment. The motion should refer to act upon

these three items.


7

Mr. Paradee stated that the NEPA Case is actually on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and

oral arguments are scheduled for next week. That is another reason to not pay attention to that

case.

Mr. Holt questioned if the retention of the wastewater was satisfactory with Mr. Hugg and the

City? Is that going to be satisfactory to prohibit leakage into the groundwater? Responding to

Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that he would defer to Public Works but the short answer is that they

would meet all of the requirements necessary for addressing runoff or surface water.

Mr. Lyon questioned if Mr. Holt was referring to stormwater or wastewater? Responding to Mr.

Lyon, Mr. Holt stated that he was referring to wastewater.

Mr. Lyon stated that the City of Dover is a contract user for the Kent County Wastewater

Treatment Plant so we have to follow any rules that they have with regards to the discharge of

the effluent waste that goes into the system. The applicant will have to make sure that they get

the approval for that before they satisfy the Department of Public Works approval. Typically,

this is something that gets allowed into the system.

Ms. Maucher questioned if conditions are legally binding if the Commission makes a motion to

approve with conditions and those conditions aren’t met? Or can they not move forward unless

those conditions are met? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as part

of the DAC Report, the Planning Staff always looks to the series of objectives that are outlined in

the Code for Planning Commission when considering Site Development Plans and they add

recommendations. The section is titled “Recommended Additional Considerations to Meet Code

Objectives.” In this section is where we typically relate Staff’s opinion on any waiver requests

and any other conditions or safeguards that as the Code recalls are related to public health, safety

and welfare; comfort and convenience of the public; and dealing with residents in the immediate

area. The safeguards or conditions are meant to further express the intent of the Zoning

Ordinance and in this case there are three items that they identified. The first one is related to the

building’s position versus the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Right now a

piece of the building is within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The second

item deals with the Arterial Street Buffer request where Staff is recommending approval of that.

The third item is the historic sign. The sign that is on the property has been designated a “historic

or significant sign” in the City’s Sign Provisions. Those sign provisions do not indicate what the

long term of that sign should be. Basically, the designation as a historic or significant sign

allowed it to not be considered an abandoned sign meaning it could stay in place even though the

business that it was advertising was not there. For Recommendation 3, Staff is recommending

that the applicant keep, maintain and refurbish this existing sign. They think it has some

advantages that new signage cannot place; both related to size and location and that it is

somewhat fitting with the architectural design of the overall car wash. They think that it could be

refaced and be an asset to their location. In this recommendations section, the Planning

Commission can pick and choose or add others that they may feel are necessary to meet the

objectives of the whole public health, safety and welfare of the project.

Mr. Hugg stated that when the Commission makes their motion on this project, they do need to

address each of those recommendations and include or exclude them specifically from the


8

recommendation. Otherwise, if they are included they do become a binding condition of the

approval.

Ms. Maucher stated that there is a fourth condition for internal sidewalks.

Mr. Paradee stated that they have no objection to three out of the four suggested conditions. The

one that is problematic for them is moving the building. If you have to move the building back at

all you start to compromise the circulation and the safety of the operation. There is just not

enough room to push the building back in the other direction and at most they would be able to

move it maybe five feet. The point really is, why should you move it at all because the legal

conclusion is that this use is permitted in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone).

Whether it’s five feet of the building in it or all of the building in it, it’s permitted. They are

going to minimize it but they simply can’t move the building far enough to move it all the way

out. Their request would respectfully be that they comply with all of the conditions except that

one.

Ms. Maucher questioned the applicant’s position on the sign? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr.

Paradee stated that they intend to work with Staff to refurbish the sign. They think it’s a really

neat and cool thing and they would love to see it stay. They will incorporate it into their design

and retain the structure and shape. Their commitment is to work with Staff to make that happen.

Mr. Holt stated that if they are going to keep the sign maybe they can change the name of the car

wash to Kirby and Holloway Car Wash or something that would make more sense and would go

along with the sign that is there now.

Mr. Roach stated that he didn’t know if because they tabled it and brought it, do they give the

opportunity for the public to make comments. Responding to Mr. Roach, Dr. Jones stated no not

tonight. The public hearing on this application was conducted at last month’s meeting so

therefore there is no public hearing tonight.

Ms. Maucher moved to approve S-19-01 Tommy Car Wash at 656 North DuPont Highway and

the requested waiver (Arterial Street Buffer) and with the sign condition and the interior

sidewalk condition, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 5-0 with Mr. Adams

recused and Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based

on Staff recommendations and the clarification from the City Planner. Mr. Roach voting yes; due

to the clarification from the City Solicitor saying this wasn’t a use that wasn’t specific to this

actual location. Mr. Holt voting yes; based on the City of Dover. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based

on Staff recommendations to this application. Dr. Jones voting yes; based on the comments

already made and the clarification on some issues that were unresolved.

Mr. Adams has returned to participate in the meeting.

NEW APPLICATIONS

1) Z-19-04 Lands of Beauregard at 878 South State Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application for a parcel of land totaling


9

9,600 SF +/- located at 878 South State Street. The property is zoned R-8 (One-Family

Residence Zone). The proposed zoning is C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). The

property is located on the west side of South State Street, north of Wyoming Avenue and

south of Gooden Avenue. The owners of record are Andre M. and Jane J. Beauregard.

Property Address: 878 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-03-51.00-000. Council

District 2. Ordinance #2019-08.

Representatives: Mr. Lance Mears, Hunter Creek Homes

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Rezoning application in regards to the property at 878

South State Street. This is located on the west side of South State Street in the block between

Wyoming Avenue and Gooden Avenue. It is a property of 9,600 SF. Currently, there is a one-

story existing building that is located on the property. There is a driveway that leads from South

State Street to the rear of the property where there is a parking area and the property also has

access off a rear alley to that parking area. The current zoning of the property is R-8 (One-

Family Residence Zone) and they are proposing of the property to C-1 (Neighborhood

Commercial Zone). This is an area of South State Street where the zoning is fairly mixed; so for

example, the adjoining property to the north where there is an existing day care facility is zoned

R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). The building to the south of the subject site is zoned RGO

(General Residence and Office Zone) originally also constructed as a house but has most recently

been utilized as office space which is allowed under the RGO (General Residence and Office

Zone). Across the street we find another multi-tenant office building on lands that are zoned C-

1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and then also the YMCA facility that is zoned IO (Institutional

and Office Zone). The subject site was the subject of the Conditional Use application back in

2008 to establish a church in the building and that was approved by the Planning Commission.

The church was located there for a number of years but then most recently has reverted to a

single-family dwelling.

With any Rezoning, we have to look to the Comprehensive Plan and what that tells us about the

property. The Land Development Plan of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as the

Residential Medium Density land use classification and with that land use classification there are

a series of zones that comply with that land use classification. Most of them are very specifically

residential; however, it does include C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) which this property

is requesting. In the Zoning Ordinance when talking about Neighborhood Commercial Zone,

there are a number of specific uses that are permitted in the zone. They include retail stores,

personal service establishments, service establishments, restaurants and then some residential

uses. There are a number of things that are specifically prohibited, meaning that a property that is

zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) cannot have the following prohibited uses: fuel

pumps, motor vehicle storage sales or repairs, drive throughs, liquor stores, fire arm sales and

tobacco shops. The other thing that is unique to the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) is

that the floor area of any one establishment in that zone is limited to 2,500 SF. Planning Staff is

recommending approval of the Rezoning from R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) to C-1

(Neighborhood Commercial Zone) as requested. They find that it is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan for the land use classification. The Comprehensive Plan also talks about the

ability to have small scale commercial in residential areas. This area of South State Street is

adjacent to a number of buildings where residential buildings have been altered to then be used


10

alternatively as non-residential uses. The DAC Reports from the other agencies basically have no

objections to the Rezoning. A number of them do provide information about should a change of

use be proposed, some advisory notes about how to establish that use appropriately and the

requirements therefore are identified.

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

hearing.

Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-19-04 Lands of Beauregard at 878

South State Street from R-8 to C-1, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 6-0

with Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting

yes. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes.

2) S-19-02 Boardwalk Apartments at 127, 129, 133, 135 Roosevelt Avenue – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit construction of a three-story

19,824 SF apartment building consisting of 18 units, four covered parking buildings, and

accompanying site improvements. The previous structures on the sites will be demolished.

The subject area consists three (3) parcels totaling 0.828 +/- acres located on the north side of

Roosevelt Avenue east of North DuPont Highway (US Rt. 13). The property is zoned RG-2

(General Residence Zone). The owner of record is Miller Investments, LLC. Property

Addresses: 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-

000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000, and ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000. Council District 2. For

Consideration: Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction. Project is associated

with variance application V-18-11.

Representatives: Mr. Brendan Diener, Pennoni; Mr. David Miller, owner

Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a review of a Site Development Plan to permit construction of a

three-story apartment building containing eighteen units and four covered parking buildings and

accompanying site improvements. The previous structures on the sites will be demolished. The

subject area currently consists of three parcels totaling 0.828 acres located on the north side of

Roosevelt Avenue east of North DuPont Highway. There are two previous applications of note

related to the sites. In 2018, the applicant for this project submitted to the Planning Office an

application for Rezoning of 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue. This was application Z-

18-01. The Rezoning application proposed changing the zoning for these properties from the

then designation of R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) to the new designation of RG-2 (General

Residence Zone). The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Rezoning application

on September 17, 2018 and recommended the Rezoning to City Council for approval. At their

January 23, 2019 meeting, the Board of Adjustment reviewed application V-18-11 which sought

the following three variances. Number 1 was to exceed the RG-2 (General Residence Zone)

maximum lot coverage of 60% and allow the lot coverage to go up to 65.4%. Number 2 was to

allow the accessory buildings to take up to 38% of the side and rear yards exceeding the typical

limit of 30%. Number 3 was to allow parking within fifteen feet of a wall belonging to a multi-

family dwelling. All three variances were approved by the Board of Adjustment and it is with

these approved Variances that this application is presented to the Planning Commission for

review.


11

The three parcels containing four buildings addressed as 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt

Avenue currently contain a mix of one-family and multi-family residences all operated as rental

units. The applicant proposes to increase the number of dwelling units onsite from ten to

eighteen units by demolishing the four existing structures, consolidating the three parcels into

one and then building the new apartment building. The new building would be accompanied by

forty-one onsite parking spaces to meet the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance. Four accessory buildings are also proposed which are intended to turn thirty-one of

the parking spaces into covered parking. The remaining ten parking spaces would be located in

an alcove on the first floor of the apartment thus ensuring that they are also covered by the

building’s second floor. The residential projects are typically required to provide Active

Recreation Area under Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 10.1. Due to the properties size and

unit density, this project qualifies for an Active Recreation Area exemption for small

developments. The Planning Commission will need to determine if the construction of some or

all of the required Active Recreation Area is not practical or desirable and therefore will require

a full or partial cash-in-lieu donation for the portion of the Active Recreation Area determined as

not practical or desirable. Staff recommends that the Commission consider their relatively

limited availability of land on this site when considering if the applicant should proceed with the

cash-in-lieu option as described in Section 7 of the Report. Staff also recommends that some type

of screening should be required in between the parking provided and the neighboring residential

properties. The relatively close proximity of the accessory parking structures to the property lines

may necessitate consideration of increased landscape plantings and/or fencing. It should also be

noted that it appears that there may be existing fencing on adjacent residential properties.

Mr. Diener stated that they do not have any statements at this time.

Mr. Adams stated that his question relates to the large-scale plans that were provided. He is

curious to know and perhaps he just missed it, but he was looking for the easement that they

discussed at the last meeting and wanted to see where the easement went through the property as

demonstrated on these plans. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Swierczek stated that there is a

separate proposal for an apartment building also on Roosevelt Avenue and also by Miller

Investments. These are two separate applications.

Mr. Roach stated that it was stated that they believe there is fencing. Do you know if it is directly

adjacent to the other properties and what type of fencing is it? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr.

Swierczek stated that it would appear in the plans and also viewing it on Google Maps that there

is fencing on neighboring properties, but it is because of the close proximity of the accessory

garage structures that Staff recommended that.

Mr. Miller stated that they will be making sure that there is fencing for them. They want the site

to be very secure. He talked to Mr. Swierczek about the cash-in-lieu at their meeting. Has Staff

found out any information on the particulars of that? Is that something that they deal with

moving forward after this or is it part of this decision tonight? Responding to Mr. Miller, Mrs.

Melson-Williams stated that dealing with Active Recreation in the City is a little confusing at

times. Residential developments require Active Recreation and there is an area amount per

dwelling unit that must be provided. In certain instances, there are some exemptions and it


12

appears that this project could qualify for one of the two different exemptions. Depending on

which one you pick is then how the cash-in-lieu is calculated. In one instance, the cash-in-lieu

amount is based on a percentage of the appraised value of the entire property and in another case

the cash-in-lieu amount is based on what a per acre cost would be for the area that you are not

providing. The short answer is tonight what the Planning Commission should be focused on is

should they provide Active Recreation Area or should the cash-in-lieu option be pursed. If the

cash-in-lieu option is to be pursued, then they have to receive from the applicant an appraisal and

that appraisal is utilized to calculate what exactly the amount it. At that time, they can do both

calculations and determine which one may be more appropriate given the property. That cash in

lieu amount will have to be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement

Committee as well as back to the Planning Commission to accept the specific dollar amount. The

decision tonight is to either provide Active Recreation Area or provide cash-in-lieu. The amount

of cash-in-lieu is yet to be determined.

Mr. Miller questioned if the permitting process for the building can run sequentially at the same

time that this is happening or does it have to be prior to permitting? Responding to Mr. Miller,

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that if you are utilizing the cash-in-lieu option, the cash-in-lieu

payment must be made prior to the Building Permit being issued. So as part of the process to

finalize the Site Plan, that is when they would need to be moving through that process to finalize

what the cash-in-lieu amount is and get it back before the appropriate bodies to act on.

Mr. Holt questioned if there is another Active Recreation Area nearby for kids in this area within

a short walking distance of this site? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that

in the general area there are ways that you could walk to other places that may be considered

Active Recreation Areas but there is not a specific City park in the general vicinity of Roosevelt

Avenue. There are either areas that would involve driving to them or walking on what is a

somewhat noncontiguous pedestrian way to get to trail systems that would then lead you to park

areas.

Mr. Holt stated that he knows that the City has a number of small Active Recreation Parks

around the City, but he just wondered if one of those was in this area.

Mr. Roach questioned how difficult it would be to make it come to fruition if they did not

approve the cash in lieu just for the fact that he has the same question and concern in regards to

that are with the car wash, the Mazda dealership, River Chase, and the project that is going to go

down the street. There is absolutely nothing on that side in regards to activities for kids.

Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Miller stated that if he is talking about the financial viability of

the project, it wouldn’t happen.

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

hearing.

Mr. Roach questioned how close the covered parking garages are on the back side? Are they

right next to each other or is there any space in between each of them when you come around the

whole building? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Miller stated that there are individual buildings

so at the corner there are no buildings and then there are two more.


13

Dr. Jones questioned if the applicant is in agreement with the DAC Report and the

recommendations from Staff? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diener stated yes.

Ms. Maucher moved to approve S-19-02 Boardwalk Apartments at 127, 129, 133, 135 Roosevelt

Avenue with the cash-in-lieu requirement as well as the screening requirement, seconded by Mr.

Holt and the motion carried 6-0 by roll call vote. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff

recommendations. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr.

Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes; based on Staff recommendations.

3) S-19-03 Retail Center at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Master Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Master Plan to permit phased construction of a retail center

to consist of four buildings totaling 62,260 SF in three phases. The buildings proposed

include three retail structures of 19,200 SF, 19,975 SF, and 11,900 SF respectively. There is

also a restaurant of 11,185 SF. The property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center

Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The property is

located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and south of Leipsic Road. The owner

of record is Rojan 15 DD, LLC. Property Address: 747 North DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel:

ED-05-068.05-01-15.01-000. The project also involves reconfiguration of the property and

parking for the hotel located at 764 Dover Leipsic Road. This adjacent property is zoned C-4

(Highway Commercial Zone) and is subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection

Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Delmarva Hotels LLC. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.05-

01-14.00-000. Council District 3. PLUS #2018-02-02. This site was subject to a Minor

Subdivision Application SB-18-01 as approved by the Planning Commission on February

20, 2018 and granted a one-year extension on February 19, 2019. The Subdivision proposed

dividing the existing parcel of 25.01 +/- acres into two parcels of 10.007 +/- acres and

15.004 +/- acres. This proposal deals exclusively with the 10.007 +/- acre parcel to the

south.

Representatives: Mr. James Taylor Jr., Duffield Associates

Mr. Diaz stated that this project is to create a new shopping center at 747 North DuPont

Highway. This location is sometimes called the old Berry Van Lines site. It’s at the corner of

Dover Leipsic Road and North DuPont Highway. This center would consist of three new retail

buildings and a new restaurant. The center would also connect to an existing hotel that is

adjacent at 764 Dover Leipsic Road through a land swap that would occur between the two

properties. This project has been through several steps to get to where we are now. One of

those has been through State PLUS Review. Just today the applicant submitted responses to the

State comments which were placed on the Commissioner’s desks this evening. They have also

been through a Traffic Impact Study with DelDOT which he has been told that it’s in its final

stages and on its way to approval. It went through a Subdivision Application with the City last

year that is SB-18-01. It was reviewed originally in February 2018 and given an extension

approval in February 2019. This latest step is submission of a Site Development Master Plan

Application. A Site Development Master Plan allows applicants to submit a conceptual plan of

a project for the Planning Commission’s review and approval and then subsequently to submit


14

detailed plans for individual phases which would undergo administrative review by the

Planning Office. The process gives them an extended timeline for construction of the shopping

center. It is a useful tool to have for large and complex projects. For this project, Phase 1 would

consist of the restaurant, one retail building that is sized 11,900 SF, all of the site entrances and

most of the stormwater management areas identified for the site. Phase 2 would consist of one

more retail building sized 19,975 SF and then Phase 3 would consist of the last retail building

sized 9,200 SF and the last largest stormwater management area which is located to the east of

the center at the top of the plan shown.

There are a few issues that Planning Staff worked on with the applicant during review of this

project. One was the implications of the zoning. The shopping center property is currently

zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone) while the hotel is zoned C-4 (Highway

Commercial Zone). The land swap that would occur between the two properties would cause

both properties to become split zoned which has a number of code ramifications which Staff

examined closely to make sure that both properties will remain compliant with the base zoning.

Both properties are also subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) which

limits the amount of impervious surface which can be constructed onsite. In the case of the site

Development Master Plan specifically that limit is 75% if the project receives certification from

the City Engineer for Superior Stormwater Infiltration Design. The applicant stated that they

will work with Kent Conservation District and the City’s Public Works Department to pursue

that certification. Another issue that we are working on is the architecture of the new buildings.

Initially, the applicants provided photographs which served as examples of what the buildings

might look like and those are photos of existing buildings in other cities. Since then they have

provided Staff with one rendering of the restaurant building that is specific to this site. It shows

a Golden Corral Restaurant and that is what the building is supposed to look like; however,

they have not seen renderings of the other sides of the building only the front side. They

informed the applicants that they would need to bring the architecture of all of the buildings on

the site to future meetings of the Planning Commission for a detailed review. There are a few

other minor issues that they are working on related to bike parking, dumpsters, landscaping and

making sure that the wastewater from the site can be handled by the nearest City pump station.

They expect to handle all of these issues during the administrative review phase of the project.

They have a couple of Staff recommendations for conditions of approval which are related to

improving the architecture of the complex and also improving the pedestrian facilities onsite.

These are outlined in Section 9 of the Planning Staff portion of the DAC Report. Specifically,

the first recommendation is for architecture. Staff is recommending that the Planning

Commission request that the future architecture submitted for the site be carefully reviewed by

the applicant before submission to make sure that there are no blank walls that would appear on

the building facades. The second one is related to pedestrian facilities. Staff is recommending a

few specific improvements to the onsite pedestrian network that they feel would improve the

walking experience for visitors to the site, in particular the addition of crosswalks and an

additional sidewalk from Dover Leipsic Road. The Commissioners should act on each of these

recommended conditions either including them or not including them in the motion as

necessary.


15

Mr. Taylor stated that they have been working extensively with the Planning Staff and plan to

continue to work with Planning Staff as well as DelDOT and Kent Conservation District to get

all of the approvals necessary in order to develop this property.

Mr. Roach questioned if Mr. Taylor had any issues with the recommendations from the

Planning Staff? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Taylor stated no, the Planning Staff has been

great and they have worked through some of them. They understand the architectural

requirement and at this point in the stage with a Master Plan, you are kind of early on in the

stage of planning. As Mr. Diaz mentioned, the restaurant is proposed to be a Golden Corral

which the architectural shows. The plan is for the remainder of the architecture of the Golden

Corral to look similar to that but they will provide renderings for all four sides of the building

at a later Planning Commission meeting.

Dr. Jones opened a public hearing.

Mr. Matt Groves - PO Box 285 Dover, DE 19903

Mr. Groves stated that he just found out about all of this about a week ago that it was going to

get developed and he had a different idea. He is for the restaurant but what he wanted to do was

have it looked at to make it a drag track to tie in with Dover Downs. He has contacted Dover

Downs but hasn’t heard anything yet and he is going to contact NASCAR and see what they

say.

Dr. Jones stated that they have to consider the application as it is tonight but perhaps he can

engage in conversation later with the concerned parties.

Mr. George Wambold – 885 Dover Leipsic Road Dover, DE 19901

Mr. Wambold stated that he lives almost across from Lot 1 at Dover Downs. He is curious on

how far down the shopping center is going to come towards his house. Responding to Mr.

Wambold, Mr. Taylor stated that the existing hotel is on the top left corner (referring to the plan

visual on the screens.) Right now there is an access drive behind the hotel and the plan is to

improve that.

Mr. Wambold stated that he was under the understanding that they were going to put apartment

buildings in this area. Responding to Mr. Wambold, Mr. Taylor stated that at one point in time

there was the proposal to put apartments there but right now the only thing that is planned for

development is the shopping center.

Mr. Wambold stated that he is all for it.

Dr. Jones closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hugg stated that he would remind the Commission that there are Staff recommended

conditions and they need to be clear as to whether they are including them or not including them

in the motion.


16

Mr. Adams moved to approve S-19-03 Retail Center at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Master Plan as

submitted with the accompanying Staff recommendations, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion

was carried 6-0 by roll call vote with Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Welsh and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mr.

Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Ms.

Maucher voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes.

NEW BUSINESS

1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan a. Update on Project Activities

b. Review of Preliminary Draft #2A – Goals and Recommendations

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Staff continues to be very busy. They actually

have initial drafts of about five or six chapters. What was included in the packet tonight is what

they call “Preliminary Draft #2A of the Goals and Recommendations. This is the series of Goals

and Recommendations for the main chapters of the plan. Last Spring they started with how do

you like the existing Goals and Recommendations and now they are through drafting what are

the new set of Goals and Recommendations. They are providing them to the Commission for the

initial review. They would like to hear and comments or feedback on them. You do not have to

take specific action this evening on them; they just wanted to keep you in the loop of what is

going on. With these in fairly good shape, they are moving to working on the text of the various

chapters and delving back into the series of maps that also must accompany the Comprehensive

Plan. Good news for them is that last week they received the extension of the timeframe needed

to complete the Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan was set to expire in early

February. The State Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues formally granted the extension

at their meeting last week. They had actually asked for the extension back in the Fall. This is

continued work on the Comprehensive Plan. If you have thoughts please visit the City’s website

that they have dedicated to the Comprehensive Plan so that you can see the most recent

information that they have posted. They will be in the next week, posting this information for the

public to start reviewing and to remind them that they are doing a Comprehensive Plan since it’s

been a while since we had an Open House in August 2018. The other thing that they have been

doing is meeting with their adjacent jurisdictions. They met with Kent County, the Towns of

Camden, Little Creek as well as Cheswold and they are still trying to get the meeting lined up

with the Town of Wyoming. They continue to make progress and certainly within the next few

months they will be seeing what will be the draft document to begin the formal review process

for it.

Meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM.

Sincerely,

Kristen Mullaney


17

Secretary

This new IPA training course will introduce the real estate development process from the perspective of the real estate professional. Attendees will learn the ins and outs of what it takes to get development projects designed, funded, built, and completed. This course will give local government officials a better understanding of their role in the development process and how land use decisions and regulations can guide the growth of their communities in the future.

Course topics will include:

• The Real Estate Development Project Lifecycle

• Market Research

• Site Selection

• Real Estate Financing

• Asset Management

• The Role of the Public Sector

This session qualifies for certificate credit in the Academy for Excellence in Local Government Leadership.

COURSE INSTRUCTOR

Sean O’Neill, AICPPolicy Scientist, IPA

University of Delaware

may 3, 2019 9:00 a.m. to NOON

Check-in begins at 8:30 a.m.

The Duncan Center500 Loockerman Street, Dover, DE 19904

$55 Registration FeeIncludes refreshmentsRegistration Deadline

May 2, 2019

Register online www.bidenschool.udel.edu/

ipa/events/upcoming

COURSE INSTRUCTOR

Paul Bryant Founding Partner

SB Real Estate

Introduction to Real Estate Development for Local Government Officials

The Institute for Public Administration presents

https://www.bidenschool.udel.edu/ipa/events/upcoming

City of Dover

P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903

Community Excellence Through Quality Service

DATA SHEET FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF April 3, 2019

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF April 15, 2019

Plan Title: Minor Subdivision Plan for Kraft Foods Group, Inc, SB-19-01

Plan Type: Minor Subdivision Plan

Applicant/Owner: General Foods Corp. (Kraft Foods Group, Inc.)

Property Location: South side of West North Street and west of POW-MIA Parkway

Property Address: 1250 W. North Street, Dover DE

Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.00-01-12.00-000

ED-05-076.00-01-10.00-000

Existing Site Area: 105.6689 acres +/-

Parcels to be Created: Lot 1: 16.3949 acres +/-

Residual: 89.2740 acres +/-

Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone)

Current Use: Manufacturing facility (food products)

Sewer & Water: City of Dover

CITY OF DOVER

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY

D.A.C. MEETING DATE: April 3, 2019

APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North

Street

FILE #: SB-19-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning

CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP, Principal Planner

PHONE #: (302) 736-7196

I. PLAN SUMMARY:

This application is the Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan to permit subdivision of 105.6689

+/- acres of land into the new Lot 1 of 16.3949 acres and the Residual of 89.2740 acres. The

property is located on the south side of West North Street and west of POW-MIA Parkway. The

property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The owner of record is General

Foods Corp. (Kraft Foods Group, Inc.) Property Address: 1250 West North Street. Tax Parcels:

ED-05-076.00-01-12.00-000 and ED-05-076.00-01-10.00-000. Council District 2.

Existing Property

The property is the site of the Kraft Heinz manufacturing facility. The development of the food

production facility began in the 1960s and includes a rail-line spur that approaches the main

building from the south. Access to the site is from West North Street with parking and truck

parking areas in the northeast portion of the site. With the recent development of the POW-MIA

Parkway (West Dover Connector project), the location now has street frontage along the

Parkway. The site is enclosed by fencing (chain-link).

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This Minor Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide the property into (2) separate parcels. See the

following Table for summary of the parcels.

Site Building Area Proposed

Acreage

Lot 1 Open Area 16.3946 acres

Residual (portions of two parcels)

Existing

Building & Site

Improvements

89.2740 acres

Total 105.6689 acres

Lot 1 is the new parcel being created by subdivision an existing unimproved area of the property

City of Dover Planning Office

SB-19-01 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc.

DAC Report of April 3, 2019

Page 2

on the southeast side of the facility site. This large open area has frontage on the POW-MIA

Parkway; however, no specific access point has been determined. The remaining land area (the

Residual) is the existing location of the manufacturing building, vehicle and truck parking areas,

and a rail-line spur (railroad track).

III. ZONING REVIEW

IPM Zoning District

The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the regulations

of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §20 and Article 4 §4.16 as a conventional individual lot

development. The following table highlights some of the lot design standards for the IPM Zone:

Minimum Required IPM (Conventional Planned)

For All Permitted Uses: Lot Area Lot width (ft.) Lot depth (ft.) Front Yard Side yard (ft.) Rear yard (ft.) Side or rear yard which adjoins a residential zone (ft.)

2 1/2 acres

200 300

60 40 40

100

Off-street parking space: Per 800 sq. ft. of floor area Per employee, per largest working shift (if greater than the requirement under the floor area calculation

1

1

Maximum Permitted Building Height:

Stories Feet

Not limit Equal to distance to

nearest lot line

Floor Area Ratio Lot Coverage

0.5

75%

The proposed subdivision appears to comply with the IPM bulk standards of Article 4 §4.16 as

outlined for the existing development (buildings). Site compliance with the IPM parking

requirements could not be confirmed. Any future development of Lot 1 will be subject to these

bulk standards.

As part of the review process, Planning Staff made a determination regarding the question of the

bulk standard requirements for height. See the following statement from email of 2/28/2019: Thank you for the additional information about the existing building height. The following determination addresses the question of the bulk standard requirement for height: For the IPM zone, in Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 Section 4.16 (the bulk standards) list the maximum permitted Building Height as “Not limited” for the number of stories and as “Equal to distance to nearest lot line.” Thus, the Building Height is limited to the proximity (distance) to the lot lines. The Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Height: The vertical distance measured



Page 3

from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between [the] eave and ridge for other types of roofs. The Code does not provide guidance on how to specifically address Building Height when a Building has multiple roof heights for different sections of the building. Planning Staff has determined that the Building Height is limited by the distance of the specific building element/section to the lot line (property line). For example, a tower element being taller than the general building would require that the height of the tower is limited to the tower’s distance from the property line and the general building is limited in height to the distance the general building is from the property line. For the proposed project described below, it appears that the conceptual plan to create a new property line approximately 84 feet from the east side of the existing building would be in compliance (per our determination above). The taller tower-like sections of the building comply in Height to the distance of the element from the property line. Please include the height information and distance measurements gathered in the application/plan submission.

V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS

Site Access

The Residual parcel includes the existing main entrance/exit and a secondary access to West

North Street. It has no access onto the POW-MIA Parkway. There are no existing access points

to the POW-MIA Parkway for Lot 1.

Parking/ Bicycle Parking

The minimum parking requirements for the existing facility are based on floor area or on an

employee count of the largest shift. The Zoning Ordinance also requires minimum bicycle

parking of one (1) bike space for every twenty (20) parking spaces. The facility was originally

construction under different code requirements and may be non-conforming. The existing

property also includes several parking areas devoted to truck parking and loading facilities which

comply with the loading berth requirements. A detail parking space count of vehicle and bicycle

parking was not provided.

Sidewalks & Pathways

According to Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18, sidewalks or other pathways required along all

street frontages of the properties with certain types of development reviews; however, a Minor

Subdivision Plan submission is a type that does not require construction of sidewalks/pathways.

The subject site includes an existing multi-use pathway along the West North Street frontage and

a ten-foot width paved path along a portion of the POW/MIA Parkway frontage.

Landscaping and Tree Planting

Landscaping requirements are subject principally to the regulations found in Zoning Ordinance,

Article 5 Sections 15 and 16 and are also addressed in other various sections of code related to

buffering, screening, and open space. There are existing tree plantings and woodland areas on the

Residual parcels. The future development activity on Lot 1 will be subject to these provisions.

Flood Hazard Areas/Wetland Areas

The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11 includes limitations on development in Flood Hazard



Page 4

Areas (100-year floodplains) and in/and near Wetland Areas. In the southwest areas of the

Residual (parcels) are impacted by the Flood Hazard Area and a wetland area. The new Lot 1 is

not impacted by these areas.

VI. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:

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) Sheet 1: a. Update number of existing lots to be two (2) and the total number proposed to (3) if

Residual is to remain as two tax parcels. This accounts for the separate parcel that

exists along the western property line. However, as part of this Plan this second parcel

(parcel 10.00) can be combined into the Residual (parcel 12.00).

b. Update Item #13 – Bulk Standards to the IPM requirements for a conventional lot development. Currently, listed are the provisions for a Planned Industrial Park: this is

not a Planned Industrial Park.

2) Provide any available information on counts of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces.

3) Any existing easements recorded should be shown on the plan along with any new easements that are currently proposed with this subdivision. Ensure plan notes or labels with the

easements provide their reference sources.

4) The formal Record Plan will need to be recorded upon completion of the approval process with any corrections identified by the reviewing agencies.

5) The Final Record Plat submitted must include requirements described in Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article IV, C. Plat.

VII. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TO MEET CODE

OBJECTIVES:

The Land Subdivision Regulations, Article I. Purpose, indicates that the regulations are adopted

in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare;

ensure the orderly growth and development of the City, the conservation, protection and proper

use of land, and adequate provision for housing, recreation, circulation, utilities and services; and

safeguard the City from undue future expenditure for the maintenance of streets and public

spaces. Similar safeguards are also in the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and in the

Site Development Plan objectives listed in subsections Article 10 §2.21 to 2.28.

1) This Minor Subdivision Plan creates a new parcel with a Residual (two parcels); the areas remain zoned IPM. The Subdivision Plan complies with the Land Subdivision Regulations.

Other agencies may recommend additional conditions and safeguards in accordance with their

areas of expertise. The Recommended Additional Considerations to Meet Code Objectives are

offered for consideration by the Planning Commission.



Page 5

VII. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:

1) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Minor Subdivision Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Planning Office. These changes may require resubmittal

for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other

agencies and commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan.

2) Following Planning Commission approval of the Minor Subdivision 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. Upon

determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies

of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement prior to recordation at the Kent County

Recorder of Deeds Office.

3) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements.

4) The engineer or surveyor signing and certifying the Plan is required to have a City of Dover Business License. Contact the Permitting & Licensing Section at 736-7010 for more

information.

5) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision 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.

6) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process

is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover.

If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the

above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER



STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MARCH 27, 2019

APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street

FILE #: SB-19-01

REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments

CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric

Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works

CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 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. The roadway and curbing must be in.

2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade.

3. The property corners must be staked.

4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines.

5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications.

6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting.

7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department.

8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings.

9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense.

10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department.

11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department.

12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department.

13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property.

14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street File #: SB-19-01 March 29, 2019 Page 2 of 2

WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS

1. No objection to the subdivision of this property.

RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES

ELECTRIC

1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/.

WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / GROUNDS / GENERAL / STREETS / SANITATION

1. None.

ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT

ELECTRIC

1. Easements may need to be completed again due to parcel ID changes from this application.

WATER

1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development.

2. Each property shall be served by a single water service line which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner when developed.

3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed two (2) times per year during system wide flushing operations. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site.

4. Impact fees may be required for this project when developed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation that there were existing dwellings on this site connected to the City’s sanitary sewer and water system.

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. Each property shall be served by a single sanitary sewer lateral which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner when developed.

3. Impact fees may be required for this project when developed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation that there were pervious dwellings existing on this site connected to the City’s sanitary sewer and water system.

STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS

1. None.

GENERAL

1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required.

2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88.

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.

http://www.cityofdover.com/government/citycouncil/packets/https://imageserv9.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdfhttps://imageserv9.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf

CITY OF DOVER



D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 03/27/19

APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Group Inc. at 1250 W North St FILE #: SB-19-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457

THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT:

CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:

1. Proposal: Minor subdivision (Lot 1 16.39 acres and Residual 89.27 acres, Food Production Plant to manufacturing) This office has no objections.

2. 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: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, 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, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals.

C F I I T R Y E O M F A R D S O H V A E L R

SB-19-01

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 en

Documents

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April … · 2019. 4. 10. · CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April 15, 2019 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall, City Council