CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, May …€¦ · Mr. Holt moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was unanimously carried

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA

Monday, May 21, 2018 – 7:00 P.M.

City Hall, City Council Chambers

15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1) Conditional Use Application C-18-03 Kidz Business Day Care Center at 65 North DuPont

Highway will not be heard by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2018 due to incomplete

public notice. This Application 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 & QUARTERLY WORKSHOP SESSION of April

16, 2018

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS

1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for MONDAY, June

18, 2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers.

2) Update on City Council Actions

3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates

OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING APPLICATIONS

OLD BUSINESS

1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None

2) Update on Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning

Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28)

NEW APPLICATIONS:

1) C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy Day Care Center at 822 South State

Street – Public Hearing and Review of Application for Conditional Use to permit conversion

of an existing 3,526 SF one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 52 children.

The subject site contains three (3) separate buildings, and the Day Care Center is proposed to

occupy only the southernmost structure which is the largest. The property consists of a 0.585-

acre parcel and is located on the west side of South State Street, south of Gooden Avenue and

north of Wyoming Avenue. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The

owner of record is TVEN3, LLC and the applicant (lessee) is Latoya Boseman. Location

Address: 822 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-03-43.00-000. Council District 2.

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda

Public Hearing: May 21, 2018

Page 2 of 2

2) SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments at 100 Isabelle Isle –

Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit subdivision of

the 28.67 +/- acre parcel of the Leander Lakes Apartment complex into two (2) new lots.

Parcel A is proposed to have 22.94 acres (Buildings 1-8) and Parcel B is proposed to have

5.73 acres (Buildings 9 and 10). The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence

Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) requirements. The property is

located on the southeast side of Forrest Avenue, and southwest of Dover High Drive. The

owner of record is Leander Lakes, LLC. Property Address: 100 Isabelle Isle. Tax Parcel: ED-

05-075.00-01-05.01-000. Council District 1.

3) S-18-04 Dover Police Department Impound Lot at 401 West Water Street – Public Hearing

and Review of a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a 11,940 S.F.

Impound Lot for the Dover Police Department as a fenced area for motor vehicle storage.

The site is located on the north side of Water Street between West Street and South Queen

Street. The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is 0.78 +/- acres. The

owner of record is the City of Dover. Property Address: 401 W. Water Street. Tax Parcels:

ED-05-076.12-04-35.00-000, ED-05-076.12-04-39.00-000 and ED-05-076.12-04-40.00-000.

Council District 4.

NEW BUSINESS

1) Project for Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan

a. Update on Project Activities

b. Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations

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: May 11, 2018

1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION

APRIL 16, 2018

The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 16,

2018 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding.

Members present were Mr. Holden (arrived at 7:03PM), Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr.

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

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

Jason Lyon, Mr. Julian Swierczek and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. David

Edgell, Ms. Patti Miller and Mr. Bill Swiatek.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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

was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Holden and Mrs. Welsh absent.

APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH

19, 2018

Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of March 19, 2018,

seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Holden and Mrs.

Welsh absent.

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS

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

May 21, 2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chambers.

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

on March 26 & 27, 2018 and April 9 & 10, 2018.

OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

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) MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities (Dover

Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 and Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8 and Article 12)

–The Planning Commission on March 19, 2018 tabled action on the Review of Proposed

Ordinance #2018-01 of Text Amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 -

Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Lend Lease Communities; to Zoning Ordinance,

Article 3, Section 8- Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone; and to Zoning Ordinance, Article

12- Definitions. A Report on the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing and action to table

this application was forwarded to City Council for their meeting of April 9, 2018. Planning

Staff is working on the information requested by the Planning Commission; continued review

is anticipated at a future meeting.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION April 19, 2018

2

Representatives – None

Mr. Hugg stated that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered

Ordinance #2018-01 which is a variety of amendments to the Manufactured Housing and Land

Lease Communities portion of the City Code and Zoning Ordinance. This matter was tabled at

that meeting as a result of a fair amount of input and materials that were presented by

representatives of the manufactured housing community. At the Council meeting, Council tabled

the second (final) reading of this Ordinance, deferring to the Planning Commission for a future

recommendation. In the interim, he and Mr. Diaz have met and consulted with the Deputy City

Solicitor as recently as today in terms of the various issues raised and we will be scheduling a

meeting within the next few weeks with representatives of the manufactured housing

organization to discuss their concerns. There may be areas where they can agree or agree to

disagree and then bring a recommendation back to the Planning Commission that is a reflection

of that discussion.

Mr. Tolbert stated that you may recall that at the last meeting he recused himself for this

application. His recusal still stands for this meeting.

Ms. Maucher moved to defer action on MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and

Land Lease Communities (Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 and Zoning Ordinance,

Article 3, Section 8 and Article 12) until Staff has had sufficient time to collect the information

that the Commission has requested until the June or July meeting.

Mr. Diaz stated that it would help Staff a lot if they knew specifically which month she would

like to defer action to so that they have more of a target. Responding to Mr. Diaz, Ms. Maucher

stated that she would like to defer action to the June meeting.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Roach and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with

Mrs. Welsh absent. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to the ongoing work that Mr. Hugg has relayed

as ongoing and the Planning Commission would enjoy the benefit of that before they make a

decision. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; for

reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that we need all of the information that

they can possibly gather to come up with a correct response. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he would

like to be fully informed before making a decision. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously

stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes.

1) Update on Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning

Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28)

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they still do not have confirmation of the two potential

members outside the Commission to serve on that body, but they will work diligently to get that

confirmed.

NEW APPLICATIONS: None


3

NEW BUSINESS

1) Presentation on Delaware PLAN4Health

a. Guidance for Incorporating Health into the City of Dover’s Comprehensive Plan

Representatives: Ms. Patti Miller, Nemours Children Health System; Mr. Bill Swiatek,

Delaware Chapter of the American Planning Association

Ms. Miller stated that she and Mr. Swiatek were on the Leadership Team for PLAN4Health and

they are also joined by another member team, Mr. David Edgell. They wanted to present on the

outcomes of Delaware PLAN4Health and to also share some recommendations for the update of

the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

PLAN4Health was funded by the CDC. Kent County, Delaware was one of seventeen coalitions

that was awarded at that time. The project engaged the State affiliates of the American Planning

Association and the American Public Health Association and the intent was to get planning and

public health professionals to work together. The focus of the funding was to address lack of

physical activity and lack of access to healthy foods because these are determinants of chronic

disease. They leveraged an already existing coalition known as the Delaware Coalition for

Healthy Eating and Active Living so that they could get the different stakeholder groups and

sectors to the table that were needed for this work.

They applied on behalf of Dover and Kent County because of compelling health data that

showed that there were some local challenges. They were also aware that Dover’s

Comprehensive Plan and Kent County’s Plan were both due to be updated in the near future. One

of the aims of the funding was to change the way Comprehensive Plans are updated so that

health and equity are considered on the front end during the planning process. The outcome of

them wanting to change the process was that they developed some guidance documents to give

to Dover and Kent County. A few of the data points that were highlighted in the application were

shown so that they could make the case that there were health disparities and that there was a

need for some planning assistance. Kent County is the county with the highest adult obesity rate

in the State. They highlighted that the unemployment rate in Kent County exceeds that of the

State and the nation and also that there are 13% of the population living below the federal

poverty line which exceeds the statewide rate.

There were a lot of different moving parts. They conducted health equity mapping so that we

could see areas of the County where there were concerns about healthy food access, availability

of parks and open space and walking and biking. They used this to identify what they called

“equity hotspots” that they could drill down on more closely. They also conducted a household

survey of five hundred households in Kent County to gather data on health status, health

behaviors and the built environment. Then because community engagement was really at the

heart of this work, they had two three-day planning workshops: one in Downtown Dover and one

in Kent County in the Magnolia and Woodside areas. The intent was to have a forum where

residents could come to look at maps. They could give their ideas of what a healthy community

looks like and they could vote on different strategies that they put forth for consideration. There

are the guidance documents that she talked about. One they developed for the City of Dover and

one they developed for Kent County. They also wanted to develop some tool kits on areas of


4

consideration that would advance healthy new physical activities so they developed a tool kit on

shared use because they wanted to encourage the use of that in Delaware. There were five

hundred households in the County that completed the surveys. They learned that most people

have to drive at least three miles to get groceries. They heard that there are limited walkable and

bikeable destinations. She doesn’t think that it is so much a problem for the City of Dover but it

was something that came across in the survey. They learned that people are biking as a mode of

transport and not necessarily choosing that to recreate. They also heard that most people do not

live close enough to walk or bike to parks.

These are the findings from the three day workshop. These were the things that we heard from

the residents who dropped in and other stakeholders. We heard that a lot of people are shopping

at convenience stores and as a result, we should bring healthier options to where people are

already going. They heard that in places where there is a sidewalk network, there are gaps and

barriers. They heard that a bike network would be really helpful to connect destinations of

interest. They heard that there are not enough parks that people can walk or bike to and that new

parks should be created and that they should be linked to where people live with sidewalks and

bike routes.

Mr. Swiatek stated that the biggest thing that they want to talk about is really seven core

principles that came out of this plan to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan update. It’s

really for not only for Dover but for any Comprehensive Plan update that could occur. Those

involve health equity; the mobility for all modes of transportation; recognizing the health value

of the park system; community facilities that support health; food system planning; economic

value of healthy communities; and then land use with the compact mixed-use place-based types

of development. These are some of the highlights. There are twenty-three firm recommendations

for the Comprehensive Plan for Dover that they kind of dug through and said here is exactly

what language could be included to really put health at the forefront of that plan.

In terms of the population and demographics section, including relevant health and demographic

data into that document would be great as well as the discussion of the trends and then the

analysis of population just related to health. With natural resources, its considering health

benefits that are there to access nature, to access open space and to access the natural areas that

are around the city. Promoting access to the City’s natural resources is really the biggest

recommendation in that section. In terms of community services and facilities, restructuring the

chapter to emphasize the community services that are there and their ability for health

promotion. (He shared the Concept Plan that they created during one of the charrettes held in

Dover for Saulsbury Park.) You can see the variety of uses that could be there for people of all

different age groups with playground facilities, community gardens and courts. Easy access to

that park is a big feature of this concept design. There are bike lanes on the street, easy access

into the neighborhood and an easy trail for folks to recreate.

In terms of transportation, he thinks that most recommendations in this section focus on mobility,

equity and health. It emphasizes the non-motorized system such as pedestrian, bicycle and transit

modes because they promote healthy activity. Improving connectivity especially between

schools, between parks, between housing, points of interest and healthy food retail. Often times

we design a development that’s not really accessible to reach so improving connectivity is a big


5

part of that and they think it should be in the Comprehensive Plan. This Map Exhibit is an

example of what was created during the charrette that shows a proposed bike network in the City

of Dover that would create that connectivity for active transportation.

In terms of economic development, it’s emphasizing the potential for economic development

driven by active recreation, driven by healthy food retail and also something important as well is

pursuing an inclusive workforce development programs and strategies, especially for groups that

are economically disadvantaged. The relationship to health is to have good economic ability to

be able to afford healthy foods and education and so forth; it all is tied in there.

Perhaps what he thinks is the most important is land development. Promoting a compact mixed

use development really underscores a lot of this. If we keep developing in ways that kind of

spread out, we are going to be shooting ourselves in the foot to have that connectivity that we are

looking for in all of these other measures.

This document is available electronically at www.DEPlan4Health.org .

Mr. Tolbert questioned if he understood correctly that Kent County has the highest obesity rate

in Delaware? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Miller stated that at the time that they applied for

the grant they had the highest adult obesity rate. She doesn’t know if that is still the case but

when they made application it was.

Ms. Maucher questioned if they have gone through the City’s ordinances? She is thinking that

parking is one where there is a requirement for a minimum number of parking spaces which

encourages additional vehicles. Are there specific recommendations? These seem to be broad

and lack a certain what do we need to do to get this goal? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr.

Swiatek stated that they just looked at the broad Comprehensive Plan; they didn’t dig into the

Code.

Mr. Hugg stated that as was indicated, their Comprehensive Plan has to be updated this year and

recertified by early June 2019. Staff has been looking at the plan now for 2-3 months and

accessing where it is, what parts may need some additional attention. But starting from the

premise, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan is a pretty darn good plan and what they need to do is not

necessarily take blank sheets of paper and start over but in fact look at that plan in terms of

adding context and adding some dimensions to it particularly in a couple of areas. Health is

clearly one of those areas that they have recognized not only in the comprehensive planning

process but in the Restoring Central Dover planning process and a lot of things are going on

Downtown. The recommendations and conclusions that were identified early on here are spot on.

If you are a resident of the west end of Loockerman Street, your only real easy food choice is the

Family Dollar which has an interesting array of foods. You could probably meet your basic

requirements on a day to day basis, but he certainly wouldn’t describe them as fresh vegetables

and high-quality foods that we would encourage people to be eating. They primarily have

processed foods and canned foods and things that are probably not as good for you as you might

think. Related to that, they have also had discussions about how to reuse Brownfield sites in the

urban area in the West Loockerman Street area. This is also a hot topic in EPA with their Urban

Agriculture Program. He thinks there is a focus on health and that a being an issue that really

http://www.deplan4health.org/


6

needs to be incorporated in our planning. As we go through the rest of the evening tonight, they

are going to be talking to Commission about their strategy for revising the Dover Plan. He wants

to thank and commend the Plan4Health group for bringing this to the Commission. Not only

does it re-enforce the need to kind of think about some of these issues, but he likes the fact that

they have been given recommendations that can be incorporated in the plan to make the plan a

whole lot stronger; particularly by chapter. He thinks that there are probably a couple of areas

like that where the plan does not have a strong emphasis on health and it does not have a strong

emphasis on energy. There are some things that we as planners have learned over the last ten

years that maybe it’s time to take a look at our Plan and reshape it in terms of more policy

documents and less prescriptive. This is very appropriate and timely that we would be addressing

these kinds of issues, particularly if we try to revitalize older neighborhoods and first year

suburbs.

Mr. Holt questioned the smoking problem that seems to be everywhere now and if there is a way

to possibly eliminate childhood smoking in their teenage years and that would help eliminate it

when they get older. Now would be a good time because tobacco companies have already

admitted that they have been lacing their cigarettes with high grade nicotine to try to get people

addicted to cigarettes. Prices of cigarettes are really up there so now would be a good time to try

to do it. To do something like that would really be a major effort but he thinks that it would be

well worth everybody’s health especially young kids growing up today. You could do some type

of monetary reward system or some kind of job reward to get kids not to smoke. If they don’t

smoke by the time that they are 17 or 18 then they probably aren’t going to smoke. Responding

to Mr. Holt, Ms. Miller stated that it was beyond the scope of what they are doing but she knows

that they are groups in Delaware who are focused on that issue like American Cancer Society

and American Heart Association.

Dr. Jones stated that she did read through the document and found it very interesting. The

consideration of educational strategies is needed to make sure the plan works in the final

analysis. All of the wonderful ideas that we have from the 500 households who participated in

the survey didn’t really give a lot of information about the demographics of that survey. We are

going to be dealing with some individuals who need education in order to understand that it may

not be quicker to run to the Family Dollar store but it’s not healthier. For those of us who have

worked with certain populations, we know very well that because we say something it doesn’t

mean anything; we have got to demonstrate. Was there an educational component? Responding

to Dr. Jones, Ms. Miller stated that she would say they were able to educate the people who came

to the planning workshops, but she doesn’t know if the general public intuitively realized how

land use can shape their opportunities. So, by virtue of them having an opening presentation, a

closing presentation, putting some options out there and kind of talking to them about the pros

and cons for that smaller subset of people, she would say that they were educated. Beyond

Delaware Plan4Health there have been a lot of groups that have been working on the education

piece like the Delaware Coalition for Healthy and Active Living. They have presented to boards

such as you. They have worked with schools and different stakeholders. She thinks there have

been a lot of those campaigns and the beauty of this is bringing the public health and planning

professionals together because we have to shape the environments people are in. If we wag our

fingers and tell people to eat better but there is nowhere near them to get it because the zoning

isn’t supported or the land use isn’t supported, our education can only go so far. To her, it’s the


7

beauty of bringing those different professions to the table and coming at it from a programmatic

side, policy side and education side.

Mr. Swiatek stated that he would echo what Ms. Miller said and also there are just so many

places that you have those barriers and really a lot of this is just about giving people choice.

Choice to get that healthy food and choice to go to the park on a bicycle instead of riding in your

car. He lives in Bear, DE and they have a great park called Glasgow Park. This weekend it was

beautiful and the park was packed because everybody had to drive there because it’s a suburban

environment and because it was designed poorly in that section. This plan is about how we can

assist Dover with their Comprehensive Plan update so that same thing doesn’t happen here.

Mr. Roach stated that in looking at their research in regards to healthy eating, did you identify

certain areas within Dover that seem to have more places that are more prevalent in regards to

the options that they can have? Responding to Mr. Roach, Ms. Miller stated that with the

mapping that she referred to, they mapped a retail food environment index that was a ratio of

healthy to unhealthy or vice versa. They did do some mapping that showed how much of the

population was within a one mile radius of grocery stores. We were able to map that and then

they also from the survey they over sampled some zip codes and they could kind of see those zip

codes depending on where the questions fell out in terms of higher obesity rates and less access

to food.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Office does have the full document including the

appendices if the Commission is interested they can make it available.

Mr. Holden stated that he wanted to thank them for the work and bringing the information to us

tonight. It is helpful to hear you and understand it a little bit better.

Mr. Roach stated that he also wanted to echo that statement and say thank you as well. That was

one of his platforms when he was speaking about community involvement and things to be able

to provide people with other opportunities, not only just with health and recreation. When he

opened this document and saw Saulsbury Park he thought that is right where he lives. He

honestly does appreciate that and he would love to see that come to fruition especially in that

neighborhood because they have nothing else to do.

Mr. Tolbert stated that he doesn’t know if their department has any contact with the State health

department that deals with the problems of women, infants and children. We have had a high rate

of infant mortality in Delaware. Are you concerned about that and do you deal with the agency

that deals with that problem? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Miller stated that she has

colleagues at Nemours that are part of the Delaware Healthy Infant and Mother Consortium and

obviously that is one of the issues that they deal with. They didn’t address it in this plan was it is

obviously a negative health outcome that needs to be addressed. There are environmental

components to that as well.

Mr. Hugg stated that one of their recommendations that he whole heartedly agrees with is the

need for some kind of food hub or central location. Part of the problem is that we have surpluses

of fresh fruits and vegetables in places and places that have no access to them because they are


8

not convenient. He knows that the County has looked at the food innovation notation. He wants

to know if this group has any suggestions on how to get a food hub to come to fruition here in

Dover or Kent County. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Edgell stated that he is with the Office of

State Planning Coordination and also a leadership team member of the Plan4Health. Due to the

work that they started with Plan4Health, they engaged a broad range of stakeholders throughout

the agricultural community, food producers, and a bunch of different groups. Out of that, they

were able to talk with the Department of Agriculture’s new secretary, Secretary Scuse. There

was a report done at the end of the Markell administration about this very issue and the new

administration has picked that up and just held a food and farm policy forum about two or three

weeks ago and that was the essential question. They have a lot of farm producers and they’ve got

a lot of food production and planning systems that are complex in Delaware. It is really a global

system and really looking at how we do something like a food hub here in Kent County and all

throughout Delaware. It’s a work in progress but he thinks that it is something to stay informed

about. Hopefully, Kent County is a place where that can be successful.

Mr. Roach stated that in regard to healthy eating, the one thing that he has learned just by

working at Child Protective Services now and also working as a family crisis therapist at Booker

T. Washington Elementary School, a lot of times people that live in the income-based housing

facilities most of the time don’t have cars. He was always told that the issue is that our DART

system and our public transportation system shuts down so early that it is impossible to be able

to get to these places to get groceries and get them back home. A lot of the times that he speaks

to his clients’ family members and people in those income-based houses. They always say if

there was public transportation that would run later when people get off of work they would have

more opportunities to go to grocery stores to bring things home. A lot of times if you look at

Capital Park, Capital Green and Simon Circle areas you will find a Royal Farms around the

corner where you can get a box of chicken quicker than you can walk across the street to go to a

Food Lion. It makes sense, whether you would send the kids around the corner to go pick

something up as opposed to you getting on the bus and have access to transportation to be able to

make that. There is a difference between walking somewhere to grab something and then having

to walk back with the groceries. You end up with grocery carts in neighborhoods and then people

walking around with them. It is a difficult fix but he does know that every single time he talks to

people in regards to eating healthier they always say that if they had easier access or more

available access and time to be able to do these things they would. Most of the time they don’t

have time because DART shuts down at 5 or 6 PM.

Ms. Maucher questioned if the City offers incentives to bring those types of businesses into the

Downtown Development District? She knows that we offer incentives but are there targeted

incentives? Are there best practices that cities who are faced with this problem have adopted and

have worked well? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Swierczek stated that the Downtown

Development District doesn’t specifically target any kind of food type businesses; it’s more

business in general.

Mr. Edgell stated that it’s not a bad idea to think about that sort of thing. He thinks that when you

read the healthy food retail policy recommendations that’s really the spirit. They heard exactly

the same things that Mr. Roach was speaking about. The interesting thing about the food

mapping that they did is that Dover is full of grocery stores. But within walking distance of


9

where people live, there really aren’t any. The Food Lion in Gateway West is maybe close to

Lincoln Park but it is tough for somebody who doesn’t have public transportation or a vehicle to

get there. He thinks that it is an excellent idea to look at Downtown and all neighborhoods and

think about how to incentivize healthy food retail in those areas.

Mr. Holt stated that he used to take DART (Paratransit) to get places since he can’t drive because

of his eyesight but their fees have recently gone up. He doesn’t know what the reason for that is

but it’s eliminated a lot of people from taking DART. The price used to start out at $2.00 and

now he thinks that it’s close to $5.00 per trip. It doesn’t seem like a lot but if you are just going

across the street to get groceries, that is expensive since it’s the fee for one way. They are good

about helping people get their groceries from the cart onto the bus and then when they get home,

they would help the person get the groceries off of the bus. Recently, he has had to eliminate

DART because it got to be a little too expensive. He doesn’t know if DART was trying to

eliminate passengers or what the reason was but he would like to see them reconsider their rates

and get back to where people can actually afford to use them. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr.

Swiatek stated that he thinks that DART tries to do the best job that they can do but they are

really being stretched thin by the land use issue. His day job is with the Wilmington Area

Planning Council which is in New Castle County and they have done an analysis looking at the

percentage of the population within walking distance to a bus stop and that has been falling for

the last decade. Things are getting a little more spread out and they are having to spread out their

system a little more and it’s causing costs to go up. The ridership has been nose-diving in the last

couple of years because of that.

Mr. Roach stated that as far as with the state assistance, sometimes they do give DART passes.

It’s difficult because in order to go to apply for these types of services and to get some of the

assistance that we do have, you have to go way out to the State Services buildings that are

usually so far from everywhere where people are located. Now you have to go behind the Blue

Hen Mall which is where a lot of the programs are. It’s just a difficult task when you are talking

about healthy eating because sometimes for these populations, the main thing they are worried

about is just eating. So to think about eating healthy as well, that’s not on the forefront of their

minds. Just to know that they will either have money to get a provided meal or get a DART bus.

A lot of, it’s just that switch so maybe if we allow opportunities to be a little bit more accessible

in regard to those assistances. He knows people who will literally sell their food stamps to have

money to be able to pay a bill and then be able to save a little bit of that money to get a bucket of

chicken to eat for 2 or 3 days. They are not going to think about the benefits from being able to

cook and be able to have that food last longer because at that point, it’s an immediate need. You

deal with the fact that you tell a parent with 3 or 4 kids that they have to sit in a State services

assistance building all day. Have you ever gone down to receive any assistance? You are going

to be there all day. When you look at things like that, there is more to infrastructure in regard to

being helpful to these people that have to walk. Because like he said, he has a car and he will go

to Food Lion 24/7 to shop for his family but the people who have a lot of different barriers that

comes across as more than just a choice. Sometimes the choice isn’t that they want to eat healthy

or not healthy. Most of the time it’s just that they want to eat. He thinks that it is maybe trying to

tackle some of those outside barriers in regards to ways that are hindering people from allowing

themselves to be able to make that choice to have a choice at all.


10

Mr. Tolbert stated that he would like to thank the presenters very much and he would like to ask

them to keep the Commission informed as they further develop their plan. Responding to Mr.

Tolbert, Mr. Swiatek stated that they look forward to Dover really being one of the first cities in

the State that can implement this and really be an example for other towns across the State to

incorporate health in their Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Tolbert stated that it is very important that they do become successful with the efforts.

PROJECT FOR DOVER’S 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Update on Project Activities

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Commission has gotten a slight taste of what is the next big

project other than applications for the Planning Office and that is Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive

Plan. The current plan that is certified for the City dates to 2008. Lot of the current

Commissioners were not on the Commission at that time. Mr. Hugg has already mentioned that

Staff has kind of started the behind the scenes efforts in what will be the process to develop the

next plan. The Comprehensive Plan has a whole series of chapters on different topic areas and a

whole series of maps that go along with it. The document is available on the City’s website if

you want to start reading the current plan.

In March, the Planning Staff submitted their current plan for what they call a Pre-Update Review

by PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Services) review process that is typically utilized for

applications of a certain size. They also offer the opportunity for you to send your current plan

through and get initial comments from a variety of State agencies so that you have some data

about where you need to make improvements to your plan and information about new State

regulations that may have come into play since 2008. They did that presentation in late March

and they are expecting comments back from that process at any time. That will all go into their

process for creating the new plan. Planning Staff has been meeting to organize what their

strategy is for research, the assignment of tasks of the various chapters of the Comprehensive

Plan and to talk about what the outreach processes will be for that plan. It’s something that is

ongoing. They have a weekly meeting to discuss that so that it doesn’t get away from them. They

have actually already started some of the very specific agency outreaches. There are a number of

State agencies and other entities that they will be directly working with. So far, they have met

with people from DelDOT in their Regional Systems Planning section which is an office at

DelDOT that is starting to look a little more holistically in long range planning about the

transportation systems. They are going to be a data resource for us. We have already asked them

some questions and they have tossed some information back, but they will see more information

that way. They have also shared information with the Public Works Director and the Electric

Department Superintendent about those chapters that focus on activities that other City

departments are involved in and have a much greater knowledge than the Planning Office does

as to what our water system, sanitary sewer system and electric system look like today and how

they have been improved and what their plans for the future are. Mr. Hugg may want to speak

directly about economic development. He has been working with that and has some significant

ideas about how to approach considering economic development for the plan. Tonight, you heard

about the Plan4Health items which give them an excellent starting point for ways to incorporate

looking at health in all of the chapters. If you really look through that document, they really


11

setup a whole series of things that we can easily incorporate into our plan which just brings that

issue of health to the forefront at this point.

Mr. Hugg stated that they are beginning to think through the process of how to get input from

people who are subject matter experts and how do we get input from the general public who may

be affected by some of these issues like transportation and access to food. And more than

anything else, how do we set the proper context for what they are recommending in the plan

given that in many of these areas, the world as we know it has changed a lot in ten years and it’s

probably going to change a lot more in the next ten years. No matter where you look, you start

thinking what will be the effect of autonomous vehicles? What will be the effect of electric

vehicles? We’ve seen retail go from mom and pop to small strip centers to huge malls to mega

malls, back down to shopping centers and back down to neighborhood stores. You would not

have imagined ten years ago that UPS and FedEx would be more prevalent in your neighborhood

than the postal service but they are. There are all these things going on out there that they

sometimes as planners tend to miss because we don’t quite understand the market dynamics. In

the economic development arena they are going to be doing two things that he thinks will prove

to be very informative and also provide good guidance for our plan. One of the things that they

recognized that the education community in Dover was not really involved in the planning

process to the level that some of us thought they should be. We have five institutions of higher

education in Dover so in essence, we are a college town but we don’t see any evidence of the

college involvement in the Downtown. We don’t see those people being integrated into the

community. The education institutions largely occupy their campuses and do their job but we

have never really asked them what they think about the future economy of Dover. They are

going to have a big heads talking conference where somebody from each of the universities is

going to be asked to think about and talk about where they see the Dover regional economy

changing over the next twenty years to kind of get a better sense of should they be recruiting

certain kinds of industries or certain kinds of businesses. What is really driving some of what

they are seeing that’s happening? At the other end, they are going to be talking to the bricks and

mortar people; the property owners and business owners to maybe look at some of these

questions like how do you get a Green Grocer in Downtown Dover? That is a theme that they are

applying across the board in each of the chapter assignments that they are working on. How

would you set the context for the discussion so that you understand the thinking behind it and

won’t just start off by saying, we have five hundred miles of local streets and we have to do this,

that and the other to improve transportation?

Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet is a chart titled Evaluation of 2008

Goals and Recommendations. This first chart looks at the goals of the Comprehensive Plan from

2008. Each of the main topic area chapters has a series of goals; typically anywhere from 3-5

goals and there is a statement that is associated with them. With this chart, Staff would like the

Commission to evaluate the importance of each of those goals. They are asking the Commission

to use a rating system from 1-5 with 1 being less important, 2 being somewhat important, 3 being

important, 4 being more important and 5 being very important. They have also provided a

location for the Commissioners to jot down any notes or comments in regard to that goal or if

they think there is something missing. Certainly, any kind of notes helps Staff start to figure it

out. The first set of items focuses on the chapters of Natural Resources and Environmental


12

Protection and Historic Preservation. There is a chapter that deals with Public Utilities and

Community Infrastructure. The chapter on Community Services and Facilities is where you find

City areas and some of the other City type services as well as some discussion of things that

aren’t owned by the City. The next chapter is Transportation followed by a chapter on Economic

Development and lastly a chapter on Housing and Community Development. Staff would like

the Commissioners to take a look at those goals, give them a rating of 1-5 and they are judging

each goal in itself. You don’t have to compare it and come up with the priority number one out

of the entire list. Judge each one on its own merits and provide Staff comments.

What the Staff did not include in the packet is Chart 2. (Mr. Swierczek handed out)

Ms. Maucher questioned if these were the goals in the 2008 Plan? Responding to Ms. Maucher,

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that these are the goals that are in the 2008 Plan. They are

consolidated in Table 1-1 in the Plan which is the Introduction Chapter but then these goals are

very specifically for Chapters 5-11. The Commissioners have everything that they need to do

right on the chart. They don’t have to go in search of the document itself.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the second chart that was just handed out takes the next step

and that is looking at the series of recommendations for each of those chapters. Staff would like

the Commission to do that evaluation of importance using the same rating scale of 1-5 and again

providing some comments on each. If you look at the recommendations, they start to be a little

more defined as to project activities that you might think of but somewhat still very broad. Each

of these chapters has a series of goals and then under each goal is a series of recommendations.

Staff has kind of split them out into two charts for the Commissioners to start evaluating. This is

the Commissioners’ homework assignment. The Planning Staff has its own homework

assignment. They will also be getting a very similar chart which will also take a look at the

action items that were in the Comprehensive Plan in support of these goals and

recommendations. They will be working on a status of those action items. Are they done or

complete? Did Staff not start them at all? Or are they ongoing?

Mr. Tolbert questioned when the homework assignment was due to be turned in? Responding to

Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that by the next meeting would be wonderful. If you

want to be super anxious and want to get it to Staff by Friday of this week that would be fine as

well. Staff would like to have them back at the next meeting because this is starting to inform our

decision-making process about how this process for development of the new document will

transpire.

Mr. Holden questioned if it would be possible to get the homework assignment in digital form to

type responses in? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they can

certainly do that as it is an Excel spreadsheet but you can still use pencil and paper. Staff will

send it by email to all of the Commissioners.

Ms. Maucher questioned when Planning Staff expects to have their homework assignment done?

She is very curious to see what the goals were in 2008 and have we met them or exceeded them.

Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they can certainly see what Staff


13

has available for the Commission for the May meeting. Some of these are not quite as easy as

you think to answer.

Mr. Hugg stated that Staff is on the same kind of timeframe that they are asking the Commission

to be on. If you work backwards from next February, the draft plan needs to be to the State for

review in the early fall. They really need to use April, May and June to come to a level of

confidence and comfort with the goals, the recommendations and whatever the action items were

because that will drive a lot of the rest of the discussion.

Dr. Jones stated that the agrees with Ms. Maucher because for her it would help to give some

additional information so that she is responding a little bit more intelligently. Responding to Dr.

Jones, Mr. Hugg stated that they will certainly share with the Commission all of the things that

they are developing but he doesn’t think that any of them on the Planning side want to tell the

Commission what they want them to think. They really do want the Commission’s input because

they have a particular role in this process. They are the professional staff that is telling them how

the plan should be organized and what some of the objectives are, but the Commissioners

actually sit in judgment at most meetings of land use decisions and rezonings. They are more

important than what Staff might think of a particular goal. Staff will share the goals with the

Commission. They are not going to keep the Commission in the dark, but he doesn’t want to

influence anyone’s thinking. The Commission is also invited to come to the Planning Office to

chat with any Staff member about these topics. They certainly would appreciate the

Commissioners coming in to do that and they are also welcome to come to the weekly

Comprehensive Plan meetings as well. They are turning out to be held on Thursday mornings.

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS UPDATE

Summary of 2017 and 2018 Applications

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Summary of Applications was included in the packet. It

includes the summary of application tallies for 2017 and 2018. This chart includes all of the

applications for the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Historic District

Commission and a number of things that are reviewed administratively or otherwise given an

application number for tracking processes. They finished 2017 with a total of 77 applications.

That was slightly down from 83 in 2016 but it was still enough to keep them fairly busy. They

were a number of large projects moving through the Site Plan review process; some of which

have gone final. They have started the construction activity related to the new Residence Hall at

Delaware State University. They have been through the first phase which dealt with utility

relocation. They expect to issue the Building Permit for construction within the next few weeks.

It is ready to go, just waiting on them to organize all of their financing with that project. She is

not concerned that 77 is less than 83. You can see that for 2018 through four months of the year,

we are sitting with 11 applications. Hopefully, those numbers will continue to grow and we will

be extremely busy all year long.

Updates on Current Studies and Projects

• Downtown Parking Study

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mr. Hugg mentioned earlier the Downtown Parking Study.

There was a final presentation on that that Mr. Hugg can enlighten us about.


14

Mr. Hugg stated that the MPO and their consultant presented their final report on Downtown

parking. It’s one of those situations where the science and the perception don’t necessarily agree

with each other. The report basically says that there is plenty of parking in Downtown Dover.

Even in the busiest lot at the busiest hour we don’t approach 80% utilization. The flip side of that

is that the parking system that we have is convoluted, confusing and not very well organized. If

you were to venture into the Bradford Street Lot you would find four different kinds of parking

options depending on whether you wanted to feed a meter, wanted to try 2-hour free parking or

had a parking permit. There are a lot of recommendations that deal with simply making the

system itself more efficient and maybe eliminating some of the classes of parking and doing a

much better job of signage. With that being said, there is also a lot of interest on the part of the

City leadership where the science doesn’t necessarily support the perception to do something

serious about Downton parking in the way of perhaps a parking garage or some kind of parking

structure. They have initiated some discussions to get some better engineering and cost numbers

to see if that really does make sense. The Parking Study essentially says, some day you may need

a parking garage but probably not right now. The perception from 99 out of 100 people

Downtown is that there is no place to park. The Parking Study did do what some of the people

involved in the parking study process were hoping. It documented what the situation was and

some of the low hanging fruit that they might be able to deal with so you will see some things

happening in that area soon.

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Parking Study document is available on the MPO website.

Staff can make sure that the Commissioners have access to that.

• Research Update on Potential Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she has a bullet point list of things that they are working on.

There is an interest in developing a zoning classification that is specific to an airport or

aeronautic related activities. Staff, along with some other interested stakeholders, have been

looking at perhaps developing what would be an IPM-3 zone that would focus on those types of

things given the location of the Dover Air Force Base and the Civil Air Terminal and potential

options for air cargo opportunities in Dover. They have also been looking at the parking

calculation yet again and looking at ways to adjust that maximum parking limitation that we

have by looking at options for impervious surface coverage limitations instead of a number

calculation. Then they have the laundry list of what they call the Phase 2 fixes to the

Supplementary Regulations. That also includes a number of questions that have recently risen

again regarding the Sign Regulations. Those are the big topic areas that Staff are doing various

levels of research on and in the next six months the Commission may see more text amendments

for consideration.

• Certified Local Government (CLG) FFY2017 Grant Project and FFY2018 Grant

Application

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it was a grant that the City was a recipient of and it really

focuses on working with the Historic District Commission, but it is a grant that they received in

order to retain consultant services to look more carefully at the Design Standards for the Historic

District and what it means for modern materials. They are not quite sure what is going to happen

with that grant because they have not had the time to dedicate to it so that is a pending situation


15

at the moment. They also have information that has recently come to them about the next round

of grant opportunities with the Certified Local Government Program. That application is due in

mid-May. Again, it focuses on historic preservation activities, be it studies or research, not a

bricks and mortar grant. Because the City of Dover is a Certified Local Government, they are

eligible to apply for just under $6,000; it is a matching grant. Staff will be working with the

Historic District Commission to once again try to make application for those monies.

Updates on Program and Plan Activities

• Downtown Development District Program

Mr. Swierczek stated that in January 2015, Dover became one of the first municipalities in the

State along with Seaford and Wilmington to have a designated Downtown Development District,

specifically with the aim to incentivizing business and real estate investment. The area officially

designated for the City of Dover extends as far as Cherry Street to the west, Mary Street to the

north, just beyond State Street to the east and Water Street to the south. In total, it’s about 225

acres which is the maximum that the State would allow for this program. The main program is

managed by the Delaware State Housing Authority which grants rebates for both small and large

project investments. With the City of Dover, particularly the Planning Office, they complement

that by managing programs to waiver permit and impact fee waivers as well as business license

fee waivers. The Planning Office evaluates applications for those particular incentives. Over the

course of FY17, the City authorized $12,945 in permit fee waivers for 24 properties in the

Downtown Development District and this included 11 new homes. This includes the 6 new

duplex houses which were completed at the corner of Kirkwood Street and Reed Street which is

the largest residential project in the Downtown Development District. There are also new homes

on West Street, Queen Street and North New Street. In FY17, the City also waived business

license fees in the amount of $1,254.50. As mentioned, the Delaware State Housing Authority

receives from the State, a certain level of funding which the State decides for two types of

rebates, for small and large investments. A small project investment is considered an investment

below $250,000 and a large project investment is anything that is over $250,000. To date, the

State Housing Authority has authorized over $353,000 in small project rebates for Dover’s

Downtown Development District and over $153,000 for large project investments. For 2018,

there is an ongoing application process for the small project rebates; however, the large project

rebates have an application deadline for May 21, 2018. For moving forward into 2018, the

Planning Office has dedicated him to manage and coordinate the incentive program. One of the

main issues that they have identified over the last 2 years that they are seeking to address moving

forward is improving outreach to inform any potential investors of incentive opportunities.

Obviously, if you can reach them before they actually decide to invest you might encourage them

more.

Mr. Hugg stated that the Downtown Dover Partnership is aggressively in the process of trying to

recruit a new Executive Director and they are hoping to have some interviews before the end of

the month. They are also engaged in some strategic planning initiatives and looking for some

additional incentives. They have rewritten their Façade Grant Program and are doing some work

on their Architectural Design Incentive Program. In case you missed it in the newspaper last

week, the announced in Dover the initiation of the Unlock the Block Program which is a

statewide program for which the City is the pilot working with the Office of Small Business

Development and Tourism (the old DEDO) to provide technical assistance and some marketing


16

assistance to both property owners and potential entrepreneurs in the Downtown. There are a

number of things going on as well as the DDD Incentives that are part of that program.

Mr. Holt questioned how they are making out on the absentee ownership of some many of these

properties Downtown? People have inherited these properties and don’t live in the area anymore

and that is one of the big problems. Have they been receptive to some of the incentives to get

these properties revitalized a little bit? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that it is a

continuing problem. He will say that one of the absentee owners that the City has had a long

effort of trying to work with did apply for the Unlock the Block Incentive which is kind of a

competitive thing. He thought that it was very encouraging that that person came forward after

ten years of a vacant building that pretty much sat there. The good news is that probably half of

the vacant buildings that were in place on Loockerman Street a year ago have now been

occupied. They are seeing the number of vacant properties is starting to shrink in the first and

second blocks of Loockerman Street. People are starting to pick them up and use them for a

variety of business purposes. The four properties that are involved in the Unlock the Block

Program include The Loockerman Exchange, the Simon’s complex, a property at the

intersection of Governors Avenue and Loockerman Street and then one of the vacant units on the

first floor of the Bayard Building. We are starting to see some very progressive things happening

Downtown. The concern is to try to get properties that are in the first block north and south of

Loockerman Street on Governors Avenue and State Street to get people vested and interested in

them.

Mr. Holt questioned if they have been able to bring some of those property owners in on the

committee? They might actually have suggestions on how to get other owners more interested.

• Restoring Central Dover Community Plan

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an ongoing initiative. There are a number of committees

as part of that implementation that both Mr. Hugg and now Mr. Swierczek are involved in as

well as Mrs. Harvey that focus on specific topic areas. They focus on issues like safety, housing,

green infrastructure and community outreach items. As they mentioned earlier, the Open Streets

Event is somewhat linked to that Restoring Central Dover Initiative where they are helping to

support NCALL. Staff is helping support that initiative as well to really bring a number of

different programs and incentives and implementation projects to the Downtown area here in

Dover.

Open Discussion for Planning Commissioner Comments

Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she does have another item that is not on the agenda and it’s

kind of a heads up. Some of the recent actions by City Council in the last few months have now

mandated an Ethics Training component for Staff and for all members of the various boards and

commissions. Today we got a preliminary announcement of what will be the Ethics Training

dates. Some of them are during the day times and there are some early evening times but it will

be something that the Commissioners will need to participate in. Staff will provide more detailed

information as they get it. It’s a couple hours course that the Commissioners would have to

participate in. The preliminary dates that they received from the City Clerk’s Office are May 23,

2018 at 5:00PM, May 24, 2018 at 9:30AM, June 5, 2018 at 9:30AM, June 6, 2018 at 5:00PM

and June 7, 2018 at 9:00AM. They will work to get some more details so that the Commissioners


17

can select a time that is most appropriate for them. It is our understanding that they will be able

to pick the specific date. Keep an eye out on your emails for that. The City of Dover as part of its

Dover Code of Ordinances has a whole section on Ethics.

Mr. Tolbert stated that two small businesses recently left the Dover Mall but neither one of them

came into Downtown Dover for their new locations. One was the Jeweler’s Loupe and one was

the shoe repair shop. He doesn’t know why they left the Dover Mall but he can guess that maybe

the rent is too high for the businesses but they didn’t come to Downtown Dover. The shoemaker

is now located in the shopping center near TGI Fridays and the Jeweler’s Loupe went to the

Dover Towne Center shopping center. He doesn’t know if more businesses are going to leave the

mall or not but is there something wrong with the Mall? Maybe we can get some of these

businesses interested in coming to Downtown.

Mr. Holt stated that he heard that the hours of the Mall required that they be there were too

restrictive.

Mr. Tolbert stated that he heard that as well. One of the merchants told him that they had to keep

the place open seven days a week and he was getting tired of working. Also, the rent is high. His

point is, is there something that we can do to attract them to come to Downtown Dover to help

commercialize that area more? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hugg stated that he thinks that

the good news is that they didn’t leave Dover. He heard the same things about the number of

hours that their business had to be open. On the flip side, Pandora and another merchant have

signed leases for the Mall so that is kind of a normal turnover. In terms of Downtown, he thinks

that they still have a ways to go to overcome some of the perceptions that people have. He thinks

that either one of those businesses would have been an ideal Downtown candidate. We all

remember the shoemaker that was on Governors Avenue for decades where Blu Vintage is

located now. The good news is that they didn’t leave Dover. For the record, the Dover Mall is

going through a re-assessment of their competitiveness and what it’s going to take to continue to

make them a competitive facility. It’s no secret that two of their anchors are in financial trouble

and we may very well see one of them go out of business before the end of this year which

would be a real shame for everybody. There is an economic study that was done probably within

the last year identified potential tenants for a commercial complex in the Dover area.

Interestingly, about half of them have already come to Dover. Five Below, Kirkland’s and Home

Goods were originally targeted for a mall setting. That is something that we are keeping an eye

one. It’s a concern across the country that traditional malls are suffering and in many cases

closing. The loss of anchor or two at the Dover Mall could be very significant.

Mr. Holden stated that he was curious if there were any updates that are available relative to the

work to get the individual access off of Route 1 to the Mall? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr.

Hugg stated that was kind of what he was referring to in terms of the economic study that was

done a while ago. That project seems to have lost a little bit of its momentum; he thinks in part

because some of the potential clients actually jumped the gun and came to Dover. There is still

active work being done by private investors to figure out what level of tolls or other subsidies

through business improvement district taxes or some other kind of thing might be needed to

make that viable.


18

Dr. Jones questioned if anything was going on with the Schwartz Center that is positive?

Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Hugg stated no.

Mr. Roach stated that he has heard rumors of the hospital buying Spence’s Bazaar and

supposedly building a parking garage. He doesn’t know if it’s true or just people talking.

Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Hugg stated he was unsure.

Ms. Maucher questioned if the transfer of the old library to Wesley ever occurred and also if the

land transfer to Delaware State for the convocation center ever occurred? Responding to Ms.

Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated that the Wesley transaction has occurred. He does not know what is

going on with the convocation center. As Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated, there is an active

dormitory construction project going on at Delaware State right now. In the early competition for

that project, one of the people submitting a proposal talked about a convocation center as part of

a project that would have linked the Sheraton Hotel and the north end of campus. His best guess

is that Delaware State University has its hands full with trying to build a 620 bed student facility

and that the convocation center is probably down the road a ways.

Mr. Holt stated that he wanted to touch on the homeless situation in Dover. It doesn’t seem to be

getting any better and they seem to be around the library. He knows that they have been working

on doing something to try finding a place for them to go to. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg

stated that is one of those stay tuned topics. The task force is actually making pretty good

progress given the complexities of that issue. The development working group has actually

implemented a couple of actions that will at least help in the short term. One is through working

with the Interfaith facility. They have acquired 50-60 lockers from the YMCA as part of their

remodeling project. They are being put together and will be located around that facility under

shelter so that people who are homeless will have the ability to actually have a place to lock up

their possessions. It doesn’t sound like it’s too important but many of the homeless people

actually have jobs, but their problem is that they have to take everything that they own with them

because they can’t leave it with fear that someone will take it. That project is well underway and

we should have some things happening as soon as the weather improves a little bit. The other

thing is that there is now a draft for a Central Delaware Housing Coalition. It’s a new non-profit

housing entity, part of whose job will be to particularly address the affordable housing issue. A

lot of the homeless that they have talked to say they can’t afford $700-$800 a month for housing.

Their housing limitation is a few $100. Perhaps they could get into facilities where they could

share spaces and perhaps get the benefit of some services. He thinks that we are going to see an

announcement on that fairly soon. There is a new services map but he is not sure if it has been

put online yet. The idea is to identify and put on a map all of the services that are available to

people who are homeless. It seems to be a missing piece so that is making progress as well. He

thinks that they will be pleased with some of the initiatives. They are also working with the

Police Department on some quality of life issues. In May or June you may see some initiatives to

further improve the general quality of life in Downtown Dover particularly through a variety of

mechanisms.

Mr. Holt stated that some of the homeless people that he has run into aren’t actually from this

area; they have been coming here from other states. Why are they targeting Dover? Responding

to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that it is a very tough group to get a handle on. There is a core


19

group of people who are truly homeless. There is a group of people who are in various kinds of

accommodations whether that be a tent, those who are actually employed in the area and then

there is a large group that tends to be very mobile and right now they are in Milford. He is being

told that a lot of the groups that we saw here 6 months ago are now popping up in Milford. It

really is a network of where are the best services and they actually migrate based on where there

are quality services and people available to help them. It’s a tough universe of people to get a

handle on. The one thing that they do know is that there are about 200-250 people in the

immediate Dover area who are in some level of homelessness which could be a lack of

affordable housing who are otherwise employed and engaged. Their problem is not their

behavior or what they are doing; it’s the fact that they just don’t have shelter.

Ms. Edwards stated that she is very sensitive to the situations of the homeless that we have in the

Dover area but it’s concerning to her at the gateway of the City when homeless people are

standing at the intersections and collecting donations. She thinks particularly at the gateway of

the City when they are trying to encourage people to come into the Dover area that there is some

level of concern that that’s what they are being greeted with. Is there anything that we can do as

a City to try to negate that? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hugg stated that he wishes that he

had that answer. He knows that enforcement is one part of it and providing housing and services

is a part of it. It’s the condition of the physical environment itself. There are two or three

gateway plans that have never really been implemented so the gateways are particularly

attractive to begin with so it doesn’t take much to make them look really unattractive. They are

not populated by people on a regular basis who are shopping or whatever so it kind of becomes

the dead zone. He knows that the task force has been working very hard on trying to figure out

how to deal with a variety of those issues.

Ms. Edwards stated that it is a very challenging situation but it is concerning.

Meeting adjourned at 8:43 PM.

Sincerely,

Kristen Mullaney

Secretary

Ethics Training Sessions

The City of Dover requires members of the various elected and

appointed Boards and Commissions to attend an Ethics Training

Session annually. This annual training focuses on the City’s ethics

policies and procedures. The sessions are approximately 2 hours in

length and are in reference to the Dover Code of Ordinances,

Chapter 30 – Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission.

See the following link:

https://library.municode.com/de/dover/codes/code_of_ordinances

?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH30STETCOETCO

2018 Session Dates & Times

Wednesday, May 23rd at 5:00pm - 7:00pm

Thursday, May 24th at 9:30am -11:30am

Tuesday, June 5th at 9:30am – 11:30am

Wednesday, June 6th at 5:00pm – 7:00pm

Thursday, June 7th at 9:30am – 11:30am

Monday, June 11th at 7:00am – 9:00am

Thursday, June 14th at 7:00am – 9:00am

Tuesday, June 26th at 5:00pm – 7:00pm

Please RSVP to the Planning Office at 736-7196 as to which session

you plan to attend.

https://library.municode.com/de/dover/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH30STETCOETCO

https://library.municode.com/de/dover/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH30STETCOETCO

City of Dover

P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903

Community Excellence Through Quality Service

DATA SHEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF May 9, 2018

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF May 21, 2018

Plan Title: All Beautiful Children Learning Academy Day Care Center

C-18-02

Plan Type: Conditional Use Plan

Property Location: West side of South State Street, south of Gooden Avenue and north of

Wyoming Avenue

Property Addresses: 818 and 822 South State Street

Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-03-43.00-000

Owner: TVEN3, LLC

Present Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone)

Existing Use: Vacant building

One family residence with detached garage

Proposed Use: Child Day Care Center

One family residence with detached garage

Site Area: 25,482 S.F. +/- (0.585 acre)

Building Area: Child Day Care Center Building – 3,526 S.F.

All Existing Buildings - 5,903 S.F.

Existing Paving - 9,649 S.F.

Existing Sidewalks -737 S.F.

Total Existing Impervious – 16,289 S.F.

CITY OF DOVER

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY

D.A.C. MEETING DATE: May 9, 2018

APPLICATION: All Beautiful Children Learning Academy at 822 S. State Street

FILE #: C-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning

CONTACT PERSON: Tracey Harvey PHONE #: (302) 736-7196

I. PLAN SUMMARY:

This Plan is for review of the Conditional Use Plan to permit conversion of an existing 3,526 S.F.

one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 52 children. The subject site contains

three (3) separate buildings, and the Child Day Care Center is proposed to occupy only the

southernmost structure which is the largest. The property consists of 25,482 S.F. and is located on

the west side of South State Street, south of Gooden Avenue and north of Wyoming Avenue. The

property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The owner of record is TVEN3, LLC and the

applicant (lessee) is Latoya Boseman. Property Address: 822 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED-

05-077.17-03-43.00-000. Council District 2.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The existing site has 3,526 S.F. and it is currently a vacant building. The existing parcel has a

single-family home addressed as 818 South State Street and a detached garage that will not be

utilized as the Child Day Care Center. The applicant is proposing to occupy the existing vacant

building as a Child Day Care Center that will serve 52 children. Twenty-eight (28) children and

with twenty-four (24) additional children will be serviced in the future. The proposed hours of

operations are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm with extended hours not to exceed 12 hours 5 days a

week. A fence is proposed to surround the 1,242 S.F. playground area in the rear of the building.

III. ZONING REVIEW

The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the provisions of Zoning

Ordinance, Article 3 Section 1.14 (a). This building is not currently occupied as a Child Day

Care Center. A Child Day Care Center requires Conditional Use approval by the Planning

Commission based on the requirements noted in Article 5 §14 and Article 10 §1. The substantive

requirements for Child Day Care facilities are given below:

Article 5 Section 14 Child day care facilities. 14.1 General. In order to promote the development of quality child care outside of the home (day care facilities), the following two basic assumptions have been made:

City of Dover Planning Office

C-18-02 All Beautiful Children Learning Academy - Child Daycare Center at 822 S State Street

Final Report for May 9, 2018

Page 2 of 6

14.11 The establishment of child day care services and facilities, wherever there is a need, is a necessary public objective; and 14.12 Day care programs for children shall be treated as community facilities and shall be permitted to locate in any zoning district, provided that need has been demonstrated, state licensing requirements have been met and no physical hazard to children can be reasonably anticipated. 14.2 Definitions. Child day care facility. For the purposes of this ordinance, the facilities described furnishing care, supervision and guidance of a child or group of children unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, for periods of less than 24 hours per day shall be defined as follows: 14.21 Child day care center. (a) Any place, other than an occupied residence, which receives children for compensation for day care or large family day care home; and (b) Any occupied residence which receives 13 or more children for compensation for day care. Child day care centers shall be required to obtain conditional use approval by the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10 and to any specified requirement set forth in subsection 14.3 below, except in zoning districts where listed as a permitted use. 14.22 Family day care home-children. An occupied residence in which a person provides care for children other than his/her own family and the children of close relatives for compensation. Such care in a family day care home is limited to that care given to six or fewer children with a maximum of three children allowed for after school care. Such child care facility shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zones and shall be exempt from obtaining a conditional use permit and site plan approval. 14.23 Large family day care home-children. A facility which provides child care for more than six, but less than 13 children with a maximum of three children allowed for after school care. This care may be offered in a private home or in a property converted to the purpose of providing child day care. This form of day care facility requires the submission of a site plan application in accordance with the procedures and subject to article 10, section 2 of the zoning ordinance. If a large family day care home is not to be located in an occupied residence, then a conditional use site plan application shall be required in accordance with article 10 section 1 of the zoning ordinance. 14.3 Zoning criteria. 14.31 Number of children. Child day care centers shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in all residential zones. 14.32 Outdoor play area. Must meet the state requirement for day care centers. 14.33 Off-street parking/loading. One space per each adult attendant, plus one space for every ten children.

14.34 Signage for child day care facilities:

(a) Signs in residential zones

i. Family day care homes-children and large family day care homes-children. One wall-mounted sign limited to two square feet.



Page 3 of 6

ii. Child day care center. One sign, wall-mounted or freestanding, limited in area to 12 square feet. The planning commission shall consider the location of such sign as part of the conditional use review and may approve a lesser amount of sign area if deemed necessary by the commission to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular.

(b) Signs in nonresidential zones. Child day care centers within nonresidential zoning districts shall be governed by the sign regulations in effect for the particular nonresidential zoning district in which the day care center is located.

14.35 Licensing requirements. Child day care facilities must meet state licensing standards and must be inspected by the City of Dover Fire Marshal’s Office. A City of Dover Business License and a Public Occupancy Permit is required.

Conditional Use Review

With Conditional Use 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 relate to the role of the Commission in reviewing

Conditional Use applications: This property is located adjacent to a residential zone. ARTICLE 10. PLANNING COMMISSION Section 1. - Approval of conditional uses.

On application and after public notice and hearing, the commission may authorize the issuance by the city planner of permits for any of the conditional uses for which this ordinance requires, in the district in which such use is proposed to be located. In approving any such use, the planning commission shall take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and of the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular, and may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be required in order that the results of its action may, to the maximum extent possible, further the expressed intent of this ordinance and the accomplishment of the following objectives in particular:

1.1 Accessibility for emergency response. That all proposed structures, equipment or material shall be readily accessible for fire, ambulance, police, and other emergency response;

1.2 Harmony of location, size and character. That the proposed use shall 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;

1.3 Residential zones. That, in addition to the above, in the case of any use located in, or adjacent to, a residential zone:

1.31 The location and size of such use, the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout and its relation to access streets shall be such that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith will not be hazardous or inconvenient to, or incongruous with, the said residential district or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood; and

1.32 The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, the nature and extent of landscaping, and other improvements on the site shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings.



Page 4 of 6

If the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use, the use is granted as a Conditional Use

Permit. Such permits may be permanent, subject to limitations outlined in Zoning Ordinance

Article 10 §1.41, or be required by the Commission to undergo periodic renewal, using the

procedure described in Article 10 §1.42. Any Conditional Use Permit, permanent or not, may be

revoked using the procedure described in Article 10 §1.43 if the conditions prescribed by the

Commission in conjunction with the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit have not been, or

are no longer being complied with.

For a property seeking Conditional Use approval which does not need associated Site

Development Plan approval (due to occupying an existing building), Article 10 §1.8 outlines the

submission requirements. These requirements include a map of the property showing existing

conditions with the appropriate legal data and information about the proposed use.

IV. PARKING SUMMARY

Child Day Care Centers require one parking space for every ten children and one parking space

for every adult attendant. Based on the number of proposed children (52) and the number of

adult attendants (5), a total of eleven (11) parking spaces are required. The Site Plan dated April

6, 2018 indicates that there are fourteen (14) existing parking spaces, with one (1) handicap

parking space on the property. The parking spaces are located along the property line to the south

of the building. The project includes adding a proposed concrete parking bumper at the head of

each parking space. The existing parking lot does not include curbing.

Bicycle Parking

The site is required to provide bicycle parking. The bicycle parking calculation is one (1) for

every twenty (20) parking spaces. Based on the number of required parking spaces one (1)

bicycle parking space is required. The proposed bicycle bollard with the capacity for two (2)

bicycles has been identified on the Site Plan at the northeast corner of the building.

V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS

Access

The property has access from South State Street with an existing paved driveway that is partially

covered. The rear of the property shows an existing paved and gravel area that is adjacent to the

alley. From the placement of the angled parking, it appears that a one-way circulation leading

west towards the alley from South State Street will serve the parking lot.

Dumpsters

Dumpsters for trash collection are required for the utilization of the site. Based on the size of the

building, one (1) dumpster pad location is required. The plan identifies a 12x12 dumpster pad

location.

Sidewalks

Sidewalks exist along the property’s entire street frontage of South State Street. From the

existing sidewalk, the connecting into the site to the building is a paved area connecting to the

Child Day Care Center Building. A separate sidewalk leads to the residence.



Page 5 of 6

VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE

The existing one-story building is a masonry and frame building that is compatible with the other

buildings in the area. There will not be any exterior improvements or additions to the existing

building.

VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN

The submitted plan includes the Landscaping details. Based on the 11,690 S.F. development

area for the Child Day Care Center, a total of four (4) trees are required. There are two existing

trees in the yard area of the dwelling. All trees are required to be guaranteed for one year; if they

do not survive, they shall be replaced.

VIII. 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) The data column needs to be updated prior to Final Approval. Some of the items which need

revising are as follows:

a) Add “Child” to Day Care Center to read as “Child Day Care Center.”

b) Indicate the calculation of required tree plantings. One (1) tree per 3,000 S. F. of

development area.

c) Add note of City Planner’s waiver of upright curbing requirement.

d) Any changes recommended by the Planning Commission.

2) Provide the following information on the Plan Sheet:

a) Provide the tree planting calculation and the number of trees to be planted to meet the

code requirements.

b) Identify the location of required tree plantings.

c) Provide a note stating that the trees shall be guaranteed for one year and will be replanted

if they do not survive the one year.

d) Construction details for Dumpster enclosure and for the fencing material/height.

e) Ensure placement of signage and striping for the handicap parking space.

3) The 14 parking spaces identified on the Site Plan are required to be striped whenever space is

provided for 10 or more vehicles in the open.

4) The City Planner recognizes the lack of upright curbing in the existing parking lot area

and will not require the installation of upright curbing.

5) The appropriate City of Dover Business Licenses and Public Occupancy permits will need to

be obtained prior to opening of the Child Day Care Center.

IX. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 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



Page 6 of 6

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. To meet these code objectives, Planning Staff

recommends the Planning Commission prescribe the following conditions and safeguards:

1) Staff recommends the addition of traffic control signage and directional arrow striping in

parking lot drive aisle to establish one-way circulation.

X. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:

1) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee

may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements.

2) Following Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use 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.

3) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the plan occur in the finalization of the site

plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require

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

other commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan.

4) For a new use in an existing building, the requirements of the building code or fire code must

be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and the City of Dover Fire

Marshal for these requirements. The resolution of these items may impact the site design

including such items as building setbacks from property line, building dimensions and height,

building openings, and fire protection needs, etc.

5) 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.

6) The applicant shall be aware that Conditional Use Plan approval does not represent a Sign

Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site

or building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to

placement of any such sign.

• Currently signage from a previous tenant remains on the building. All signs that

confirm to the current regulations which are deemed abandoned shall either be

refaced with a blank or blacked out face or removed totally (including the supporting

structure and/or mounting hardware) within 90 days of abandonment in accordance

with Article 5 Section 4.11 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding abandoned and

damaged signs.

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



DATA SHEET FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW



Plan Title: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments, SB-18-02

Plan Type: Minor Subdivision Plan

Associated Plan: Leander Lakes Apartments, S-12-18

Applicant/Owner: Leander Lakes, LLC

Property Location: Southwest of Forrest Avenue and Dover High Drive

Property Address: 100 Isabelle Isle (Address of Clubhouse Building for complex)

Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-05.01-000

Existing Site Area: 28.67 acres+/- (Parcel was 30.00 acres prior to right-of-way dedication)

Parcels to be Created: Parcel A: 22.94 acres (Buildings 1-8)

Parcel B: 5.73 acres (Building 9 and 10)

Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone)

COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone)

Proposed Use: Total of 10 apartment buildings with 24 units each for a total of 240 units

8 apartment buildings and Clubhouse Building are complete

2 apartment buildings under construction

Sewer & Water: City of Dover

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments

FILE #: SB-18-02 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 the 28.67 +/-

acre parcel of the Leander Lakes Apartment complex into two (2) new lots. Parcel A is proposed

to have 22.94 acres (Buildings 1-8) and Parcel B is proposed to have 5.73 acres (Buildings 9 and

10). The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1

(Corridor Overlay Zone) requirements. The property is located on the south side of Forrest

Avenue, and southwest of Dover High Drive. The owner of record is Leander Lakes, LLC.

Property Address: 100 Isabelle Isle. Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-05.01-000. Council District 1.

This Report has been updated to reflect review of the Plan Set (Sheet CR-01, CR-02, and CR-03)

dated May 7, 2018 which further details the proposed subdivision plan. The original plan

submission (colored plan) is provided for reference.

Previous Applications

The Planning Commission originally granted conditional Site Plan approval (S-09-13) for a 240

unit apartment complex at their meeting in August 2009. Construction did not commence, and

the plan expired on August 31, 2012. Previously, a Record Plan was recorded to subdivide the

subject property from the Destiny Christian Church parcel creating a 30-acre parcel for the

apartment development. Another Record Plan recorded the contribution of a forty (40) foot width

area of property by Leander Lakes, LLC to assist in the creation the right-of-way for Dover High

Drive. This right-of-way dedication recorded in 2012 of 1.331 acres results in the current parcel

size of 28.67 acres.

Site Development Plan S-12-18 was granted Planning Commission Approval on October 15,

2012 to permit the construction of the Leander Lakes Apartment complex through the

construction of ten (10) buildings with twenty-four (24) units each on the site for a total of 240

dwelling units. The RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) has a maximum density of eight

(8) dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed apartment development was 8 units per

acre as calculated on the original size of the property. Following Final Site Plan approval on

October 14, 2014, construction commenced and as of the Spring of 2018 a total of eight

apartment buildings and the Clubhouse building in the Phase 1 area were complete and the last


SB-18-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments

DAC Report of May 9, 2018

Page 2

two buildings (Buildings 9 and 10) were under construction.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This Minor Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide the Leander Lakes Apartment property into

(2) separate parcels. See the following Table for summary of the parcels.

Site Building Area Proposed Acreage

Parcel A Buildings 1-8:

Total of 192 units 22.94 acres

Parcel B Building 9 and 10:

Total of 48 units 5.73 acres

Total 10 Buildings with

total of 240 units 28.67 acres

Parcel A is predominately in the southern area of the site where a series of eight (8) Apartment

Building and the Clubhouse with pool ring a central stormwater management pond. It has

frontage on Dover High Drive. The proposed parcel also extends to the north to encompass a

large open area adjacent to Forrest Avenue. Parcel B is the northeastern portion of the site

surrounding Buildings 9 and 10 and the north stormwater management pond. It has frontage on

Dover High Drive, but requires cross access over Parcel A to reach the site access point on

Dover High Drive

III. ZONING REVIEW

RM-2 Zoning District

The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and is subject to the regulations

of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §7 and Article 4 § 4.8. The following table highlights some of the

lot design standards for the RM-2 Zone for garden apartment dwelling development:

Minimum Required RM-2

Minimum Requirements per Dwelling Unit: Lot area (sq. ft.) Off- street parking spaces

3000

2

Minimum requirements per building: Lot Area Lot width (ft.) Lot depth (ft.) Front Yard Minimum side yard (ft.) Total side yards (ft.) Rear yard (ft.)

1 acre 100 125 30 20 40 30

Maximum Permitted RM-2

Building Height: Stories

Feet

3

35

Lot Coverage 60%

Number of dwelling units per building 24



Page 3

The proposed subdivision appears to comply with the RM-2 bulk standards of Article 4 §4.15 as

outlined per dwelling unit and per building. The calculation of lot coverage per parcel is not

listed on the plan to determine compliance. Regarding the density limitation of the RM-2 zone to

eight (8) dwelling units per acre, the applicant with this subdivision request continues to follow

the density calculation of 8.37 units per acre that resulted at the property following the land

dedication for right-of-way. Parcel A and Parcel B continue to have a density of 8.37 dwelling

units per acre. The previous project density approval for 240 units was granted based on the

initial property size of 30 acres (prior to right-of-way dedication process).

COZ-1: Corridor Overlay Zone

The subject site involved with this application is partially located within the COZ-1 (Corridor

Overlay Zone). The first 500 feet of the property is within the COZ-1 and is subject to its

requirements. The Zoning Ordinance details the requirements of the COZ-1 in Article 3 §26 and

its subsections. The Corridor Overlay Zone as a planning and growth management tool is

designed to foster and attractive, efficient, and economically vibrant urban corridor along Route

8/Forrest Avenue and Saulsbury/McKee Roads. To this end, more stringent standards are

applied to development taking place in the corridor.

Development of the site is not significantly affected by the Corridor Overlay Zone as the planned

development occurs outside of the overlay area. For the Leander Lakes apartment development,

none of the buildings or parking areas are located in the COZ-1 area of the site; only aspects of

the landscaping requirements will apply to this project. The site is providing the required

landscaping along the road frontage on Forrest Avenue and along the sides that are subject to the

Corridor Overlay Zone.


Easements

The plan will require cross access and other utility easements that are ready in place to be

documented on the Minor Subdivision Plan. Additionally, any additional easements to be

recorded with the subdivision to ensure the unified character and usage of the apartment complex

between parcels such as including cross access from Buildings 9 and 10 to reach Dover High

Drive must be shown; there is a cross access easement at the connection of Bliss Bayou and

Isabelle Isle to Dover High Drive.

Site Access

Residential developments over 150 dwelling units require two connections to public streets

(Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI Section A8). The overall apartment complex will

continue to meet this requirement with the two (2) access points to Dover High Drive (previously

referred to as Rinnier Row in S-09-13). Dover High runs down the east side property line of this

property and the Capital School District property. Dover High Drive intersects Forrest

Avenue/Route 8 then continues south to connect to Tribbitt Street.

Site Circulation

There are three named drive aisles within the proposed Leander Lakes apartment development.

Bliss Bayou is located along the Buildings #9 and #10. It takes access off Dover High Drive.

Isabelle Isle loops around Buildings #2 through #8 connecting twice to Dover High Drive. The

final drive aisle MacDonald Grove runs parallel along Dover High Drive east of Building #1. In



Page 4

the northern portion of the site near Building #10, there is a vehicular connection to the existing

Destiny Christian Church property.

Parking

The minimum parking requirements for this project as multiple dwelling/apartment buildings is

two (2) parking spaces for every dwelling unit, one for every 200 S.F. of office space, and 0.25

for every dwelling unit for guest parking. Based on the number of proposed 240 dwelling units

and office of 600 S.F., a total of 543 parking spaces were required. There are eighteen (18)

handicap parking spaces located throughout the complex. The site is also providing five (5)

parking spaces for the use of the leasing office. Each proposed parcel includes areas of parking.

Bicycle Parking

The minimum bicycle parking is one (1) bike space for every twenty (20) parking spaces. Based

on the number of parking spaces, a minimum of 28 bicycle parking spaces are required. The

development Plan places bicycle parking racks in front of most, but not all, apartment buildings;

thus, each parcel will include bicycle parking opportunities.

Sidewalks & Pathways

According to Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18, sidewalks required along all street frontages of

the properties with certain types of development reviews. The subject site provides sidewalks on

Dover High Drive and a multi-use path along Forrest Avenue. There are sidewalk connections

leading into the site from Dover High Drive.

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.

VI. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:




1) The colored concept plan sheet presented is for reference and understanding of the proposed

subdivision. The formal Record Plan set will be the sheets that will be recorded upon

completion of the approval process.

2) Cover Sheet CR-01:

a. Update sheet title and title block to be Kent County (not Kent Castle County).

b. Correct the Parcel labels on the drawing as the incorrect acreage is list for each.

c. On the drawing at the COZ-1 boundary line clarify the zoning on both sides of the

line i.e. on the north side the zoning is RM-2 and COZ-1 (and R-10 with COZ-1

for adjoining property).

d. Clarify the note box giving the previous Record Plan recordation details. This

information should be presented in the Plan data column with the information

name of the plan it refers to.

e. Item 4: Also list size of parcel in square feet.



Page 5

f. Item 9: Add note that Landscape Plan is part of Site Plan S-12-15.

g. Item 10: Provide proposed lot coverage per parcel (Parcel A and Parcel B).

h. Item 11: Refer to Site Plan S-12-15 Leander Lakes Apartments.

i. engineer certifications, etc.

j. List zoning of property.

k. In title block, including owner’s address as in Maryland.

3) Sheets CR-02 and CR-03:

a. Clearly label each of the proposed parcels. It appears that letters and numbers are

being used.

b. Label the new proposed property lines (to create Parcel B).

4) There are several existing easements recorded with previous Record Plans that are indicated

on Sheets CR-02 and CR-03. Check status of all easements; clarify which are “new” being

proposed by this plan. For example, update the notes regarding several drainage easements

and the permanent easement dedicated to the State along Dover High Drive to indicate the

previous action that recorded them. Ensure plan notes or labels with the easements provide

their reference sources.

5) The Record Plan identifies the fifty-foot conservation easement and associated agricultural

practices notes due to the property’s proximity to the Agricultural Preservation District.

6) 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 two parcels out of one parcel; the areas remain zoned

RM-2 and partially subject to the COZ-1 zone. 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.

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



Page 6

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) Any future property line alterations not recorded with the current application will also be

subject to Planning Commission review.

6) 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.

7) 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.



CITY OF DOVER



STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MAY 2, 2018

APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes 100 Isabelle Isle

FILE #: SB-18-02

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 for Leander Lakes 100 Isabelle Isle File #: SB-18-02 May 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2

WATER / WASTEWATER

1. The existing easements that are in place shall be re-recorded to the new property.

STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL

1. None.

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. None

WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS

1. None.

SANITATION

1. The solid waste on these properties shall be served by a private contractor.

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/

CITY OF DOVER



D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 05/09/18

APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Leander Lakes Apts 100 Isabelle Isle FILE #: SB-18-02 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. 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)

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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.

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

SB-18-02

5. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in

reference to this process.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan.

ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL:

1. This office has no objection 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.

CITY OF DOVER




===============================================================

APPLICATION: Leander Lakes Apartments

FILE#: SB-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT

CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 760-2768

===============================================================

The reasons and conditions applied to this project and their sources are itemized below: Comment:

1. No Comment to the minor subdivision.

D

E

L

D

O

T

CITY OF DOVER



May 2018

APPLICATION: Leander Lakes Apartments FILE #: SB -18-02

REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District

CONTACT PERSON: Jessica L. Verchick, EIT PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3

THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND

COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE

FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE

APPLICANT:

Source: 2014 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations

CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS:

1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the minor subdivision of the above referenced site.

ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT:

1. A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land

disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

City of Dover



DATA SHEET FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW



Plan Title: Dover Police Impound Lot, S-18-04

Plan Type: Site Development Plan

Owner of Record: City of Dover

Location: Northwest corner of West Water Street and South Queen Street

Addresses: 401 & 415 West Water Street

Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.12-04-40.00-000, ED-05-076.12-04-39.00-000, and ED-05-076.12-

04-35.00-000

Site Area: 54,162.9 SF (1.24 acres)

Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone)

Existing Uses: Vacant; stormwater facility

Proposed Use: Police Impound Lot on center and west parcels; east parcel to remain stormwater

facility

Building Areas: None

Impervious Areas: Existing – None

Proposed – 12,471 SF (31.1% of center parcel and 17.2% of west parcel)

Off Street Parking: Required – None

Proposed – Unknown

Sanitary Facilities: City of Dover

Water Supply: City of Dover

Waivers Requested: None

Waivers that may

need to be requested: Elimination of curbing requirements

CITY OF DOVER




APPLICATION: Dover Police Impound Lot at 401 West Water Street

FILE #: S-18-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office

CONTACTS: Eddie Diaz, AICP, Planner I PHONE #: (302) 736-7196

I. PLAN SUMMARY

Review of a Site Development Plan application to permit construction of a 11,801 S.F. Impound

Lot for the Dover Police Department as a fenced area for motor vehicle storage. The site is

located on the north side of Water Street between West Street and South Queen Street. The

property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is 1.24 +/- acres. The owner of record is

the City of Dover. Property Address: 401 West Water Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.12-04-

35.00-000, ED-05-076.12-04-39.00-000 and ED-05-076.12-04-40.00-000. Council District 4.

Note: This Report reflects review of a revised plan received on May 11, 2018. The size of the

Impound Lot was reduced and its location revised.

Previous Applications

The most recent development application related to the Dover Police Department headquarters

was S-02-03, approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2002. This project replaced

an existing police warehouse on the site with a larger one and associated parking. The new

warehouse is located west of the Impound Lot proposed in the present application. Additional

previous applications include S-94-25, an addition to the main police station building approved

in December 1994, and the Justice of the Peace Court approved in December 1996.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Queen Street and West Water Street.

The City of Dover owns all the land bound by these two streets, Bank Lane, and South West

Street, except the Delaware Justice of the Peace Court (building footprint). The developed City

land is used as the headquarters of the Dover Police Department. The three parcels subject to this

application include the remaining developable land within the block. They are listed on the

application as follows:

• Parcel 39: a 33,522.1 SF vacant lot located in the center of the site. This parcel was last

used for several small residential buildings demolished around 2003. Under the current

plan it is proposed to be developed with the larger part of an 11,801 SF Impound Lot,

connected to the Police Station’s east entrance drive via a 670 SF +/- driveway. The


S-18-04 Dover Police Impound Lot


Page 3 of 8

Impound Lot is to be surrounded by an 8-foot high chain link fence with slats and barbed

wire. Also proposed for this parcel are a new bioretention area and five new trees.

• Parcel 35: an 11,990.5 SF vacant lot located at the west end of the site. This parcel was

last used for a one-family residence demolished around 2015. It is proposed for

development with the west end of the Impound Lot in this application.

• Parcel 40: an 8,650.3 SF lot located at the east end of the site. This parcel is used as a

bioretention area, with the outfall coming from a drain on the east entrance drive. The

plan proposes adding some new riprap to this bioretention area but otherwise leaving it as

is.

Nearby uses include the old Chesapeake Utilities campus to the north of the Police Station, an

academic building owned by Wesley College to the northeast, several large apartment buildings

and small commercial office uses to the east, the Kent Correction Institute to the southeast, the

Dover Transit Center to the south, and the Eden Hill Farm TND across the railroad tracks to the

west.

A Revised Plan was received on May 11, 2018 showing the current east-west orientation of the

Impound Lot. The original submission had the Lot oriented north-south instead, so that it was

entirely contained within Lot 39. This revision was made following discussion between Planning

Staff and the City Department of Public Works and the City Police Department (acting as the

applicants) concerning the future development potential of the corner of West Water Street and

South Queen Street.

III. ZONING REVIEW

IO Zoning District

The development site is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the regulations

of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §10. Motor vehicle storage facilities accessory to a public or

institutional use are considered a permitted accessory use in the IO Zone. However, the Impound

lot will be the primary use on its parcel. Therefore, the Impound Lot can alternatively be

permitted by considering it a type of Police Station use as well as a vehicle storage use. Police

Stations are among the institutional uses specifically permitted in the IO Zone.

SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone)

Most of Parcel 40 and the northeast corner of Parcel 39 are located within the SWPOZ (Tier 3:

Excellent Recharge Area) and as such would ordinarily be subject to Article 3 §29 of the Zoning

Ordinance. However, according to Article 3 §29.79, areas within the “downtown redevelopment

target area” as defined in Appendix C- Downtown Redevelopment of the Dover Code of

Ordinances are exempt from the requirements and restrictions of the SWPOZ. As the project site

is within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area, it is not required to comply with the 30%

maximum impervious area normally required by the SWPOZ.

IV. PARKING SUMMARY

The proposed Impound Lot is intended to replace an existing Impound Lot of similar size at the

rear of Schutte Park. According to the applicant, the existing Lot typically has ten to fifteen cars

in it at any given time, and the same would be true for the new Lot. The Lot is large enough to fit

more cars; however, as a vehicle storage use, the Impound Lot is not considered “parking,” under



Page 4 of 8

the Zoning Ordinance, i.e. a place for semi-public temporary placement of vehicles by

employees, residents, or visitors. It is therefore not subject to most of the regulations in the

Zoning Ordinance pertaining to parking, including those that would put a minimum or maximum

number on the vehicles to be stored.

No loading spaces or bicycle parking spaces are required for the use.


Adopted Plans

This site is within the area addressed by the 2011 Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and

Design Book. The purpose of this plan is to guide development around the transit center site,

with the goals of using the transit center as an anchor for mixed use development, encouraging

new development in the area that compliments the existing historic architecture of Dover, and

improving the gateways to downtown, among others. The corner of South Queen Street and West

Water Street is identified as a gateway due to its immediate proximity to the transit center.

Accordingly, the plan’s conceptual development build-out has part of the proposed Impound Lot

site developed with a prominent, corner-occupying building.

The Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan also contains recommendations for the design of

parking lots. While the Impound Lot may not be considered a parking lot under code, it is a

similar enough use that the recommendations may still apply. Some of the recommendations

include that access to parking lots should be off minor streets and alleyways if possible, that

surface parking should be located at the rear of a building if possible, and that surface parking

should be screened from the public right of way by landscaping, fencing, or architectural

detailing.

Entrances and Drive Aisles

While the Impound Lot is not considered parking, the 670 SF +/- entrance is still considered an

access drive subject to all the appropriate regulations for drive aisles. According to the Zoning

Ordinance, Article 6 §3.6, it is required to have upright curbing and to be composed of a hard,

paved surface. These requirements may not currently be met if the drive has depressed curbing.

Possible Waiver Request: Elimination of Upright Curbing

According to the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planner may relax the upright curbing requirement

for a portion of a parking or drive area when there is a demonstrated need to convey stormwater

to a proposed or approved stormwater management area. Authority for granting this waiver no

longer rests with the Planning Commission. The applicant has not provided a written waiver

request but may submit one directly to the City Planner at any time for consideration.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations

The Impound Lot is not intended to be open to the public, so direct pedestrian and bicycle access

to it is not needed. Both West Water Street and South Queen Street have existing sidewalk

frontage. In addition, the Police Station overall will be served by the West Street Trail, a multi-

use trail currently under construction, which will connect from the end of the existing North

Street Trail at the intersection of South West Street and West North Street down to the Dover

Transit Center. The Transit Center itself presents another opportunity for people to reach the site

without using a car.



Page 5 of 8

There are some concerns that the sidewalk along West Water Street is of poor quality. DelDOT

may require this sidewalk to be repaired, and the adjacent curb cuts for the driveways of the

demolished houses to be removed.

Lighting

The Site Plan does not currently propose any new lighting. According to the Zoning Ordinance,

Article 5 §7.1, minimum lighting is only required for commercial uses, so for this institutional

use any additional lighting only needs to light the site to the owner’s satisfaction. The applicant

has stated a desire to avoid lighting, so attention is not drawn to the site. Security is instead

proposed to be provided by a security camera.

Dumpsters

According to Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §6.12 the proposed use is not required to provide a

specific number of dumpsters. Therefore, the site must provide trash and recycling receptacles

sufficient to address the needs of the site. The Impound Lot is not expected to generate any trash,

and accordingly no receptacles are proposed.

VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE

There is no proposed building to accompany the Impound Lot. The only new upright structure on

the site will be the fence surrounding the lot, which is proposed to be an 8-foot-tall chain link

fence with a barbed wire topping and slats run through the chain link to make it opaque. Based

on the required yard areas for the IO zone shown in Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.15, the fence

meets the maximum height requirement for fencing in non-residential zones. The fence is also

not adjacent to a residential zone, the only circumstance under code that would restrict the use of

barbed wire or require the fence to be opaque. The Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the

material of fencing; the current material is proposed for security reasons, as it is harder to break

into than other types of opaque fencing.

VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN

The Site Plan submitted for the application doubles as the Landscape Plan. According to the

plan, there are five (5) existing Red Maple trees located on Parcel 40. The applicant proposes to

plant another four (4) Red Maple trees on Parcel 39 and one (1) Red Maple tree on Parcel 35,

bringing the total number of trees on site to ten (10).

The applicant cites a “disturbed area” of 12,610 SF as the basis for a tree planting requirement of

five (5) trees. The Zoning Ordinance however requires that the tree planting requirement be

based on a delineated “development area” that contains all new site improvements. For this site,

Planning Staff calculates that a development area of 29,333 SF could be used. At a rate of one

(1) tree per 3,000 SF, ten (10) trees would be required, meaning the tree planting requirement is

met.

VIII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS





Page 6 of 8


1) Please add upright curbing to the drive entrance. Alternatively, if it can be demonstrated

that flush curbing is required for stormwater management purposes, please submit an

administrative waiver request to the Planning Office.

2) Please delineate a development area on the plan for the purposes of tree density

calculation. The required delineation method for the development area is given in Zoning

Ordinance Article 5 Section 16.2:

Development area: The area containing all new site features (buildings, parking and drive areas, pedestrian walks, stormwater management areas, buffer areas etc. but not underground utilities) proposed by a plan. The development area shall be delineated using property lines and lines run straight across the property from one property line to another without bending or curving.

Planning Staff suggests a development area of 275 feet by 107 feet, to capture the

Impound Lot, the drive entrance, the new stormwater management area, and the

improvements to the old stormwater management area.

3) Please specify the maximum vehicle capacity of the Impound Lot.

4) In the Data Column, please provide the area of the site in acres as well as square feet.

5) Please correct the Legend to show the correct materials of the surfacing- gravel for the

Impound Lot, and asphalt for the entrance.

6) Please add the building setback lines of the IO Zone to each lot on the plan drawing. This

is to demonstrate that the fencing is outside of front yard areas, where the maximum

fence height is restricted to four feet.

7) The “Planning Commission Approval” signature block is not necessary for this type of

application.

8) The project may need a Details sheet. Possible details include the fence elevation,

stormwater management equipment, and pavement sections.

9) The Site Plan must be updated with changes required or approvals granted, including any

waivers granted by the Planning Commission, prior to Final Plan Approval.

10) Any Sediment & Stormwater Management Plans granted approval by the Kent

Conservation District must reflect the Site Plan layout and design conditionally approved

by the Planning Commission and comply with the Zoning Ordinance and technical

review requirements of other agencies.

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO

MEET CODE OBJECTIVES

In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.2, the Planning Commission in

considering and acting upon Site Development Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and



Page 7 of 8

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 2.21 to 2.28.

1) Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider for several site

improvements to improve the Impound Lot’s compatibility with the 2011 Dover Transit

Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book. Specifically, Planning Staff recommends

the Planning Commission ask for the following improvements:

a. Materials: To further subsection 2.28 related to architectural characteristics, Staff

recommends the Planning Commission consider options for the fence and a lot

surfacing material more in line with the Transit Center Neighborhood Plan’s

aspirations for the physical appearance of new development in the neighborhood.

In the absence of a new building, the architectural design standards of both the

Zoning Ordinance and the Transit Center Neighborhood Plan should be applied

to the overall project. Staff recommends the Commission discuss alternatives for a

fence material other than chain link, and for there to be no use of barbed wire.

Staff also recommends the Commission consider the appropriateness of the

proposed Lot surface as gravel versus a hard-paved surface. Meeting these design

standards will keep the immediate area attractive for future development that may

want to locate near the transit center.

b. Landscaping: If the Planning Commission agrees with the applicant that the

current design of the fence is necessary for security reasons, Planning Staff

recommends the Commission ask for more robust landscaping that would provide

year-round screening for the fence especially on the south, in accordance with

subsection 2.25 related to landscaping. The currently proposed Red Maple trees

only provide seasonal screening for part of the fence. There was concern from the

applicant that planting tall evergreens would obscure the Impound Lot from the

proposed security camera. This could be avoided by planting a thick hedge as

screening instead, with a mature height slightly taller than the fence. The security

camera could also be moved to a location where it would have a better view.

X. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT

1) The Planning Commission should act upon any non-administrative waiver requests for

the project as part of any motion to approve this project, or as a separate motion if

necessary. Note: Waivers brought before the Planning Commission are at their discretion.

The Commission may approve or deny waiver requests.

2) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory

Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code

requirements.

3) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Plan, the Plan must be revised to



Page 8 of 8

meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as

otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff

and directly to other agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all

agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final

endorsement.

4) If major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of

the Site Plan, contact the Planning Office. Examples include relocation of site

components or site entrances and large increases in impervious surface coverage. These

changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee,

Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations

regarding the plan.

5) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on

the site the appropriate site inspections, Pre-Construction meetings, and permits are

required.

6) Construction may affect adjacent property owners and nearby travel lanes. Any work

requiring the closing or rerouting of potential customers or visitors to adjacent properties

should be coordinated as to offer the least amount of inconvenience to the adjacent

property owners.

7) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor

does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or

building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to

placement of any such sign.

8) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit,

Demolition Permit, and associated construction activity permits. A separate application

process is required for issuance of these Permits from the City of Dover. A Demolition

Permit will be required prior to demolition of any existing building remaining on the site.



Documents

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, May …€¦ · Mr. Holt moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was unanimously carried