Historic District Commission Meeting Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, September 17, 2026 at 4:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA IN-PERSON and VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Historic District Commission Meeting for Thursday, September 17, 2026 will be held as an In-Person Meeting at the City Council Chambers at 4:00 PM. The public is welcome to attend in person. The Meeting will also be provided as a Virtual Meeting using Webex, an audio/visual conferencing system as an electronic means of communication. See the participation information below to join by phone or computer. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION City of Dover Historic District Commission Meeting of September 17, 2026 Join By Phone: Dial 1-650-479-3208 Access Code: 253 894 90904 Password from Phones: 36837432 Join Online: https://bit.ly/HDCMeeting09172026 Webinar Number: 2538 949 0904 Password: DoverHDC If you are new to Webex, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. WELCOME ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Adoption of Minutes of August 20, 2026 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Activity 1

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - September 17, 2026 PAGE 2 2. Summary of Applications 2025 and 2026 3. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2026 Department of Planning & Inspections Updates NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission 4. HI-26-05 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1349 at 317 S Governors Avenue - Review of Architectural Review Certification as Referred by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for a Fence Permit #26-1349. The project proposes a 6-foot matte vinyl tan fence on the southern side yard of the property located at 317 S Governors Avenue. Property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of record is Rasheedat Hill. Property Address: 317 S Governors Ave. Tax Parcel: ED05- 077.09-04-44.00-000. Council District 4. NEW APPLICATIONS Revised Applications 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 and S-25-07 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza – Public Hearing and Review for Revised Architectural Review Certification and Revised Site Development Plan Application for redevelopment of the Old Dover Post Office property consisting of 1.267 acres for a mixed-use project (commercial and residential uses) known as The Old Post as Revised. This Revised #2 Plan proposes the demolition of the existing building in its entirety and reconstruction of the front building portion its current form adding the second-floor addition to the front wings of the building and with the four-story rear Building Addition. Architectural Revisions request utilization of an EIFS brick exterior cladding system in place of the conventional and thin brick materials for the building elevations. This Revised #2 Plan seeks to increase the apartment unit count from 42 to 45 units while keeping the exact same building footprint and total building square footage as previously approved. The overall project will consist of a building with forty-five (45) residential apartment units and commercial space and with parking and other site improvements. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone), subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the north side of Loockerman Plaza and adjacent to Innovation Way. The owner of record is The Old Post, LLC. Property Address: 55 Loockerman Plaza. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.05-04-53.00-000. Council District 4. For Consideration with Revision: Parking Strategy Statement and Active Recreation Area Plan. Application HI-25-01 was considered for Architectural Review Certification at the Historic District Commission Meeting of February 20, 2025 and as Revised at their November 20, 2025 Meeting. Application S-25-07 was granted conditional approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Certification by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2025 and as Revised at their December 15, 2025 Meeting. 6. HI-25-02 Revised and S-25-11 Revised The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue – Public Hearing and Review of a Revised Architectural Review 2

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - September 17, 2026 PAGE 3 Certification and Revised Site Development Plan Application for the construction of a four story, 169,080 SF Mixed Use Building including a grocery, retail and restaurant spaces, a child day care, 120 apartment units, and a roof-top courtyard with site improvements of a parking lot, a courtyard, and landscaping. The Revision includes refinement to the building architectural elevations and materials, and adjustments to the building entrances, courtyard and loading areas. The main parcel contains 1.70 +/- acres. The properties are zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and partially subject to H (Historic District Zone). The properties are located on the west side of South Governors Avenue and halfway between Reed Street and West Loockerman Street. The owners of record are Downtown Dover Development Corporation c/o Downtown Dover Partnership and The City of Dover. Property Addresses: 105 S. New Street, 111 S. New Street, 115 S. New Street, 120 S. Governors Avenue, Dover, DE. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-01-44.00-000, ED-05-077.09-01-37.00-000, ED-05-077.09- 01-42.00-000, ED-05-077.09-01-43.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Approved for Opaque Barrier – Fence Components and Approved Parking Strategy Statement.This Application HI-25-02 was considered at the Historic District Commission Meeting of July 17, 2025 and granted conditional approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Certification by the Planning Commission with Application S-25-11 The Governor 120 S Governors Avenue on September 15, 2025. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC COMMENTS OPPORTUNITY – An opportunity is given for members of the public to provide comments to the Historic District Commission not specifically related to Applications with Public Hearings. ADOURN Posted: September 10, 2026 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUT 20, 2026 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, August 20, 2026, at 3:30 PM as an In-Person Meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers (anchor location) and virtually using the audio/videoconferencing system Webex. With Chairman Czerwinski presiding, the other members present were Mrs. Richardson, Ms. Baker and Ms. Horsey. The Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mrs. Maretta Savage-Purnell, Mr. Christopher Salzano, and Mr. Alex Dewey. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Horsey moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Richardson and the motion was carried 4-0. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2026 Mrs. Richardson moved to approve the Historic District Meeting Minutes from July 16, 2026, with the necessary corrections, seconded by Ms. Horsey, and the motion was carried 4-0 by voice vote. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Applications 2025 and 2026 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that today you will be considering Items that have been assigned numbers three and four for the calendar year. You will have seen a total of five (5) applications. One was a Revision that revisited you in June and July. Those items are specifically listed here for 2026. This seems to be the year of Referral of Permits before you at this point in time. I will be happy to answer any questions on those Permits at this point. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions on the Applications? There was none. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2026 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is where we track the Permit activities within the Historic District Zone. This listing table gives us those Permits within the Historic District area through the end of July. There has been a total of 29 permits that we have reviewed. For activities, the highest ones include some Building Exterior ones and Fences followed by some Roof Permits. Twenty-three (23) of those Permits were able to be reviewed by Staff under the authority given to us in the Zoning Ordinance. There were six (6) that had some involvement with the Historic District Commission. The July activities that were added to this probably most notably was the Siding Permit related to 108 South Governors Avenue and also some pending porch work at that same location. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions on the Permits that have been issued here in the Historic District? There was none. 4

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 Department of Planning & Inspections Updates Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that one of the key updates for you is that we now also have a Planner II on Staff, and that is Chris Salzano. Chris was with the City about a year ago and has rejoined our Staff in recent weeks since your last meeting. And in case you didn't meet him the last time, we had Alex Dewey who is a Planner I with the City; he's still with us. So, we have a little bit more Staff currently in the Planning Office. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission HI-26-03 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1225 at 103 S. Governors Avenue - Review of Architectural Review Certification as Referred by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for a Fence Permit #26-1225. The project proposes a 6-foot black ornamental metal fence for the Parking Lots on a series of properties fronting on South Governors Avenue, W. Reed Street, and South Bradford Street associated with the Dover Fire Department Station #1. The properties are zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of record is Robbins Hose Co. Property Addresses: 103 S. Governors Avenue, 116 S. Bradford Street and other unaddressed parcels. Tax Parcels: ED05-077.09-02-15.00-000, ED05-077.09-02-14.00-000, ED05-077.09-02-13.00-000, ED-05-077.09-02-16.00-000, and ED05-077.09-02-17.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that this is actually a series of parcels there on the corner of South Governors Avenue, Reed Street, and South Bradford Street where we find the Dover Fire Department as their Building Station #1 and the associated parking lot areas. The Fence Permit that has been submitted by the Fire Department is to place a fence to enclose their parking lots. There are two parking lot areas: one to the east of the building as you move along Reed Street towards South Bradford Street and then a second parking lot area that has frontage on South Governors Avenue to the south of the building. In their Permit submission, they are proposing a 6-foot-tall black ornamental fence to surround these parking lot areas intending to be installed and what is a kind of a curb line that we find in those parking lots. They are also proposing vehicle gates at the entrance points. These parking lots have several accesses for vehicles. The reason it is here before the Historic District Commission as part of the Architectural Review Certification is that we are looking at activities that are visible from the public view, and that is visible from the public street. We've got three public streets surrounding this property. That causes us to go to the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover of Historic District Zone. That specific document guides Staff and the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission in reviewing activity in the Historic District. Specifically related to fences, there is a discussion in Chapter 3 that very specifically says that fences should not exceed 4 feet in the Historic District Zone. That Chapter also focuses on the more appropriate materials for fences and so those two things are part of our discussions today. With fences, our Zoning Ordinance also includes provisions that give us guidance on the height of fences. In the front yard area fences would be limited to 4 feet. Technically in how this property is zoned, there is no front yard setback minimum, but for the balance of the property, fences are allowed under the zoning provisions for a non-residential property be as tall as 8 feet in height. The other thing our Zoning Ordinance talks about is when you have two street intersections come together. A corner visibility area is where the height is limited to ensure that when you approach that intersection 2 5

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 you can see that secondary street. So, today the Historic District Commission is considering the fence project. In our Report, we gave in our key findings in reviewing the Permit. The fence obviously is to surround parking lot areas. It is visible from the adjacent public streets. For the height and this is part of the deliberation today, it is proposed at 6 feet where the standards for the Historic District Commission would suggest that fences should be no taller than 4 feet in height. But because it's coming before this body, you have the ability to consider alternatives to the 4 feet that's in your Guidelines. The fence material as depicted by the Applicant is a black ornamental steel. Staff did have some additional questions about the formal style of that fence: if it's picket and how that is being proposed. I believe we will hear from the Applicant on that. In our Report, we also gave some Recommendations related to this fence enclosure, noting that it is visible from the various streets. There are gate opportunities and those are set back from the intersection with the street so there's a little bit of an entrance space before the vehicle reaches the gate system. We are seeking some clarification on the format of that gate as gates can be a sliding function or something that swings. For the fence at the intersection of South Bradford Street and Reed Street; we are looking for a little bit of clarification about where exactly that fence is to be placed. The property line is right along the sidewalk; however, the curb line of the parking lot is on the west side of several trees in that area. So its just to clarify where the fence would be located for that second side specifically. Planning Staff are recommending approval of the fence, noting the materials are something that could be considered here in the Historic District. We are looking at the 6 feet height as a byproduct of the intention for this to provide some additional security at the location there. We did have one additional question about the existing fence line that is the south edge of what we'll call the Governors Avenue parking lot piece. Currently, there is a chain link fence there of somewhat questionable condition. I believe it is a regular steel colored fencing. We're looking for clarification about whether that fence would be removed and what that entails with this project. We're certainly recommending that if you are improving fencing that area should also be included in the Permit submission itself. The Historic District Commission was provided the Staff Review Report along with a series of Exhibit items, including the Permit submission, the fence guidelines, and a number of street view shots that we pulled from online to give you a sense of the various views of these fence areas. So, Mr. Chair at this point I think it would be appropriate to hear from the Applicant and the Representative here today, and then we can move into questions before the Commission takes action. Representative: Mr. Brian Bashista, Dover Fire Department Mr. Brian Bashista distributed handouts to the members. Mr. Bashista said I want to thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you today. I've struggled with this for quite some time. I have been the Chief a long time and the President for a long time. So, I've been around and last thing I wanted to see was a fence around the parking lot. I have got a lot invested in it as a member. However, we find ourselves today as things have changed Downtown and we have issues in the parking lots related to drug activities. We have had numerous cars that have been broken into. We also have problems with people wandering around the building. We are trying to be proactive. We think everyone read it in the paper when this 3 6

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 came up. The fence itself is what we talked about. This is the style of fence we are looking at (showing an image of a picket fence). This would go down the Reed Street side of the building and as we go through this, I can show you the pictures on the screen exactly what we are talking about. One thing that was mentioned is that on Governors Avenue on the south side of the building there is currently a fence there along the City lot and a laundromat, and that is a traditional fence. We want to replace that fence with a like fence on that side of the building. It will be black in color, so it matches everything else. If you look at the right side of that picture, you can barely see the picture of where that chain-link fence goes down the south side of the parking lots. You can see that it is old. We were going to replace that as part of the project. I believe the City put that in that lot and we are just going to replace it now ourselves. That would be a black chain link with another single fence that’s there today. Now, for the rest of the fence around the property. If you can bring up the Reed Street side on the screen it’s a great picture. If you look at those pictures and the houses, that curb is on there and it is what we are looking at. It is a mounted fence actually on the top of that curb. It wouldn't be near the street line; it would actually be on the curb itself, and it would go following the curb right past the van (in the picture) right to the corner and following the curb all the way around the parking lot. On the backside you start to see there's actually a 6-foot fence very similar to what we are proposing. We met with the neighbors and discussed it. Again, this really has to do with safety, our team members, and firefighters because as you know, we come and go all throughout the day and night. There are a lot of things going on at that building. We have had people living around the trash can storage and we have had people living around the air conditioning. There has been stuff (related to drugs) on the ground, and we are just trying to protect our stuff. He asked if anyone had any questions? Ms. Horsey asked about the fence sitting on the curb. Mr. Bashista replied yes. It is a steel fence that does not bend and it will be mounted onto the curb. Ms. Horsey asked about the gate. Will someone be standing there to let responders in and out? Mr. Bashista replied when the fire siren blows, that gate is going to open for 10 minutes and our doors are currently unlocked. Today things are a little slightly different than what once were. We have volunteer firefighters at the firehouse all the time during different shifts. If there is a significant fire, and that’s about actually 15 times a month, so when that happens first responders come in and the gates will open for 10 minutes. Now, if, let's just say I'm known at the firehouse and I have this meeting, there’s going to be a way to get in but limited. Plus, as part of this project is where you're going to have an opener and have all the members have a key card/fob (showed an example key fob) to get inside the parking lot. And then actually on the Governor’s Avenue side we also have a gate for people like the mailman. Mrs. Richardson asked where the gates were going to be? Mr. Bashista replied if you're on Governors Avenue, there is the City parking lot. There is going to be a gate here (as he referred 4 7

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 to the screen showing gate location off South Governors Avenue) and it is going to open up like this (showing a sliding motion). There will be a gate on Bradford Street. Ms. Baker asked in regard to the Reed Street gate, is that a gate that opens onto what looks like a little alleyway egress next to the building? Mr. Bashista replied yes, that is the Reed Street. Ms. Baker asked if there were three (3) gates. Mr. Bashista replied yes. Ms. Baker said it will be a lot of fencing. I would imagine you all have considered something other than the fence conclusion. Mr. Bashista replied if you drive by there and you know it's lit like a football field. We've got cameras all around the building. He mentioned the breaking in of vehicles in the parking lot. Ms. Baker mentioned she understood what Mr. Bashista was talking about because she had had her vehicle broken into also on more than one occasion. She asked besides that are there any other concerns. Mr. Bashista mentioned besides property theft, a young man was murdered 30 feet in front of Governors Avenue side. One thing that he is very afraid of is that there are a lot of young firefighters. They go out there in the middle of the night or they go outside just going out to their car and somebody breaks into their car, and something bad happens. That is a concern. Ms. Baker asked has the transgressions continued to pace or have you noticed that they have waned from time? Mr. Bashista said I mean it's gotten worse. You know it's interesting. I think sometimes (as he referred to the screen) and you live Downtown so you can see how it moved from Kirkwood Street to New Street to Governors Avenue, right? And however, I tell you that and sometimes I think that it's worse because of social media. We know everything that goes on now that we didn't know before social media. But 30 years ago, I was going to the firehouse and bringing the fire truck, and they were still shooting on Kirkwood Street. You didn't hear about it then, right? Today everybody hears about it. But the problems in that firehouse have gotten worse. During the summertime it is worse, right? It has not gotten better. Ms. Baker said thank you for sharing that. Mrs. Richardson asked, just out of curiosity, how long this project will take? Mr. Bashista replied about a month. Mrs. Richardson said that is good news. Chairman Czerwinski asked how many spots are in the south parking lot? Mr. Bashista said that is a great question. I don't know off hand. 5 8

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 Chairman Czerwinski asked if you go to the alarm, how many firefighters respond at the station? What's your average? Mr. Bashista replied 20. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the reason I asked is this a tragedy that we have to build the fence that looks more like probation and parole than the fire station. I understand the south parking lot for the security of fulltime Staff and have them park there. So, I'm hesitant to say that we told you to go ahead and put a fence around a large parking lot where 99 % of the time it is not filled and if it’s filled it’s for somebody that’s going to be there for a couple of hours. You know what I mean? Mr. Bashista said no, I don't know. So, there is no staffing there all the time. Chairman Czerwinski said well, you have your south parking lot. So, do your firefighters not use that lot? Are you saying there are not enough parking spaces in the south parking lot. Mr. Bashista said we use both lots and, for instance, if you drive by there this evening around 6- 7pm the lots will be filled. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any more questions. Ms. Horsey noted that it appears that there were 27 parking spaces. Chairman Czerwinski said he was just asking about the south parking lot (Governors Avenue lot) if only that had a fence around it and use it for the overnight parking. Mr. Bashista said they park there overnight because the other parking lot is right. At the corner Chairman Czerwinski noted that I'm just saying that they can use the south parking lot for the members parking. Chairman Czerwinski said with the south parking lot for the member parking you could just secure that with a fence. This would alleviate a fence at a huge parking lot that you don't fill. Mr. Bashista said we do fill it so I have to disagree. Chairman Czerwinski asked when do you fill it? It is when do you call everybody? Mr. Bashista said I would tell you that Bradford Street is used. I can certainly do the survey of it. I do videos all the time of this building. I can also go by there this evening. Mrs. Richardson said it seems to me that we don't want to force the volunteer Fire Department and personnel to have to make a choice whether their vehicle is going to be secure and whether they will be secure or not. Chairman Czerwinski said he understood that on the other side where people live on the street. There are other people who park their vehicle on the street. I park my car on the street. I live Downtown as well. I'm trying to balance the fact that the lay of the land is going to be forever changed when the security fence is installed. That is what I am worried about. 6 9

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 And you're doing that in the neighborhood. And once you do that, it should change the landscape of that. And at that point I'm concerned because that's a security fence. Again, that is my concern. I am trying to look at a workaround here. But you know, like I said, but for security you know using the fence line on that parking lot alone, that might suffice; that's all I’m asking. Ms. Horsey commented that historically black metal fences were used a lot and a lot of them were taken down during the 20th century because people did not like them. So, 1960’s need for today's environment is the only way to go. But I can also say historically there might have been a fence around that lot. Historically, you don't know about it. So, I am not against it. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that historically he did not think that black metal fences goes back before the 1960s. Ms. Horsey said there were a lot of fences in Dover. Ms. Baker mentioned that she did a walk on Monday and took photographs. I was extremely impressed with the look of Bradford Street and the 4-foot fences. It also came to my mind that 6- foot fence is going to be one of these guys. And so, I think a lot of attention needs to be paid to what that additional level it connects to and what it says about the City. If it is painful either way, it is just painful either way. And I find noticing that the largest amount of fencing that's in that area is at People's Church and the curves are magnificent. The curves I think is what softens them. And so, the jaggedness might be something just to give another look. These look very sturdy. Ms. Baker asked how far apart are the pickets? Mr. Bashista noted he was not certain. Ms. Baker continued to say that nobody's going anywhere with this right. But at the same time, you know, we're still living in a dynamic community and we're going have a big Mobility Center. So, I appreciate Staff comments and all of us are thinking about how things will look, how it will feel to be here, how we can encourage people in goodwill to come and be part of our community and help those who do not. Or that are seeking the alternative lifestyle to be able to do what they need to do and survive and thrive when they reject. This is a challenge. Mr. Bashista said thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman Czerwinski asked if anyone had anything they wanted to talk about before the motion. Chairman Czerwinski I mean, it’s my personal opinion. It's sad that we have to do it why I asked the hard questions. I'm trying to say that with the Governors Street parking lot it would not suffice. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that she wanted to acknowledge that the Fire Chief David Carey has joined us virtually. I'm going to see if he needs to make any statement or if Brian speaking has done the trick here. Mr. Carey stated that Brian is speaking on his behalf of the Department. 7 10

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 Ms. Horsey moved to approve Application HI-26-03 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1225 at 103 S Governors Avenue for a 6-foot black ornamental metal fence for the Parking Lots on a series of properties fronting on South Governors Avenue, W. Reed Street, and South Bradford Street associated with the Dover Fire Department Station #1. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Richardson. All in favor of the motion, a vote of 4-0. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the next week Planning Staff will work through processing of the Permit for their review and move that along in the Permit Review process. HI-26-04 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1250 at 46 S Bradford Street - Review of Architectural Review Certification as Referred by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for a Fence Permit #26-1250. The project proposes a 6-foot black-coated chain link fence for the mechanical equipment being placed on the property on the northern side yard of a property associated with the People’s Church at 46 S Bradford Street. Property is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of record is Peoples Congregation Church. Property Address: 46 S Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.05-03- 71.00-000. Council District 4. Mr. Chris Salzano gave a brief summary of the Application. Mr. Salzano stated that the applicant was originally seeking an 8-foot fence. However, after discussion with Staff, he is now proposing a 6-foot fence. The location as mentioned is the north side of the church in the rear yard to the alley. It is partially visible from South Bradford Street and partially visible from adjourning properties. Staff Recommendations can be found on page 40 of your packet. The Applicant has also provided a Site Plan on Exhibit #4. Staff is Recommending Approval because of the need for security of the mechanical equipment that's being placed in this location. Representative: Mr. Greg Robinson and Mr. David Hood of Diamond Mechanical Mr. Greg Robinson said thank you guys for having us today, we appreciate your time. The main purpose of this fence is to support the mechanical equipment (he referred to the plan diagram on the screen). From a safety and protection standpoint of that equipment. I guess it is security similar to kind of previous application but the HVAC to support the product is essentially expensive. He handed out additional information to the members which mentioned the background of the project. It's basically equipment protection and security because of the new HVAC system and it’s a significant investment; we want to make sure it's secure. So, this fence is basically going to prevent damage and unauthorized access vandalism. I won't go into the Fire Department earlier comments about the area as they are across the street. These units that sit outside have a lot of valuable copper and a lot of electrical lines and stuff like that. We just want to make sure it stays safe and secure. Chairman Czerwinski asked are you guys moving trees for this? Mr. Robinson said no. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned previously we had approved chain-link fences for the stairways. Mr. Robinson said yes, about five years ago or more. 8 11

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 Chairman Czerwinski mentioned this is sticking out quite a bit further from the building, so this is going be very visible at different angles within the yard. Was there any consideration to using ornamental instead of chain-link. Mr. Robinson said it’s so funny that you say that now. I wasn't looking at Fire Department pages but basically what we did was we took a random picture of what's there now and did a concept of what it could look like with the fencing and greenery. (Discussion continued but is inaudible) Ms. Baker asked what is the dimension of the pad and what is the dimension of the additional structure? What is the exterior of the additional structure? Mr. Robinson replied that the concrete itself, the pad itself, is going to be from the building out including the existing concrete. It's going to be 22 feet from the building, from where it says number three back to 55 feet from their back parking lot. Ms. Baker asked how many feet did you say? I'm sorry. Mr. Robinson replied. We are 55 feet from the front of this to the top of the screen and then we are 22 feet from the building to the new sidewalk. Ms. Baker asked what is going to be the sheathing of this structure here. Will the interior of what you are building on that is sitting outside the church itself, will it be opaque or will people seek copper wiring and all sorts of interesting things? Mr. Robinson said no. That is where we are proposing to do the greenery around the exterior of the fencing areas, so you will not see any of the copper piping. You might see a little bit until the rush starts to grow up the vines and stuff like that, whichever type of greenery you choose. Until that starts to grow people might see the equipment through the fence, but once it starts to grow you won't see it. Ms. Baker asked if he had a photo or something to show what the thing looks like that you are building at 22 by 55 feet without the fence. Mr. Robinson replied from his understanding it is going to be a standard black coated chain link fence. Ms. Baker mentioned she was referring to the mechanical equipment. Mrs. Melson-Williams said that this is just a concrete pad and the equipment unit sits on that pad. Is that correct? Mr. Robinson said yes. Ms. Baker asked what that looks like and what the exterior is and the access by people. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned it can just be five units, right? And the five units are going to stand by 3 ½ to 4 feet up. Mr. Robinson said the five units stand about 6 ½ feet tall. Chairman Czerwinski said oh, that tall. Mr. Robinson said yes. Mr. Robinson said they are pretty tall units, which is why I wanted to go with 8-foot-tall fence. However, focusing on paperwork that I've looked through, 6 feet is the maximum. So, we were trying to go as high as we could to cover that up as much as possible to allow historically everything to stay nice and pretty and all that good stuff. So, they are about 6 ½ to 7 feet tall. 9 12

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 They are a decent looking unit. We have a few other ones actually in the City already. We have one or two sitting at Schmittinger & Rodriguez. They are fenced in. They are a little bit out of this area. They are in a nicer area than what this is. The biggest thing is that once we put these in, we just want to keep everything safe. The fence will not cover everything up, but if we do the greenery, it's going to give a nice visual here. Chairman Czerwinski said yeah. I just think that the ornamental fence is a lot more security than the chain because people can climb up on a chain-link fence. Mr. Robinson said we are here to work with you folks. So, if that's something that we need to look into, I don’t mind looking. Mr. Robinson added that right here (as he referred to the screen) is the street where this will be visible. This is Bradford Street here and from this side; we would like to fence here so that we can protect the equipment. However, another option would be to cover the fences also to plant trees. We had questions like confirming the landscape that along this road from the building out which would complete the fence. Ms. Horsey asked if you would be willing to put in a fence similar to that as the Fire Department. Mr. Robinson said I do believe that's kind of what the guy depicted in the pictures that we had; and I don't think so. Mrs. Richardson said I think that would help with the historical chain-link fences, even though they're black. Ms. Baker noted the excellence of the curb line fence at 46 South Bradford Street that I mentioned is sincerely pondered and that level may not be necessarily common nowadays but it's worth looking into. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any additional questions. There were none. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hood said thank you very much. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any comments. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that the Commission approved a fence for the new Legislative Hall Parking Lot to go around their HVAC, was that similar to what the Fire Department is putting in, so that would be my recommendation. Chairman Czerwinski said yeah,I agree because originally, they were going do a chain-link fence on the backside of the Parking Garage that was visible from Court Street (at the Kent County Family Courthouse). Then we asked them to do ornamental, and they switched over and he noted that's exactly what happened there. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that would be her preference. 10 13

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 Chairman Czerwinski said that's a good example of where we've had a similar situation in switching over. This is pretty big, I mean it’s 55 feet and each of the units are actually 6 feet tall. If we approve the 6-foot tall then they're going to be installed inside. However, if we ask that there be greenery installed or trees or shrubbery in front of it, we can ask for both. And have that and plus shrubbery to cover for it instead of having it installed in front of it. Chairman Czerwinski moved to approve Application HI-26-04 with conditions of the Referral of Fence Permit #26-1250 at 46 S. Bradford Street to modify/change the 6-foot black-coated chain- link fence for the mechanical equipment being placed on the property in the northern side yard of a property associated with the People’s Church to a 6-foot black ornamental fence. And to add trees and shrubs to cover the fence from the view of Bradford Street. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Richardson. All in favor of the motion. Vote 4-0. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned for the applicant, the Permit will need some additional information about your selection of the ornamental style fence and proposal for the vegetation location. If you submit that to the Planning Office, we can move forward with the processing Permit. With the Fire Department, there's not a specific spec for their fence. I will note that their ornamental fence, as Mr. Bashista noted, is a steel fence. This is probably a little different than aluminum fence when it comes to probably pricing for ornamental fencing, but those products are probably fairly standard in appearance. So, if you are looking to make your plan, I think you certainly have some options there. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there was no additional information regarding the Certified Local Government program. We are a participating member, but there is no forward movement on any kind of details on grant opportunities at this point. I don't have anything for you on that. Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she previously mentioned before that the City is a participating entity with the State Housing Authority related to land use and housing resources. Stay tuned in September; the consultant team that's been working with the City will be reporting out some information about what they are seeing with regulatory barriers in our current Code. We are working towards planning a public outreach and workshop type opportunity; so, we will certainly make you aware of that when it happens. Ultimately, this may lead to provision changes in our Zoning Ordinance. You do have some housing in the Historic District of a variety of types. It may be of interest to you to kind of participate as those things move forward. (Note: In the tornado warning, it was actually to the south of here; base housing that's why everybody's phone was going off.) PUBLIC COMMENTS OPPORTUNITY Mrs. Melson-Williams stated it is an opportunity that's given for members of the public to provide any comments to the Historic District Commission, specifically not related to any particular applications or public hearings that you may have during the meeting. Staff would 11 14

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2026 note that there we just have one observer here in the room, and the only other participant that's joined us online is the Fire Chief David Carey. I don't know if either one of those individuals has any comments during that public comments opportunity. There was none. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any other questions before the meeting adjourns? Mrs. Richardson asked about next month’s meeting time. The ribbon cutting of the new Family Courthouse is on the same day as the meeting. She plans to attend the ribbon cutting that is scheduled for 2:30pm. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that Staff is aware of that ribbon cutting that day. We've also received the invite. We will have Applications for review at your September meeting. So, we are proposing to move the meeting time back to 4pm. Mrs. Richardson said thank you. Chairman Czerwinski said that’s a very good question, thank you. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any other questions before the meeting adjourns? There were none. Meeting adjourned at 4:36 PM Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 12 15

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2025 Item 2. Updated thru September 17, 2026 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-25-01 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Site Plan for Review for Architectural Review Site Plan reviewed by Historic District and Revised 55 Loockerman (Old Dover Post development of Certification of Site Plan; Public Commission for Recommendation. Site Plan HI-25-01 Plaza Office) mixed-use with Hearing and Review by HDC on Application (S-25-07) filed and granted apartments 2/20/2025 and Recommended conditional approval and ArchRevCert by approval of ArchRevCert for project. Planning Commission on 3/17/2025. Design Revised HI-25-01 filed and scheduled revisions to add additional floor and for HDC Review on 11/20/2025 for architecture requires additional review of consideration of architectural design ArchRevCert by HDC and PC. S-25-07 revisions. recommended for approval of ArchRevCert by HDC and granted by PC 12/15/2025. Final site Plan Approval pending and preliminary interior clean-up/demolition has begun under Permit. HI-25-02 Mixed Use 120 S Governors Site Plan for Revised Application filed June 2025. Application initially filed in March 2025 Building at 120 S Avenue development of Review for Architectural Review then placed on hold by the Applicant for Governors mixed use building Certification of Site Plan; Public continued design work. Application Avenue (The Hearing and Review by HDC on updated and Site Plan reviewed by Historic Governor) 7/17/2025. HDC Recommended District Commission for Recommendation approval of ArchRevCert for project. in July 2025. Site Plan Application (S-25-11) filed and scheduled for Planning Commission Review on 9/15/2025. Conditional Approval of Site Plan and ArchRevCert granted by Planning Commission. 16

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2025 Item 2. Updated thru September 17, 2026 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-25-03 Biggs Museum 15 The Green and 21 Review for Review for Architectural Review HDC completed review of Request to Expansion: The Green Architectural Certification. Public Hearing and remove/demolish portions of the rear Selected Certification for Review for Architectural Review additions at the buildings as associated Removals at 15 Select Certification by HCD on 5/15/2025. with future project for the Biggs Museum of and 21 The Green Removal/Demolition Granted Approval subject to American Art expansion. Granted of Rear Additions conditions. Architectural Review Certification; moving into design phase for project that will be subject to future ArchRevCert. HI-25-04 Referral of Fence 55 Kings Hwy SW Fence Permit Permit #25-1463 referred to HDC by Permit Application received 10/8/2025 and Permit #25-1463 City Planner for consultation on Referred to the HDC for consultation. at 55 Kings Hwy Architectural Review Certification; Permit seeks to construct a 6 foot vinyl SW (Merrill Lynch scheduled for review on 11/20/2025. fence. Applicant revised the application to a Office) HDC deferred action seeking more metal picket style fence at height of 4 feet. information. Fence installed. 17

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2026 Item 2. Updated thru September 17, 2026 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-26-01 Referral of 1 Kings Hwy NE Door/Window Permit Permit #26-118 referred to HDC by Permit Application received 1/23/2026 and Door/Window City Planner for consultation on Referred to the HDC for consultation. Permit #26-118 at Architectural Review Certification; Permit approval granted for replacement of 1 Kings Hwy NE Reviewed on February 19, 2026 and 4 windows found to be not in a visible (Residence) granted conditional approval. location. HDC noted that the door should be replaced as a double door (the proposal for a single door with sidelights was not approved). HI-26-02 Referral of Siding 108 S. Governors Siding Permit Permit #26-848 referred to HDC by City Permit Application received 5/29/2026 and Permit #26-848 at Avenue Planner for consultation on Referred to the HDC for consultation. 108 S. Governors Architectural Review Certification; Project proposes replacement of existing Ave reviewed by the HDC on 6/18/2026. siding with vinyl siding. Applicant worked Since HDC in June, the applicant has with staff to resubmit new siding with chosen a new material for siding. Staff Hardie Plank siding (7 in. exposure and Approval given based on alignment horizontal format) and corner board trim with HDC Action on ArchRevCert HI-26- and rear of window trim areas. 02. HI-24-07 Revised : Revised 411 Legislative Ave, Site Plan Review for Revised Architectural Review Site Development Plan review for Building ADA Ramp Legislative Hall Legislative Hall Architectural Review Certification by HDC on 6/18/2026 and Addition and Plaza Area and associated site Building Addition: Certification requested additional information. improvements. Granted conditional ADA Ramp at the Redesign of door opening approved by approval with ArchRevCert by Planning West Entrance of HDC on 7/16/2026. Previous Public Commission on November 18, 2024. Legislative Hall Hearing and Review for Revision Referred for Review by the HDC for Recommendation on a Revised a Recommendation for a Revised Architectural Review Certification by Architectural Review Certification for Ramp. HDC on 10/17/2024 for approval and Project proposed the addition of an ADA forwarded to Planning Commission. Ramp for the West Entrance of Legislative which granted ArchRevCert approval. Hall. Ramp Revision reported to PC on 8/17/2026 and was accepted. 18

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2026 Item 2. Updated thru September 17, 2026 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-26-03 Referral of Fence 103 S. Governors Fence Permit Permit #26-1225 referred to HDC by The project proposes a 6-foot black Permit #26-1225 Avenue City Planner for consultation on ornamental metal fence for the Parking Lots at 103 S. Architectural Review Certification; on a series of properties fronting on South Governors Reviewed by the HDC on 8/20/2026 Governors Avenue, W. Reed Street, and Avenue, Dover and granted ArchRevCert for 6-foot South Bradford Street associated with the Fire Department fence. Dover Fire Department Station #1. Permit Station #1 Review to be completed. HI-26-04 Referral of Fence 46 S Bradford Street Fence Permit Permit #26-1250 referred to HDC by The project proposes a 6-foot black-coated Permit #26-1250 City Planner for consultation on chain link fence for the mechanical at 46 S Bradford Architectural Review Certification; equipment being placed on the property on Street, People's Reviewed by the HDC on 8/20/2026 the north side of the People's Church Church and granted ArchRevCert for 6-foot Building. ArchRevCert conditions include fence with conditions. fence to be ornamental black metal fence with landscape screening. Permit review completed subject to condition. 19

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2026 Item 2. Updated thru September 17, 2026 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-25-01 Revised The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Site Plan for Review for Architectural Review Site Plan reviewed by Historic District #2 55 Loockerman (Old Dover Post development of Certification of Site Plan; Public Commission for Recommendation. Site Plan Plaza Revised #2 Office) mixed-use with Hearing and Review by HDC on Application (S-25-07) filed and granted apartments 2/20/2025 and Recommended conditional approval and ArchRevCert by approval of ArchRevCert for project. Planning Commission on 3/17/2025. Site Revised HI-25-01 filed and scheduled Plan Reviewed by Historic District for HDC Review on 11/20/2025 and Commission for Revised Recommendation. Recommended approval of Site Plan Application (S-25-07 Revised) filed ArchRevCert for project. Revised #2 HI- and granted conditional approval and 25-01 filed and scheduled for HDC ArchRevCert by Planning Commission on Review on 9/17/2026 for consideration 12/15/2025. Revised #2 design revisions to of architectural design revisions and demolish the entire building in its entirety demolition of entire building with and use a brick EFIS material in place of reconstruction. bricks to rebuild the structure requires additional review of ArchRevCert by HDC and PC. Final Site Plan Approval on hold and preliminary interior clean-up/demolition has begun under separate Permit. HI-25-02 Revised Mixed Use 120 S Governors Site Plan for Application filed June 2025. Review for Application initially filed in March 2025 Building at 120 S Avenue development of Architectural Review Certification of then placed on hold by the Applicant for Governors mixed use building Site Plan; Public Hearing and Review by continued design work. Application Avenue (The HDC on 7/17/2025 and Recommended updated and Site Plan reviewed by Historic Governor) Approval of ArchRevCert for project. District Commission for Recommendation in Revised Revised Application filed August 2026. July 2025. Site Plan Application (S-25-11) Review for Architectural Review filed and scheduled for Planning Certification of Site Plan; Public Commission Review on 9/15/2025. Hearing and Review by HDC on Conditional Approval of Site Plan and 9/17/2026 for consideration of ArchRevCert granted by Planning architectural revisions. Commission. Revised submission of August 2026 focuses on revisions to building architecture and materials. 20

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2026 - Updated Thru 8-31-2026 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 1/13/2026 25-1668 8 W Loockerman Street Demolition Permit Staff Approval Demolition of select interior area and removal of bank drive thru canopy. 1/5/2026 25-1767 1 Kings Highway NE Fence Permit Staff Approval Installation of black metal picket style fence of 4 foot height. 1/20/2026 26-71 420 S State Street Sign Permit Staff Approval Installation of hanging wall sign. 2/10/2026 25-1393 55 The Green; Supreme Building Permit Staff Approval per HDC approval of HI- Project is a one story building expansion clad in Court 24-06 brick with brick and cast stone detailing. 2/25/2026 25-1847 55 The Green; Supreme Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of existing dome roof and Court associated shingle roof area at the rotunda building entry. Project replaces the shingle roof with a composite slate shingle in DaVinci Inspire Classic Slate in Graphite (color). 2/17/2026 26-64 146 S State Street Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Interior demolition in anticipation of Renovations/Demolition required renovations for a commercial kitchen to support catering operation, which will be done under a separate permit. 2/4/2026 26-118 1 Kings Highway NE Window Permit HDC approved the windows, but did Was initially for 4 replacement windows at not approve the replacement of the rear of building not visible and the front door. replacement of the front door. The existing front entry is a double door that is likely original to the structure. 2/17/2026 26-189 202 W Loockerman St Sign Permit Staff Approval Permit for a projecting wall sign on an existing building on Loockerman Street. Sign area is 3.52 SF, which complies with the sign regulations. 3/19/2026 25-1443 417 Federal St Roof Permit Staff Approval. ArchRevCert Roof project to replace exiting sloped roof with Approved new synthetic slate singles system, EPDM assemblies, and flat seam copper rooting, and associated flashing, gutters, and coping. 21

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2026 - Updated Thru 8-31-2026 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 3/24/2026 25-1825 55 Kings Hwy SW Fence Permit Staff Approval. ArchRevCert Installation of a four-foot metal picket fence Approved along the north and east property lines for a total length of 302 feet. This permit supersedes a previous Fence Perit #25-1463 for a vinyl fence of 6 feet that was referred to the HDC as HI-25-04. 3/4/2026 26-81 55 Loockerman Plz, The Old Fence Permit Staff Approval Temporary installation of construction fencing Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza as the side of the Old Post project for the renovation, partial demolition, and new addition to the previous Post Office building. Fencing is 6-foot chain link to be installed along the property lines with removable panels on the Innovation Way side for site access as necessary. 3/5/2026 26-163 425 East Ave, Legislative Administrative Permit Approved by PC. Staff Approval per For the Site Work for the Legislative Hall Hall Parking Garage PC Final Action of ArchRevCert under Parking Garage project. Project activities under Recommendation of HDC. H-24-04/S- this permit include infrastructure work for the 24-14 project including erosion and sediment controls, temporary Perimeter Construction Fencing, sewer relocation/additions, demolition of site features, grading, and other utilities work. 4/15/2026 25-121 122 Martin Luther King Jr. Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Permit for interior renovations to conference Blvd S Renovation required room area within the Haslett Armory Building. 4/8/2026 26-473 32 W Loockerman St L100 Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Permit for interior renovations of gym area in Renovation required tenant suite L100, which includes the installation of a french drain. 4/10/2026 26-530 500 W Loockerman St Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Interior renovation to existing office space. No Renovation required change in use or exterior changes to the building. 22

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2026 - Updated Thru 8-31-2026 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 5/13/2026 25-1545 527-529 S State St Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval Permit for interior and exterior remodeling of and Exterior Renovation the existing triplex. 5/20/2026 26-162 425 East Ave, Legislative Building Permit Approved by PC. Staff Approval per Permit for Legislative Hall Parking Garage; Hall Parking Garage PC Final Action of ArchRevCert under construction of a 3-story new Parking Garage Recommendation of HDC. HI-24-04 / Structure with 344 vehicle parking spaces with S-24-14 associated surface parking for service area, and the decorative fence and brick wall surrounding the generator. 5/27/2026 26-180 55 Lockerman Plz, The Old Demolition Permit Staff Approval per HDC Permit demotion of the rear portion of the Post Recommendation and PC Approval of former post office. Final Site Plan approval ArchRevCert HI-25-01/S-25-07 pending. 5/18/2026 26-692 415 W Loockerman St Building Permit Staff Approval Permit is for interior renovation to an existing building to relocate a restroom. 6/11/2026 25-695 144 S Governors Ave Building - Renovation Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Plans do not reflect any changes to the front or Permit required side facades of the building that is proposed as multi-family building. 6/25/2026 26-524 101 W Loockerman St, Fence Permit Staff Approval Permit is for the installation of a four-foot CenDel Foundation Building black aluminum metal picket fence along the Parking Lot north and east property lines including a vehicle access gate and pedestrian access gate. 6/8/2026 26-589 133-135 S Governors Ave, Building Permit Approved by PC. Staff Approval per Permit is for the construction of a new Parking Dover Mobility Center PC Final Action of ArchRevCert under Garage Structure (4 story) of four parking Recommendation of HDC. HI-24-09/S- levels plus roof level for a total of 328 vehicle 25-01. parking spaces (with bicycle and scooter parking spaces) and first floor other retail, business, commercial, storage spaces for future tenants. 23

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2026 - Updated Thru 8-31-2026 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 6/16/2026 26-793 500 W Loockerman St Building - Renovation Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Permit is for interior renovations to existing Permit required office space. No change of use or exterior modifications are proposed. 6/8/2026 26-845 523 S State St, Christ Church Temporary Sign Permit Staff Approval Permit is for a temporary banner (19.50 SF) to be placed at the property for 35 days. This is the first permit for the calendar year. Sign is permitted to be in place until July 27, 2026. Temporary signs are permitted for no more than 90 days in a calendar year. 7/14/2026 26-730 46 S Bradford St, People's Building - Renovation Staff Approval Permit is for the removal and replacement of Church Permit the structural floor at Roof Level (Level 4 - Chimes Levels) interior to the Bell Tower and repairs to the Stucco Ceiling at the Ground Level entry to the Bell Tower. There is also several brick crack repairs that are to be made on the north elevation of the Bell Tower. 7/17/2026 26-848 108 S Governors Ave Siding Permit Staff Approval aligned with HDC Permit is for new installation of Hardie Plank Action on ArchRevCert HI-26-02. siding (7 in. exposure and horizontal format) and corner board trim and repair of window trim areas. 7/23/2026 26-997 500 W Loockerman St Building - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Permit is for the renovation of the 5th floor of Renovation Permit required the building for adding offices and a kitchenette. 7/31/2026 26-1157 122 Martin Luther King Jr. Roof Permit No Planning Staff Review Permit is for the replacement of a roof on the Blvd S, Haslet Armory Haslet Armory Building. 7/21/2026 26-1159 108 S Governors Ave Building - Renovation Staff Approval Permit is for installing a railing system on front Permit porch with staff giving conditions for materials and approval. 24

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2026 - Updated Thru 8-31-2026 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 8/13/2026 26-998 16 The Green Building - Renovation Staff Approval Permit is for the rebuild of an exterior ADA Permit handicap ramp made of wood, new decking, and framing using existing concrete piers. 8/4/2026 26-1208 55 Kings Hwy SW Fence Permit Staff Approval Permit is for the installation of a four-foot black aluminum metal picket fence with no gates. 8/27/2026 26-1250 46 S Bradford St, People's Fence Permit Staff Approval aligned with HDC Permit is for a six-foot black decorative Church Action on ArchRevCert HI-26-04. steel/iron fence with landscaping. 25

Item 4. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REPORT Referral by City Planner to Historic District Commission Meeting of September 17, 2026 Permit: Fence Permit #26-1349 Location: 317 S. Governors Ave, Dover, DE Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-04-44.00-000 File Number: HI-26-05 Present Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) Referral of Permit: The following application Fence Permit #26-1349 for 317 S. Governors Ave is referred by Planning Staff to the Historic District Commission for consultation regarding the issuance of the Architectural Review Certificate for a Fence project. Applications for certain types of construction activity within the Historic District Zone (H) are reviewed by the City Planner (or Staff as designated) for Architectural Review Certification as part of the Building Permit application review process. Staff is referring the Permit for review under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.22(A) and (B). See below. Section 3.22 Architectural review certification by the city planner. (A) An architectural review certificate for specific classes of building permits, including Fences, signs, siding, window and door replacement, roofing, the addition or replacement of decorative features, minor demolition, residential additions, and other construction of a minor nature, may be issued by the city planner, after a review and determination that the proposed construction is in general accordance with the standards set forth in subsection 3.25. (B) The city planner may refer any permit application for demolition or construction in the historic district for consultation with commission. Permit Information: Fence Permit #26-1349 was filed on August 19, 2026, for a Fence project at 317 S. Governors Avenue in Dover, Delaware. The Project outlined in the Permit submission involves placement of a six-foot tan vinyl fence on the side and rear yard of the property. It is proposed to be a tan vinyl fence. The plan diagram included in the Permit submission shows the fence extending from southern elevation of building in two segments out to the driveway and turning east directly towards neighboring fences. The neighboring properties to the north and south are both businesses, and to the east is a parking lot. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 26

Item 4. HI-26-05 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1349 at 317 S Governors Ave Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 2 of 4 The project site is located within the local Historic District Zone (H) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. The building on the property is also located within the boundaries of a National Register of Historic Places Historic District, specifically the Dover Green Historic District (K-394.27). It is a contributing resource and is described as a mid 19th century, 2 ½ story 3 bay frame house. Staff Review of Permit for Architectural Review Certification: Project activities are reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone as stated in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.25(A). Article 10 Section 3.25 Architectural review standards. (A) An architectural review certificate may be issued if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement, location and materials and structures affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district as set forth in the historic district design guidelines and standards adopted by the planning commission and as set forth in the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed fence along the south side of the building is visible from the public street of South Governors Avenue. The “public view” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as “that which can be seen readily from a public street, public building or public property, excluding views from alley rights-of-way.” A review of fences on other properties along this block of S. Governors Avenue shows a mix of fencing materials, decorative iron, wood picket, and low brick walls. In reviewing the proposed project for Architectural Review Certification, Staff referenced various sections of Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone which presents the Recommended, Not Recommended, and Inappropriate approaches to construction of various elements in the Historic District. This Request should be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria and development guidelines found in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. Specifically, Chapter 3 page 3-26 includes the discussion of Fences in the Historic District zone where it states that site Fences and walls “should not exceed 4’0” in height and then discusses the Recommended, Not Recommended, and Inappropriate practices associated with Fences and walls as related to materials. Chapter 3 presents the information on the appropriate Fence materials for use in the Historic District. Wood picket style Fences and cast iron (metal) fencing are Recommended. Staff also looked at the provisions for Fences in the Zoning Ordinance. For residential properties, the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of Fences to four (4) feet within the front yard setback (Article 5 §7.5) and with other provisions for increases in Fence height to eight (8) feet for side yards, rear yards, and the second front yard on corner lots. The front yard setback in the C-2A zoning district is 15 feet. Thus, the Zoning Ordinance would allow for the fence to be a maximum of 8 feet in height; however, the Historic District standards place the height limit at 4 feet. 27 2

Item 4. HI-26-05 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1349 at 317 S Governors Ave Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 3 of 4 Historic District Commission Action The Historic District Commission should consider the Fence project and take action in regard to the Architectural Review Certification for the Fence Permit #26-1349. The Historic District Commission may add conditions for the Fence segments in order to comply with the character of the property within the Historic District. The fence height and the fence materials must be considered. Staff Findings from Review of Fence Permit: Staff findings and recommendations are summarized as follows for the Fence project at 317 S Governors Avenue for the rear yard as presented in Permit #26-1349 and accompanying documents. 1. Fence Locations: The fence is proposed in the rear yard of the property, adjoining other fences on the adjacent properties. It will be along the southern most property line, and connecting to the rear of the existing structure. The applicant states that the fence is meant to protect the property from security concerns and prevent parking from bakery staff and patrons on property that is not theirs. The fence prevents continued access from the nearby La Baguette Bakery (the adjacent property to the south) to the driveway for parking. 2. Fence Visibility: The fence has visibility from South Governors Avenue. The fence material is proposed as Tan Vinyl; it will provide privacy and not be transparent. The fence has visibility from the adjoining property to the south, but will be obscured from the adjacent property to the north and the parking lots on the north and east by other existing fences. 3. Fence Height – Proposed at 6 feet: The Design Standards and Guidelines say that generally the height of a Fence should not exceed 4 feet. The 6-foot Fence exceeds the recommended height of the Design Standards and Guidelines. 4. Fence Material: The Fence is proposed to be tan vinyl as a security fence which will not be transparent and will prevent invasion into the rear of the property. The use of vinyl materials for fences is not specifically addressed in the Historic District; however, wood picket fences are a recommended fence type and material within the Historic District. 5. Fence Materials: The use of a tan vinyl fence material will block views of the property. 6. Current Condition & Location: The property currently does not have a fence around the perimeter; however, some adjoining properties have fences along the adjacent property lines. Recommendations: • Fence Enclosure - Staff finds that this Fence has clear visibility from S. Governors Avenue. The use of a tan vinyl results in an opaque barrier between the properties and will serve as a sufficient obstacle for anyone attempting to access the property. • Fence Height - While a reduction in height to 4 feet could be considered, it may be impractical because the expressed purpose of this fencing is security. 28 3

Item 4. HI-26-05 Referral of Fence Permit #26-1349 at 317 S Governors Ave Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 4 of 4 • Fence Material – The use of tan vinyl fencing is generally visible at the point of “public view” at the street frontage. The project can be encouraged to utilize a wooden picket style fence given its location in the Historic District. • Fence Gates – The applicant has not provided information as to the location of fence gates or if any are intended for placement on the property. Advisory Comments: 1. The applicant shall be aware that issuance of a Fence Permit is required prior to the commencement of construction. The Fence Permit Application will be subject to the conditions of approval established and may be required to be updated, if necessary, to comply with these conditions established through the Architectural Review Certification process. Attachments: Exhibit 1. Letter of Referral Notice to Applicant dated August 24, 2026 Exhibit 2. Building Permit #26-1349 Application Form Exhibit 3. Email regarding new material and height decision Exhibit 4. Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, Chapter 3, page 3-26 to 3-27 Exhibit 5. Aerial Map of property Exhibit 6. Screen shot Google Streetview 29 4

Item 4. City of D over August 24, 2026 Re: Referral of Fence Permit #26-1349 to Historic District Commission Fence at 317 S Governors Ave, Dover, DE, 19901 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to inform you that Fence Permit Application #26-1349 is being referred to the City of Dover Historic District Commission for consultation. Fence Permit #26-1349 was filed on August 19, 2026 for a fence project for the side yard to provide privacy and screen the rear yard of the property located at 317 S Governors Avenue. The project outlined in the Permit submission as revised involves 6-foot tan vinyl fence. The fence is proposed to be installed in the rear of the building, completing the enclosure of the yard which is already partly enclosed by fences from neighboring properties. The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes provisions for fences properties in a non-residential zone which limits the fence height to four (4) feet when located in the front yard area of the property and limits the fence height to eight (8) feet in the side yard and rear yard areas. The location of the subject property within the City of Dover’s Historic District Zone requires the review and issuance of an Architectural Review Certificate (ARC) for construction and demolition activities. Fences are eligible for Staff review of the ARC during the Building Permit application process. Project activities are reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone as stated in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.25(A). Article 10 Section 3.25 Architectural review standards. (A) An architectural review certificate may be issued if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement, location and materials and structures affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district as set forth in the historic district design guidelines and standards adopted by the planning commission and as set forth in the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. In reviewing the proposed project for Architectural Review Certification, Staff referenced Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings of the Design Standards and Guidelines which present the Recommended, Not Recommended, and Inappropriate approaches to activities in the Historic District. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community E xcellence T hrough Q uality S ervice 30

Item 4. Letter Re: Permit #26-1349 Fence at 317 S Governors Ave, Dover DE September 4, 2026 Page 2 of 2 The Design Standards and Guidelines limit the height of fences to four feet and specifies appropriate materials for fencing. This project involves the placement of a six-foot fence which exceeds the recommended height in the Historic District. The fence is stated to be constructed of a tan vinyl material which is not considered an allowable material; however; under certain circumstances it may be allowable. Therefore, I would refer the Fence Permit application to the Historic District Commission for consultation on the fence height and material. See Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.22 (A) and (B) listed as follows. Article 10 Section 3.22 Architectural review certification by the city planner. (A) An architectural review certificate for specific classes of building permits, including fences, signs, siding, window and door replacement, roofing, the addition or replacement of decorative features, minor demolition, residential additions, and other construction of a minor nature, may be issued by the city planner, after a review and determination that the proposed construction is in general accordance with the standards set forth in subsection 3.25 (B) The city planner may refer any permit application for demolition or construction in the historic district for consultation with commission. Since you wish to continue with the proposed fence at the 6-foot height, the Permit will be referred to the City of Dover Historic District Commission. This Referral of the Fence Permit is being scheduled for the next Historic District Commission meeting of Thursday, September 17, 2026 at 4:00 pm. Options for participating in the Meeting include attending In-Person at the City Hall Council Chambers in City Hall at 15 Loockerman Plaza and/or attending the Virtual Meeting presentation using Webex, an audio and video conferencing system. A project representative would need to participate in this meeting to discuss the project. Staff will provide the Historic District Commission with the permit application materials and other background information for their review and action. Or you may revise the proposed fence to the four-foot height in order to comply with the provisions of the Historic District zone. This may be done by requesting such revision to the Permit submission in writing. Also attached to this Letter are the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone pertaining to Fencing (pages 3-26 and 3-27). If you have questions on the procedures for review of this Fence Permit or wish to discuss alternative options, please contact me at the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. Sincerely, Department of Planning and Inspections Christopher Salzano Christopher Salzano, AICP Planner II CC: Fence Permit #26-1349 HI-26-05 31

Item 4. 32

Item 4. 33

Item 4. 34

Item 4. 35

Item 4. 36

Item 4. 37

9/10/26, 2:07 PM Inbox - Salzano, Christopher - Outlook Item 4. From: Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:49 AM To: Salzano, Christopher <csalzano@doverde.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Fence Permit #26-1349 for 317 S Governors Avenue WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Christopher, The two neighbors that I’m in between use 6ft fence and they used woods. I want going to use the same thing also. Also I wanted to ask if vinyl is ok for historical area? Thanks Rasheedat Hill, LBSW Case Manager Living Brighter Corporation Non Profit Organization serving the housing community and providing support services On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 3:38 PM Salzano, Christopher <csalzano@doverde.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon Rasheeda, I'm reaching out to you because your permit proposed cannot be approved as filed. We need some additional information before any approval can move forward, please provide the following: 1. The Fence material 2. The Fence Height (And where if variable) I would like to make note of the following for you: 1. You are within the Historic District, and fences over 4 feet in height will require an architectural review certification from the Historic District Commission. 2. Fences within the Historic District have very specific material requirements, once you confirm your material I'll be able to tell you if it meets the requirements or not. 3. Any fences that do not meet the Historic District requirements are required to go before the Historic District Commission if the applicant is unwilling or unable to conform to the requirements. 38 https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AuN%2FhnjGhwkOERK4jSjF9DAABRdxJmgAA?nativeVersion… 2/3

9/10/26, 2:07 PM Inbox - Salzano, Christopher - Outlook Very Respectfully, Item 4. Christopher Salzano, AICP Planner II City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections (302)736-7196 Planning Office Phone (302)736-4217 Fax csalzano@doverde.gov Thank you for your email. Please be advised that the City of Dover email domain has changed to @doverde.gov as part of our ongoing efforts to improve communications. Our new domain is part of a long range initiative to increase security and by switching to a .gov domain it provides further assurance to the public that the communications received from @doverde.gov is official, trusted information. Messages sent to our old email addresses will still be received until the conversion is completed. Kindly update your records accordingly, we appreciate your attention to this update. Thank you for your email. Please be advised that the City of Dover email domain has changed to @doverde.gov as part of our ongoing efforts to improve communications. Our new domain is part of a long range initiative to increase security and by switching to a .gov domain it provides further assurance to the public that the communications received from @doverde.gov is official, trusted information. Messages sent to our old email addresses will still be received until the conversion is completed. Kindly update your records accordingly, we appreciate your attention to this update. 39 https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AuN%2FhnjGhwkOERK4jSjF9DAABRdxJmgAA?nativeVersion… 3/3

Item 4. 40

9/10/26, 2:08 PM Inbox - Salzano, Christopher - Outlook Item 4. -- Rasheedat Hill, LBSW Case Manager Living Brighter Corporation Non Profit Organization serving the housing community and providing support services 41 https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AuN%2FhnjGhwkOERK4jSjF9DAABR8qFWgAA?nativeVersion… 2/2

Item 4. 42

Item 4. 43

Item 4. 44

Item 4. 45

Item 5. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT for REVISED #2 PLAN Before Dover Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Previous Recommendations from the Dover Historic District Commission on February 20, 2025 & November 20, 2025 Application: The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza, HI-25-01 REVISED #2 Previous Owner: City of Dover Current Owner: Old Post, LLC Location: Northwest corner of Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way in Dover, DE Addresses: 55 Loockerman Plaza Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.05-04-53.00-000 Size: 1.267 acres +/- Present Uses: Vacant Building – Former Dover Post Office Proposed Use: Mixed-Use Commercial and Multi-family Housing (Apartments) and associated parking Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) – portion of site For Consideration: Revised #2 Architectural Review Certification with parking to building separation reduction This Report for Revised #2 HI-25-01 The Old Post was updated upon submission of a Revised #2 Architectural package and Site Plan. The Planning Staff deemed the revision substantial enough to warrant the Application to go back through the formal Architectural Review Certification process with the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission. Application HI-25-01 was initially considered by the Historic District Commission on February 20, 2025, and then considered by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2025, as Site Plan S-25-07 The Old Post. Application HI-25-01 Revised was initially considered by the Historic District Commission on November 20, 2025, and then considered by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2025, as Site Plan S-25- 07 Revised The Old Post. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 46

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 2 of 13 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act to make a Recommendation for a Revised #2 Architectural Review Certificate for a Site Development Plan Application for the redevelopment of the Old Dover Post Office property consisting of 1.267 acres for a mixed-use project (commercial and residential) known as The Old Post as Revised. The Revised #2 Plan proposes the demolition of the existing building in its entirety and reconstruction of the front building portion its current form adding the second-floor addition to the front wings of the building and with the four-story rear Building Addition. Architectural Revisions request utilization of an EIFS brick exterior cladding system in place of the conventional and thin brick materials for the building elevations. This Revised #2 Plan seeks to increase the apartment unit count from 42 to 45 units while keeping the exact same building footprint and total building square footage as previously approved. The overall project will consist of a building with forty-five (45) residential apartment units and commercial space and with parking and other site improvements. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone), subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the north side of Loockerman Plaza and adjacent to Innovation Way. The owner of record is Old Post, LLC. Property Address: 55 Loockerman Plaza. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 077.05-04-53.00-000. The Project Site subject of HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post will be considered at the Historic District Commission Meeting of September 17, 2026 to provide a Revised Recommendation for Architectural Review Certification. This Application Revised #2 S-25-07 for the Site Plan will be subject to the same process with a public hearing before the Planning Commission. See the attached Revised #2 Plan submission and associated graphics and drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. Surrounding Land Uses This subject property location at the northwest corner of Innovation Way and Loockerman Plaza is within the Downtown Development District. Properties immediately adjacent to the subject project location are zoned IO (Institutional and Office). The surrounding properties are also within the H (Historic District Zone). The Dover Public Library and Dover City Hall are located west of the subject site. State offices are to the north and south of the subject site and a mixed-use building with offices and a restaurant are located to the east across Innovation Way. Previous Applications The existing structure was constructed in the 1960s and was in service as the Dover Post Office until the new post office opened on Bank Lane in 2021. The property owner was the City of Dover. After the Post Office closed, the City initiated an RFP process to solicit proposals for redevelopment of the site. The current owner, Old Post, LLC was selected through this process. Application Z-24-01, approved by City Council on February 12, 2024, rezoned the property from IO (Institutional and Office Zone) to C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) with it remaining in the H (Historic District Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). 47

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 3 of 13 In February 2025, the Historic District Commission recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for the proposed building renovations/reconstruction in HI-25-01. On March 17, 2025, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the Site Plan S-25-07, inclusive of the Architectural Review Certificate. Then a Revised Plan was submitted in late 2025. Previously at the Historic District Commission Meeting of November 20, 2025, the Commission considered the Revised Application and has provided a Recommendation on the Architectural Review Certification for the project. Also, the Site Plan S-25-07 Revised The Old Post was granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2025 (Revised Plan Sets of print date 11/6/2025 and 12/3/2025). The Site Plan was ready for Final Plan Approval in August 2026 then the Revision was proposed. This Revised #2 submission seeks to revise the Site Plan and the Architectural Review Certificate previously approved. Preliminary Land Use Services Review (PLUS): The PLUS Review is required by a City of Dover Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for certain types of projects. Due to its Downtown Dover Redevelopment Target Area, this project was not required to complete PLUS Review process. II. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION Review of Historic Maps Prior to 1926, Loockerman Plaza did not extend beyond South State Street. Loockerman Plaza was extended between 1926 and 1936. The existing building was constructed in the 1960’s. Property Information The subject property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. There are four contexts that contribute to the historic character of Dover, including the Green Historic Context; the Victorian Historic Context; the Loockerman Historic Context; and the Capitol Square Historic Context. This property is located within the Capitol Square Historic Context. The first buildings in the Capitol Square Context were built in the 1930’s and 1940’s as part of the Federal Works Project Administration. The Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone describe this context as “neo-Georgian featuring two-story brick facades with a water table, marble surround at the entrance, keystones over the window heads, dentilled cornices and hip roofs… greater latitude is recommended in determining what is appropriate for new construction and additions within this context… a compatible contemporary building is preferable to a falsely historical one.” The building located at 55 Loockerman Plaza was constructed in the 1960s. The most prominent features are the 5-bay Classical pediment with its turned gable, tympanum, and large columns. Under this projection, the front elevation wall is setback and includes the door entry with pedimented surround. The building has a gable roof with the rear being a flat roof system. It features a brick exterior, columns, dentil cornices, and shuttered windows. The building currently includes second floor offices (approximately 2,160 SF), a basement (approximately 5,865 SF), and the first floor of approximately 21,151 SF. There is an existing on-site parking lot (unmarked) and loading dock. The interior has been completely gutted as a result of recent asbestos abatement. 48

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 4 of 13 The structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and this portion of the Historic District is not part of a Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. III. PROJECT PROPOSAL PROJECT PROPOSAL Revised #2 (documents of August 2026 and Updated Set of 08/24/2026) The REVISED #2 application proposes the demolition of the full existing structure and the reconstruction of the front portion in its current form featuring a second-floor addition to the front wings and along with a new four-story building addition in the rear of the front building portion. Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover Master Plan identified the Old Dover Post Office as a Project Site. The Master Plan proposes that a new mixed-use building could reactivate the site. This project is also identified as a Key Project within the City’s Downtown Development District (Renewal) application of 2024. The proposed development proposes a 4,560-SF commercial tenant space in the (reconstructed first floor) portion front area. The rear warehouse portion of the building will be demolished and replaced with a new four-story structure (and including the second floor of the front building portion) comprised of 45 apartment (multifamily) units. The Applicant’s REVISED #2 submission includes a Site Plan set and Architectural Graphics set with building elevations and 3-D views. The elements of the project are as follows: 1. Full Demolition: The rear flat-roofed warehouse portion of the building and now the existing front portion of the building are to be demolished. Due to structural conditions associated with the exiting front portion of the old Dover Post office, the entire building will now need to be demolished and reconstructed. The total building square footage and building footprint will remain the same when reconstruction of the building takes place. 2. Front Façade Building and Addition: The project involves reconstruction of the front portion of the building in the same general form. New Azek trim work and the installation of six (6) 12” HB&G Fiberglass columns with decorative capital and base is proposed to match the existing building colonnade. New replacement shutters, windows, and front door are noted to match the existing. The Revised #2 Plan includes the addition of an additional floor to the front wings to make, two story. The Revised #2 Plan shows a gable roof in asphalt shingles following the form of the original building and front wings with two dormers added over each wing. The Revised #2 Plan also displays a brick EIFS system being installed on the front, rear, and side elevations of each wing. The Revised Plan #2 shows that each wing of the front portion of the building will include paired sets of glass doors with Azek Trim and stucco-like EIFS around the door area. 3. Rear Building Additions: The Revised #2 proposed four-story addition will be located directly behind the front massing portion of building (main block). The proposed addition will be 43 feet 6 inches tall. The existing building is 33 feet 2 inches tall at the peak of its roof. The addition appears to feature the use of the EIFS brick system with engaged 49

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 5 of 13 pilasters and horizontal banding in brick detailing along all sides on floors two, three, and four, and floor one uses EIFS in a white scored finish. The Revised #2 roof features a wide cornice at the roofline. The east and west elevations include large glass windows (with door) for entry into the apartments. Glass and black aluminum railings (black steel cable railing) will be used to enclose balconies. The Revised addition adds architectural relief by recessing balconies partially into the building. The Revised addition also wraps sections of the building with one row of brick EIFS banding on each floor, totaling four (4) rows that are visible from the north, south, east, and west elevations. 4. Parking Lot: A parking lot will be developed along the west side and north side of the building with access from Innovation Way. This new parking lot will not have vehicular access from the large municipal parking lot at the Dover Public Library. The applicant has worked with the City in regard to the adjacent row of parking east of the Library establishing an easement for its shared use. The parking lot is to be fenced with a black aluminum fence and appears to have narrow bands of grass at the perimeter on the west and north. 5. Sidewalks and Site Amenities: The proposal maintains connected sidewalks along Innovation Way and Loockerman Plaza. There are also sidewalks adjacent to the parking lot leading to the building and from the street frontage sidewalks. At some points, steps are necessary to ascend to the building. A ramp system is noted on the Site Plan for the north building elevation but not fully depicted in the renderings. A fenced Zen garden is proposed to abut the Building Addition along Innovation Way. The Updated Plan shows a curving pathway in the East Zen Garden with benches and a Yoga space. The amenities of this plan also propose a second-floor gym as part of the Active Recreation. A series of benches are shown in the West Zen Garden. 6. Tree Planting and Landscaping: The Revised Landscape Plan identifies three trees to be removed and 19 trees to be planted. The trees are along Loockerman Plaza and then within the Zen Gardens flanking the rear of the Building. See the attached Plan submission and associated graphics and drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. IV. ZONING REVIEW The entire project site is located in the H (Historic District Zone) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §3.2 outlines the review process for Architectural Review Certification and related building height, bulk, and setback standards. The property is partially within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area, but it is exempt from the requirements of this zone due to its location within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area. 50

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 6 of 13 The subject project area is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). The C-2 zone allows for “retail stores, apartments and multi-family dwellings provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted on the first floor on the street frontage of Loockerman Street; uses accessory to the residential units such as lobby and amenity spaces are permitted on the first floor; live-work units; parking lots and parking structures” as principal uses. The subject property has frontage on two streets, Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way. The C-2 zone requires a zero minimum front yard. No side yard is required; however, if one is provided then it shall be a 5-foot side yard minimum. A 20-foot rear yard setback is required above ground floor and 5-foot is required at ground floor. The maximum building height for this district is 10 stories or 125 feet. Code Compliance for C-2 Required Provided Front Setback 0 feet > 35 feet Rear Setback 20 feet above ground floor. At > 100 feet ground floor, 5’required Side Setback None required, but 5-foot min. Approx. 15 feet if provided Building Height 10 stories (125 feet) 4 stories (43 feet 6 inches) The C-2 zoning district also includes design standards provisions. See the code excerpt below: Article 3 Section 13 13.5 Design standards. The following standards shall apply to the site and building development in the central commercial zone (C-2): 13.51 Façade articulation. Building facades should incorporate design elements to provide a base, middle, and top of the building to reinforce the pedestrian scale at the street level. 13.52 Height. For buildings greater than four stories in height, then the upper floors above the fourth story shall step back six feet for fifty percent of the width of the primary facade. For buildings greater than six stories, then the upper floors above the sixth fl oor shall step back an additional six feet on the primary façade. These step back areas may begin at a lower height than these minimums as part of the building design in order to be compatible with the character of the area. 13.53 Step back areas. The step back areas should be open to the sky and can be open air balcony spaces or other design architectural features that are not enclosed spaces. 13.54 Off-street parking. Off-street parking lots shall not be permitted to be situated between the street line and the primary facade of the principal building. Consideration should be given to locating parking to the side or rear of the building. 13.55 Screening. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Off-street parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential zones and residential uses. This screening provision does not apply to adjacent alleys. V. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject property is located in the H (Historic District Zone) within the Capitol Square Context. The Capitol Square Context is described on pages 2-8 and 2-9 of the Design Standards and 51

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 7 of 13 Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This Design Standards and Guidelines describe this context as “neo-Georgian featuring two-story brick facades with a water table, marble surround at the entrance, keystones over the window heads, dentilled cornices and hip roofs… greater latitude is recommended in determining what is appropriate for new construction and additions within this context… a compatible contemporary building is preferable to a falsely historical one.” Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for demolition, new construction, building additions, and certain renovation or rehabilitation activities to existing buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” In accordance with Article 10 §3.2, the Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the Revised #2 project’s compliance with the architectural review standards. This Revised #2 proposal must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings and Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. Information on the review considerations is given below. Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings The Design Standards and Guidelines for Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings (Chapter 3: pages 3-1 through 3-27) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The preservation of the historic character of the District is largely a function of the preservation of the existing historic building fabric. This Chapter discusses the various building elements and should also be referenced with new construction. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. The guidelines specify that “parking lots should be screened from the street; their layout should include borders and islands planted with trees and shrubs to break-up expanses of paved areas. Given a parking lot within the Dover Historic District zone, at least 20% of the area within it should be unpaved and planted.” Demolition The proposal for demolition of the existing building (in its entirety) must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. The Applicant has provided a Narrative Letter discussing this request. The Design Standards and Guidelines gives guidance to the Historic District Commission by listing specific criteria to be evaluated when considering applications for the demolition of buildings (or portions of buildings) in the historic district (Chapter 4: pages 4-10 to 4-12). These guidelines are summarized below (see Design Standards and Guidelines for the complete text). 1. Determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolition. 52

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 8 of 13 2. Regardless of economic issues the relative significance of the individual buildings slated for demolition should be evaluated. 3. In development related applications the City should review the schematic plans for the new structures to weigh the virtues of the new structure versus what exists. 4. Determine the extent of adequate recordation of a property the applicant would be required to complete if demolition were approved. 5. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. New Construction The Design Standards and Guidelines for New Construction (Chapter 4: pages 4-1 through 4-8) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The guidelines specify the following individual considerations for new construction to be considered in the review by the Historic District Commission (and Planning Commission) of the project for Architectural Review Certification: • Style • Scale (building to reflect dominant cornice and roof height of adjacent buildings) • Elevation of the First Floor • Floor-to-Floor heights • Bays, windows, and doors (size, relationship, spacing of) • Absolute Size (compare overall size of new building) • Massing (relationship of solid-to-void) • Orientation (location of primary façade) • Proportions (comparison of height to width of building and elements) • Materials • Forms (shape of building and roof to be complementary) • Siting (location of building on lot and in relation to street) • High density/ large-scale construction The proposed project must also be reviewed for compliance with the standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards include items such as setbacks from property lines, lot coverage, height, etc. This Revised #2 Proposal for the Old Post appears to conform to most of the bulk requirements of the C-2 Zoning District; however, should be verified via Site Plan review. The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Historic District Commission to waive certain bulk standards when issuing its recommendation to the Planning Commission for an Architectural Review Certificate if necessary. It is noted that the Zoning Ordinance also includes other site development requirements such as dumpsters, lighting, tree planting, bicycle parking, rear emergency access, spacing requirements, etc. 53

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 9 of 13 ACTION on ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CERTIFICATION (for HI-25-01 with February 2025 Review by Historic District Commission and March 17, 2025 Review by Planning Commission): Application HI-25-01 was considered at the February 20, 2025 Meeting of the Historic District Commission. The following members were present at the February Meeting: Chairman Eric Czerwinski, Vice-Chair Mrs. Ellen Richardson, Mrs. Ann Horsey, and Ms. Mary Mason. The application was represented by Mike Glick of Lighthouse Construction along with Lauren Townsend. Public testimony was received during the Public Hearing from Todd Stonesifer as Board President of the Downtown Dover Partnership. During the Meeting, the Historic District Commission heard the applicants’ presentation on The Old Post Project and including their response to the series of Staff Comments and Recommendations. They presented information on the site’s history; the development site and building placement; building architectural features and materials; and other site items. Questions focused on the building elevation detailing, planned uses in the building, and building height. Action on Architectural Review Certification Recommendation by Historic District Commission: The motion to recommend approval passed 4-0 of the members present for this application at the February 20, 2025 Meeting. The Historic District Commission recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for Application HI-25-01 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza based on the applicant’s presentation and plans with reference to the Staff notes and amendments (Staff Recommendation Report – Section VI) and with information from the applicant’s Response Letter. Action on Architecture Review Certification and Site Plan by the Planning Commission: On March 17, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve the Site Plan, including the Architectural Review Certification. The motion is as follows: Mr. Lewis moved to approve S-25-07 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza and the associated Architectural Review Certification for the redevelopment of the old Post Office property including the Parking Strategy Statement and the Active Recreation Area Plan, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Lewis voting yes; he thinks it is much needed in the area and it’s an exciting plan. He is looking forward to seeing it come to fruition. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Denney voting yes; but she really does object to the parking. She sees problems but otherwise she thinks it is well done. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he thinks it is a great use of the building. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Reaves voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks it is a professionally well done package and she thinks it’s in keeping with what we are trying to accomplish in Downtown Dover. Mr. Witham voting yes; he thinks this is an excellent use of this property given the limited use of this space that the property has. He thinks that the parking arrangement is probably the best that they could come up with given the environment that they are faced with. It is a well-designed building and the only drawback that he see is that it does not have a flagpole indicated. He votes 54

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 10 of 13 yes for the reasons stated in the record by fellow Commissioners as well as the DAC comments and the Planning Commission’s statements. ACTION on ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CERTIFICATION (for HI-25-01 Revised with November 20, 2025 Review by Historic District Commission and December 15, 2025 Review by Planning Commission): Application HI-25-01 Revised was considered at the November 20, 2025 Meeting of the Historic District Commission. The following members were present at the November Meeting: Chairman Eric Czerwinski, Vice-Chair Mrs. Ellen Richardson, Mrs. Ann Horsey, and Ms. Ann Baker. The application was represented by Mr. Sal Leone, Old Post LLC; Mr. Freddy Bada, Moonlight Architecture Inc.; Mr. Chad Warren, Engineer; Davis, Bowen and Friedel. Public testimony was received during the Public Hearing from Mr. Zach Prebula with Kent Economic Partnership. During the Meeting, the Historic District Commission heard the applicants’ presentation on The Old Post Project as Revised and including their response to the series of Staff Comments and Recommendations. They presented information on the site’s history; the development site and building placement; building architectural features and materials; and other site items. Questions focused on the building elevation detailing, planned uses in the building, and building height. Action on Architectural Review Certification Recommendation by Historic District Commission: The motion to recommend approval passed 4-0 of the members present for this application at the November 20, 2025 Meeting. The Historic District Commission recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for Application HI-25-01 Revised The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza based on the applicant’s presentation and plans with reference to the Staff comments (Staff Recommendation Report – Section VI) and with information from the applicant’s Response Letter. Action on Architecture Review Certification and Site Plan by the Planning Commission: On December 15, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve the Site Plan, including the Architectural Review Certification. The motion is as follows: Mrs. Denney moved to approve S-25-07 which would also include the Parking Strategy Statement as well as the Active Recreation Area Plan. She thinks this is very well thought out and she is sure this was an extra expense to have the brick side and all but, she thinks that this building as we are seeing it just really lends itself to the area, the architecture and the historic aspect of the City of Dover; the Capital City of the State that started the Nation and also including the Architectural Review Certification. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mrs. Denney voting yes; in keeping with her motion. She thinks this is a lovely addition and change and it somewhat saves at least the front façade of the Post Office. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on DAC comments. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it will be a great addition. Dr. Jones voting yes; it seems like it’s going to be an exciting project and she hopes there will be consideration for the inclusion of children in the active recreation area. Mr. Reaves voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Lewis voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Witham voting yes; it’s an excellent use of a valuable resource in Dover and as the applicant 55

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 11 of 13 stated, it opens the gateway to the Downtown Area which he thinks is going to be very helpful. He would love to see a flagpole; he doesn’t know whether or not that is in the plans. VI. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff Comments and Recommendations for this application regarding the Architectural Review Certification were originally provided in the Architectural Review Staff Report Issued for the February 20, 2025 Historic District Commission Meeting and then were provided in the Revised Architectural Review Staff Report Issued for the November 20, 2026 Historic District Commission Meeting. The comments and recommendations were updated for this Report following Staff’s review of the Revised #2 Submission dated August 18, 2026. 1) Staff again recommends conditional approval of the Revised #2 Architectural Review Certificate for The Old Post project, finding that the building to be of a compatible design with the nearby buildings and with the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This includes the demolition of the entirety of the building, the new building addition at the rear (north) using brick EIFS material, and reconstruction of the entire building using brick EIFS material. The Planning Office Staff finds that the full-envelope installation of a brick-finish EIFS system is structurally imperative because the building sits atop where discovered unstable, low-bearing-capacity soils severely limit the foundation’s load limits. Replacing the envelope with traditional, heavy clay masonry could introduce excessive dead load, risking differential and catastrophic foundation failure whereas the ultra-lightweight EIFS assembly achieves the required historic aesthetic while keeping structural loads well within safe geotechnical margins. The proposed multi-use site enhances the pedestrian scale of the Downtown area. The reconstruction of general building massing portion (and footprint) fronting Loockerman Plaza maintains the historic context of the area. The brick exterior finishes to resemble bricks take cues from the architectural styles seen in the Loockerman Street corridor and Capitol Square context. 2) The following conditions are recommended by Staff to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: a. The selected exterior finish choices should be compatible with the brick on the existing structure. The brick material color, size, and format should be identified. b. Continue to use the wall section at the cornice in a pattern that allows the cornice to protect in a different plane than the general wall surface. Cornicework is a very significant feature of the buildings in the area. Dentil cornices are recommended, particularly on the south-facing side of the building. c. While shutters are encouraged, vinyl and aluminum shutters may be inappropriate. d. It is inappropriate to remove historic decorative elements. The round six-part window with trim work in the tympanum should be replicated and the building name can be placed under it still in the pediment. e. Consideration of wall or free-standing signage may require additional review. 56

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 12 of 13 f. Ensure the roof to wall connection from the front building to the rear addition does not result in valleys trapping water and debris. g. Identify any roof drainage systems i.e. gutters and downspouts and the proposed materials. h. Clarify if brick EIFS will be used as the exterior cladding materials for the dormer. Typically, masonry is not used in these features and a siding material and trim work is more often used. i. Identify the main entrance door(s) to the apartment building area; is it on Innovation Way or from the parking lot sides? j. Identify the railing materials along the steps in the sidewalk system and for the accessible ramp on the north end of the building. Ensure there is adequate space to fit the ramp and sidewalk. k. Any light fixtures utilized on the property should be consistent with the style of the lighting used in the nearby areas of the Capitol Square Context of the Historic District. l. Any revisions or changes in the identified materials may be subject to further review by the Historic District Commission. 3) Staff recommends the following pertaining to the site design elements of the project: a. The C-2 zoning district requires that parking lots be screened from the street. This Revised #2 includes a parking lot island improvements at the entrance from Innovation Way that added curing and grass areas. b. The sidewalk system on the street frontage should continue and include barrier free access, crosswalk striping, etc. at the points of intersection with the entrance and exit drive aisles. c. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting locations, and lighting fixture locations should be depicted on the plan and be consistent with the character of these elements as they exist within the Capitol Square Context area. 4) The existing building has a cornerstone/date stone that should be retained. There may also be an opportunity to add a plaque or other method outlining the history of the building (time of service as the Dover Post Office). 5) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Building Inspection Staff and Fire Marshal regarding these requirements. The resolution of these items can impact the site design in some cases. 6) In the event that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 7) This site development plan for this Revised project is also subject to the application and review process for Site Development Plan (Article 10 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning 57

Item 5. HI-25-01 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised #2 Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 13 of 13 Ordinance and other regulations may be identified during the Site Plan Process. Review comments pertaining specifically to the Site Plan set will be issued at that time. 8) The applicant shall be aware that Building Permits are required to proceed with any construction activities on the project site. The permit applications must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. 9) The applicant should be aware that a Sign Permit is required to proceed with the placement of signage on the property. VII. Historic District Commission Action Required on Revised #2 Submission The Historic District Commission shall consider the Revised #2 Proposal and provide a Revised #2 Recommendation in regard to the Revised #2 Architectural Review Certification for the Old Post building and associated Site Improvements as Revised. The Revised #2 Recommendation should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This Revised #2 Recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission at their September 21, 2026 Meeting with Public Hearing and Review of the Revised #2 HI-25-01/S-25- 07. 58

Item 5. 59

Item 5. On behalf of Old Post LLC, we respectfully submit Revision #2 for consideration by the Historic Commission and Planning Commission for the Old Post Project located at 55 Loockerman Street, Dover, Delaware. We are requesting approval of two modifications to the previously approved project. These requested modifications are the result of unforeseen structural and subsurface conditions discovered during additional investigation, testing, demolition planning, and engineering work following the original approval. It is important to emphasize that the project is not being redesigned or replaced with a materially different development. Rather, the requested revisions are intended to address conditions that were not reasonably apparent at the time of the original approval and to allow the previously approved development to be constructed in a safe, structurally responsible, and practical manner. 1. REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN ITS ENTIRETY We respectfully request permission to demolish the existing building in its entirety, with the possible exception of portions of the existing front foundation footings, where technically feasible and appropriate. Following the purchase of the property from the City of Dover, extensive testing and investigation revealed significant quantities of garbage, refuse, and other unsuitable materials below grade. Several rounds of additional testing and engineering analysis have demonstrated that these unforeseen subsurface conditions materially affect the structural design and construction methodology for the project. As a result of these conditions, the project now requires the installation of specialized rigid-inclusion piles, representing an additional construction cost of more than $375,000. Additional investigation has also determined that the foundation work necessary to connect the remaining portion of the existing building to the new rear tower would be exceptionally difficult to construct because of the subsurface conditions encountered on the property. The subsurface conditions have also raised concerns regarding the actual weight and structural behavior of the existing building and the potential for settlement beyond standard construction tolerances. These findings have required the project team to reevaluate the safest and most appropriate method of proceeding with demolition and reconstruction. 60

Item 5. Several demolition contractors who have reviewed the project have independently expressed concerns regarding the safety of attempting to retain and selectively demolish a portion of the existing structure. In particular, the existing building contains substantial steel beams and steel floor trusses. Attempting to cut and remove these structural members in order to separate the existing building from the new construction could create a significant risk of an uncontrolled structural collapse during demolition. Such a condition could potentially result in serious injury or loss of life to workers or others on the site. This concern is particularly significant at the location where the remaining portion of the existing building would meet and connect with the new tower construction. In addition, we have recently observed a significant crack in the northeast exterior wall of the existing structure. This condition has further increased our concern regarding the stability of the building and the safety of attempting to selectively demolish portions of the structure while leaving other portions standing. For these reasons, we believe that complete demolition of the existing structure represents the safer and more responsible approach to both demolition and reconstruction. The additional area proposed for demolition represents less than 25% of the area originally contemplated for retention. The overall project design, massing, elevations, and architectural intent will remain substantially consistent with the previously approved plans. We remain committed to maintaining the approved appearance and character of the front façade. Where practical and structurally appropriate, we also intend to salvage and reuse existing architectural and structural elements, including columns and other materials, as part of the reconstruction. Complete demolition will also provide the project team with the opportunity to properly waterproof and insulate the building envelope at the front portion of the property. This will improve the long-term performance, durability, and energy efficiency of the building. We respectfully submit that allowing complete demolition will provide a safer construction environment while allowing the previously approved project to proceed in a more practical and structurally sound manner. 2. REQUEST TO MODIFY EXTERIOR FAÇADE MATERIAL TO EIFS BRICK Our second request concerns the exterior façade materials. 61

Item 5. The currently approved plans provide for EIFS on the first floor of the residential four-story tower, with thin brick and conventional brick used on other portions of the building. In response to the structural and subsurface conditions identified during our additional engineering investigations, we respectfully request permission to utilize an EIFS brick system in place of conventional and thin brick materials on the portions of the building currently proposed to receive those materials. The proposed EIFS brick system is intended to provide the appearance and character of traditional brick while substantially reducing the overall weight imposed on the building structure. This reduction in weight is particularly important given the unforeseen subsurface conditions and the structural and settlement concerns identified during our additional testing and engineering analysis. The proposed material change will not change the building elevations, architectural design, massing, height, or overall appearance of the approved project. The requested revision is limited to the exterior cladding material. The first floor of the residential tower was already approved with an EIFS system. We also understood during the original approval process that EIFS had been contemplated and approved for the tower as a whole when the tower was three stories. Given the conditions now identified, extending the EIFS system in a brick appearance would provide a practical means of reducing the overall weight of the building while maintaining the architectural character and appearance contemplated by the approved plans. The use of an EIFS brick system would also assist the project in maintaining appropriate structural and engineering margins with respect to the anticipated settlement conditions. We will provide physical samples of the proposed EIFS brick system at the hearings for the Commissioners to review and evaluate. CONCLUSION The two requested revisions are being proposed as a direct response to unforeseen conditions discovered after the original approval of the project. The intent of Old Post LLC remains to proceed with the previously approved development while addressing the significant structural, subsurface, safety, and construction issues that have been identified during the project's engineering and pre-construction process. 62

Item 5. We believe that the proposed revisions will allow the project to proceed in a safer, more structurally responsible, and more practical manner, while preserving the architectural character, elevations, massing, and overall intent of the previously approved project. The requested changes are not intended to create a materially different development. Rather, they are necessary modifications to the means and methods by which the approved development can be safely and responsibly constructed in light of conditions that were not known at the time of the original approval. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Historic Commission and Planning Commission approve Revision #2, including: 1. Permission to demolish the existing structure in its entirety, with the possible exception of portions of the existing front foundation footings where feasible and appropriate; and 2. Permission to utilize an EIFS brick exterior cladding system in place of the conventional and thin brick materials currently shown on portions of the approved plans. We appreciate the Commissions' time and consideration of this request. We look forward to presenting the additional engineering information, demolition concerns, and proposed material samples at the upcoming hearings. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Francis A. DiMondi Managing Member Old Post LLC 91 Brenda Lane, Suite A Camden, DE 19934 Email: INFO@FADoffice.net Phone: 302-730-0150 63

Item 5. Ring W. Lardner, P.E. August 20, 2026 W. Zachary Crouch, P.E. Michael E. Wheedleton, AIA, LEED GA Jason P. Loar, P.E. City of Dover Jamie L. Sechler, P.E. 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP RE: Old Dover Post 55 Loockerman Plaza DBF #: 2916A036 Dear Mrs. Melson-Williams: On behalf of the developer, we are writing this letter to confirm that the site is still in compliance with City of Dover Code with additional dwelling units proposed with the revised building. As the structural conditions of the existing front portion of the old Dover Post office were unsuitable, the entire building will now be reconstructed. In doing so, the architects were able to create a more efficient design of the floors within the building, allowing for 3 additional studio apartment units. The brings the total dwelling units within the building up from 42 to 45 while keeping the exact same building footprint and total building square footage as the previously approved architectural plans. As the total building square footage remains the same, this does not affect the floor area to lot area ratio, or the maximum allowed gross floor area. The one effect it does have is on the active recreation area as the 3 additional units raise the required recreation area from 3,150 s.f. to 3,375 s.f (at a rate of 75 s.f per dwelling unit). The building revision also did not remove any of the previously approved recreation space which is unchanged as follows: East Zen Garden 2,450 s.f., West Zen Garden 1,643 s.f., Second Floor Gym 506 s.f., As with the previously approved building, the total recreational area is 4,599 s.f., well above what is required. With these minimal changes to the building, an none to the site, both the architectural and site construction plans remain in compliance with City of Dover Code. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (302) 424-1441 or via email at csw@dbfinc.com. Thank you, Davis, Bowen & Friedel, Inc. Chad S. Warren, P.E. Associate/Sr. Civil Engineer  601 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 100, SALISBURY, MD 21804 • 410-543-9091  1 PARK AVENUE, MILFORD, DE 19963 • 302-424-1441  106 N. WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 103, EASTON, MD 21601• 410-770-4744 64 www.dbfinc.com

Item 5. OLD DOVER POST DATA COLUMN 1 TAX MAP ID 2-05-07705-04-5300-00001 2 ENGINEER OWNER / DEVELOPER DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. OLD POST LLC, 1 PARK AVENUE 91 BRENDA LANE, SUITE A MILFORD, DE 19963 CAMDEN, DE 19934 CHAD WARREN FRANK DIMONDI COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PHONE: (302) 424-1441 EMAIL:FDIMONDI@MSN.COM EMAIL: CSW@dbfinc.com 3 DATUM HORIZONTAL VERTICAL NAVD 83 (DE STATE PLANE) NAVD 88 EAST DOVER HUNDRED SITE 4 ZONING EXISTING PROPOSED C2/H/SWPOZ C2/H//SWPOZ 5 LAND USE EXISTING PROPOSED POST OFFICE MIXED USE CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 4,560 S.F. RESTAURANT & 45 APARTMENT UNITS 6 FLOODPLAIN THE PROPERTY IS NOT IMPACTED BY THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS DETERMINED BY FEMA PANEL 10001C0167H , DATED MAY 5, 2003. 7 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN AREA OF EXCELLENT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE. GENERAL NOTES: 8 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA. LOCATION MAP 1. 2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS, INCLUDING TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, CABLE TV, GAS, TRAFFIC, SIGNAL, DBF #5209A001 9 10 WETLANDS UTILITIES THE PROPERTY IS NOT IMPACTED BY STATE AND FEDERALLY REGULATED WETLANDS. WATER SEWER FEBRUARY 2026 WATER, SEWER, FORCE MAINS AND STORM DRAINAGE ARE BASED UPON THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND ARE SHOWN CITY OF DOVER CITY OF DOVER 1" = 1200' FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR ONLY. NO GUARANTEE IS MADE OR IMPLIED REGARDING THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS THEREOF. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATION, DEPTH, SIZE AND MATERIAL OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO HIS OWN SATISFACTION BEFORE BEGINNING ANY EXCAVATION OR PIPE LAYING. 11 CODE COMPLIANCE REQUIRED PROPOSED THE CITY, OWNER, AND ENGINEER DISCLAIM ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID FRONT SETBACK 0 FT 0 FT CONSTRUCTION PLANS INFORMATION. IF THE CONTRACTOR RELIES ON SAID INFORMATION, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN RISK. THE GIVING OF THE INFORMATION ON THE PLANS WILL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS OBLIGATIONS TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT ALL SHOWN SIDE SETBACK 5 FT 5 FT OR NOT SHOWN EXISTING UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES. SHOULD ANY EXISTING UTILITIES BE DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR, REAR SETBACK 20 FT 20 FT THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE CITY'S SATISFACTION, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE HIS OWN INVESTIGATION AND TEST PIT EXISTING UTILITIES AS REQUIRED. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 75 FT 45 FT PARKING (SEE PARKING STRATEGY TABLE THIS 66 ONSITE SPACES (INCLUDING 3 ADA 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "MISS UTILITY" (1-800-282-8555 IN DE) & (1-800-441-8355 OUTSIDE OF DE) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR SHEET) ACCESSIBLE SPACES) TO EXCAVATION TO HAVE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATED AND MARKED. R1UBV 29 SPACES ON AN EASEMENT WITH THE 4. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CITY OF DOVER ON ADJACENT PARCEL INNO KINGS HW 5. USE ONLY SUITABLE AND APPROVED GRANULAR MATERIAL FOR BACK FILLING TRENCHES. (INDLUDING 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE VAT SPACES) SITE Y. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC IN ALL WORK AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DELAWARE ION ST. 95 TOTAL SPACES CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ER MAN MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (DE MUTCD), MOST RECENT VERSION. ANY PAVEMENT MARKINGS OR PAINTED WY. OCK LINES DISTURBED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND AFTER COMPLETION OF PAVEMENT BICYCLE PARKING 1 OUTSIDE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE E. LO RESTORATION. COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRICES BID FOR PIPE INSTALLATION. FOR EVERY 20 ONSITE VEHICLE 5 OUTSIDE BICYCLE PARKING SPACES ISLA PARKING SPACES LAZA LEG P 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES AND PROPERTY LINES TO HIS OWN SATISFACTION. 20 INSIDE BICYCLE PARKING SPACES AN CK ERM ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT AREAS PROVIDED. ANY LOO DISTURBED AREAS BEYOND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT LINES SHALL BE RESTORED IMMEDIATELY TO THEIR ORIGINAL 25 TOTAL SPACES FED TIVE CONDITION. PAYMENT FOR THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF ITEMS BID. OLD DOVER POST ERA AVE BLV D. LOT COVERAGE 85.00% 81.53% . 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE STAKEOUT SURVEY NECESSARY FOR THE PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, THE INSTALLATION OF . IN G JR L ST RK . UTILITY WORK AND APPURTENANCES, AND DETERMINATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. RECREATIONAL AREA 75 S.F. OF RECREATIONAL AREA PER EAST ZEN GARDEN: 2,450 S.F. ST. LU THE H TIN DWELLING UNIT. WEST ZEN GARDEN: 1,643 S.F. ORT MAR E. N 9. FITTINGS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ILLUSTRATE ANTICIPATED SIZE AND ANGLE OF DEFLECTION. THIS INFORMATION IS SHOWN FOR 75 S.F. X 45 UNITS = 3,375 S.F. SECOND FLOOR GYM: 506 S.F. GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT GUARANTEED. ACTUAL SIZE AND ANGLE MAY VARY DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS. THE TOTAL RECREATIONAL AREA: 4,599 S.F. NWI WETLANDS CONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR CHANGES RESULTING FROM SUCH CONDITIONS. FLOOR AREA RATIO GROSS FLOOR AREA/LOT AREA 52,212 S.F. / 55,191 S.F. = .0.94 1" = 400' 10. THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, WHERE ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE LOCATED IN, ACROSS OR ADJACENT TO DRAINAGE = MAXIMUM OF 5.0 DITCHES AND SWALES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS TO THEIR ORIGINAL GRADES. INSTALL EROSION TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM OF 275,955 S.F. 9,120 S.F. + 43,092 S.F. = 52,212 S.F. CONTROL MATTING (AMERICAN GREEN SN 150) AND VEGETATE AS REQUIRED. PAYMENT OF THIS RESTORATION SHALL BE 2 INCLUDED IN THE COST OF ITEMS BID. TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS 1 TREE PER 3,000 S.F. OF 19 PROPOSED TREES NON-WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT AREA 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CAUTION AND TAKE MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION WATER 55,191 S.F. / 3,000 S.F. = 19 TREES INNO ACTIVITIES. DAMAGED TREES TO BE REPLACED, IN KIND, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 12 AREAS 3 KINGS HW ION 12. ALL ROADWAYS ARE TO BE SWEPT FREE OF SEDIMENT ON A DAILY BASIS. PARCEL AREA 55,191 S.F. (1.267 AC.) VAT SITE Y. 1 IMPERVIOUS COVER 45,168 S.F. (1.037 AC.) (81.85%) 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND IMMEDIATELY REPLACE, RELOCATE, RESET OR RECONSTRUCT ALL OBSTRUCTIONS IN T. AN S THE WORK AREA, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MAILBOXES, SIGNS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, PLANTERS, CULVERTS, WY. ERM 13 PROPOSED LAND USE AREAS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OCK DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, CURBS, GUTTERS, FENCES, OR OTHER NATURAL OR MAN-MADE OBSTRUCTIONS. TRAFFIC E. LO CONTROL REGULATORY, WARNING, AND INFORMATIONAL SIGNS SHALL REMAIN FUNCTIONAL AND VISIBLE TO THE APPROPRIATE BUILDINGS/PARKING 38,343 S.F. (0.880 AC.) (69.46%) LEG LANES OF TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES, WITH THEIR RELOCATION KEPT TO A MINIMUM DISTANCE. THE COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AZA 4 SIDEWALKS 6,824 S.F. (0.157 AC.) (12.39%) COST OF ITEMS BID. N PL ISLA SITE RMA CKE 5 OPEN SPACE 10,023 S.F. (0.230 AC.) (18.15%) LOO 14. STANDARD CITY OF DOVER SIDEWALK, AS PER CHAPTER 98, ARTICLE IV OF THE DOVER CODE OF ORDINANCES, SHALL BE 6 TIVE TOTAL 55,191 S.F. (0.267 AC.) (100.00%) REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED ALONG THE ENTIRE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE OF A PROPERTY. WHERE FRONTAGE SIDEWALK . FED AN ST AVE BLV D. EXISTS BUT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 98, ARTICLE IV, THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE RELAID TO MEET THE KERM STANDARDS. SIDEWALK SHALL INCLUDE BARRIER FREE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT AND SITE ACCESS. W. LO OC ERA . G JR. KIN HER ST. L ST LUT 15. IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX A, ARTICLE VI, SECTION B.3, ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL ASCEND FROM THE CURBSTONE TO THE RTH TIN . NO MAR PARKING STRATEGY . BUILDING LINE AT THE RATIO OF ONE-QUARTER OF AN INCH TO THE FOOT. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO E AFFECT ANY PAVEMENT PREVIOUSLY LAID BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, UNTIL IT IS TAKEN UP AND RE-LAID. 16. PARKING SPACES RESERVED FOR USE BY THE HANDICAPPED AND RELATED ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN NECESSARY PARKING ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE GUIDELINES ENTITLED "ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES" (REFERENCE: ANSI A117.1-1998). UNIT TYPE REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF UNITS FLOOR AREA NUMBER OF SPACES 17. LIGHTING SHALL PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 1 1/2 FOOTCANDLES AT GRADE. LIGHT SHALL BE DEFLECTED AWAY FROM ADJACENT 1 BEDROOM APARTMENT 1 SPACE 17 17 RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND SHALL NOT BE DISTRACTING TO TRAFFIC ON ADJACENT ROADS. 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT 2 SPACE 15 30 FEMA FLOOD MAP 18. ALL EXISTING REGULATORY AND WARNING TYPE TRAFFIC SIGNS, AND ALL STREET NAME SIGNS OCCURRING WITHIN THE 3 BEDROOM APARTMENT 3 SPACE 4 12 PANEL #10001C0167H SCALE: 1" = 1/2 MILE PROPOSED PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE REMOVED AND IMMEDIATELY REPLACED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY. STUDIO APARTMENT 1 SPACE 9 9 19. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE ENTRANCES AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-TOTAL: 68 SPACES DELDOT AND THE CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BASED ON STREET MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. SacB Lo 20. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE, TOPSOIL, SEED, AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING PIPE 1 SPACE PER 4 SEATS/3 BAR INSTALLATION OR DITCH CONSTRUCTION. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. RESTAURANT 4,560 S.F. 56 STOOLS 21. DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DONE IN SUB-TOTAL: 56 SPACES COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS 0 400 800 1200 LOCATION MAP THERETO APPURTENANT. TOTAL: 124 SPACES 22. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL APPRAISE AND COORDINATE DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION: SCALE: 1"=400' HkB W DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. - (302) 424-1441 CITY OF DOVER/WATER & WASTEWATER - (302) 736-7025 PROVIDED PARKING INNO 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS CITY OF DOVER/PLANNING AND INSPECTION - (302) 736-7010 BICYCLE PARKING Y. 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS CITY OF DOVER/ELECTRIC UTILITY - (302) 736-7070 PARKING TYPE KINGS HW VAT KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT - (302) 608-5370 SITE PARKING TYPE ION ST. MAN 23. THE OWNER/DEVELOPER WILL UTILIZE PRIVATE COLLECTION FOR SOLID WASTE. PROPOSED ONSITE APARTMENTS 66 KER 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS WY. E. LO OC PROPOSED OUTSIDE OF 5 SHARED SPACES ON EXISTING BUILDING LEG 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS ZA APARTMENTS AND N PLA EASEMENT WITH CITY OF RESTAURANT 29 RMA ISLA DOVER ON ADJACENT PARCEL CKE PROPOSED INSIDE OF LOO 20 INDEX OF SHEETS BUILDING ERA TIVE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS PUBLIC SPACES (LIBRARY FED LOT, INNOVATION WAY, RESTAURANT 180± . C-001 TITLE AVE LVD LOOCKERMAN PLAZA) J R. B 1 2-05-07705-04-5500-00001 IO ZONING CITY OF DOVER 35 LOOCKERMAN ST., DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 L ST ING . RK C-002 LEGEND TOTAL: 25 SPACES ST. LU THE 2 2-05-07705-04-5100-00001 IO ZONING STATE OF DELAWARE 89 KINGS HWY., DOVER DELAWARE 19901 H . ORT TIN C-101 EXISTING CONDITIONS TOTAL: 275± SPACES E. N MAR 3 2-05-07705-04-5200-00001 IO ZONING CENTRAL DOVER OFFICES, INC. 9 E LOOCKERMAN ST., DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 SOILS MAP C-102 SITE PLAN 4 2-05-07709-05-1300-00001 IO ZONING STATE OF DELAWARE 121 MARTIN L KING JR BLVD., DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 1" = 400' C-103 SITE DETAILS 5 2-05-07709-05-1200-00001 IO ZONING STATE OF DELAWARE 60 LOOCKERMAN ST., DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 C-104 SITE DETAILS SOILS DATA 6 2-05-07709-05-1100-00001 IO ZONING STATE OF DELAWARE 401 FEDERAL ST., DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 C-105 ENTRANCE PLAN LABEL HkB SOIL NAME Handbrook Urban Land Complex, 0 to 5 Percent Slopes TYPE B C-106 TURNING DIAGRAMS OWNER/DEVELOPER STATEMENT P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-TITLE.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:19pm warc C-107 ACTIVE RECREATION PLAN I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BENCHMARK INFORMATION Date: FEBRUARY 2026 DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, I C-301 GRADING OVERVIEW BM# DESCRIPTION LOCATION ELEVATION ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO BE MY ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN BE RECORDED Scale: C-302 - C-303 GRADING PLAN 15.08' (NAVD 88) ACCORDING TO LAW. AS NOTED 1 IRON ROD W/CAP N:422446.8983 E:626423.5746 C-401 SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER COVERSHEET AND GENERAL NOTES Dwn.By: CAW C-402 PRE CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Proj.No.: 5209A001 C-403 CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 8/20/2026 C-404 - C-405 CONSTRUCTION SITE DETAILS AND NOTES FRANK DIMONDI DATE OLD POST LLC. C-501 UTILITY PLAN 91 BRENDA LANE SUITE A CAMDEN, DE 19934 CITY OF DOVER C-502 UTILITY DETAILS C-504 L-101 SEWER PROFILES LANDSCAPE PLAN ENGINEER'S STATEMENT TITLE L-102 LANDSCAPE DETAILS I, CHAD S. WARREN, P.E., HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN V-101 RECORD TITLE PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE V-102 RECORD PLAN APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. Dwg.No.: C-001 8/20/2026 by CHAD S. WARREN, P.E. DATE DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. 1 PARK AVE. ENGINEER DATE MILFORD, DELAWARE, 19963 65 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024

Item 5. 8/20/2026 MANMADE ROADSIDE FEATURES UTILITY FEATURES NATURAL FEATURES FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED ID FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED BOLLARD ELECTRIC - UNDERGROUND HEDGEROW OR THICKET C CURB, TYPE 1 AND 3 ELECTRIC MANHOLE E SHRUBBERY A CURB OPENING WITH SIDEWALK C ELECTRIC METER EM TREE - CONIFEROUS F FENCE - CHAINLINK OR STRANDED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TREE - DECIDOUS LAMP AND POST - RESIDENTIAL GAS - UNDERGROUND UGE UGE TREE LINE MB MB MAILBOX GAS MANHOLE G CONTOUR ELEVATION & LABEL 33 21.96 TRAFFIC SIGN AND POST GAS METER ELEVATION C CURB OPENING GAS VALVE O RAILROAD TRACKS SANITARY MAIN 8SS SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE RIGHT-OF-WAY FEATURES DRAINAGE FEATURES CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED SOIL BORING LOCATION FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED ID EASEMENT PE TELEPHONE TEST POINT FE FLARED END SECTION PROPERTY LINE UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE ANCHOR OLD DOVER POST MH DRAINAGE MANHOLE D RIGHT-OF-WAY BASELINE UTILITY POLE 1+00 DI DRAINAGE INLET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE WATER MAIN 8W DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW TAX DITCH RIGHT OF WAY WATER - FIRE HYDRANT RR RIPRAP PERMANENT EASEMENT PE PE WATER VALVE P TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DRAINAGE PIPE TCE WATER LATERAL UD UNDERDRAIN SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT/ LATERAL UDO UNDERDRAIN OUTLET COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SES SAFETY END SECTION BIOFILTRATION SWALE BFS SURVEY CONTROL & MONUMENTATION PAVEMENT SECTIONS FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED DITCH CENTERLINE DRAINAGE JUNCTION BOX JB PAVEMENT BM#2 SURVEY BENCHMARK LOCATION DRAINAGE PIPE HEADWALL EXISTING SIDEWALK IRON ROD WITH CAP SET PROPOSED SIDEWALK CMF CONCRETE MONUMENT IPF IRON PIPE FOUND IDENTIFIERS IRF IRON ROD FOUND FEATURE DESCRIPTION ID A ABANDON BY CONTRACTOR C A ABANDON BY OTHERS C ADJUST BY CONTRACTOR A C MISCELLANEOUS FEATURES A FEATURE DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED ADJUST BY OTHERS 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS O 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS CJB LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE LOD CONVERT TO JUNCTION BOX WETLAND BOUNDARY - DELINEATED WET 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS CMH CONVERT TO DRAINAGE MANHOLE 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS DO NOT DISTURB DND PC PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION/TYPE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION/TYPE WITHOUT PC-N DETECTABLE WARNING SYSTEM RL RELOCATE BY CONTRACTOR C RL RELOCATE BY OTHERS O RM REMOVE BY CONTRACTOR C RM REMOVE BY OTHERS P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-TITLE.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:19pm warc O Date: FEBRUARY 2026 Scale: NOT TO SCALE Dwn.By: CAW Proj.No.: 5209A001 LEGEND Dwg.No.: C-002 66 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024

P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-EXISTING CONDITIONS.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:19pm warc EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS EX-12SS INNOVATION WY. (CITY OF DOVER MAINTAINED) (LOCAL ROAD) 60' EXIST. R.O.W. EX-8W EX-8W (DELDOT LOOCKER EX-8W MAINTAIN ED) (OTHE MAN ST. EX-8W R PRINCIP AL ARTER EX-8W IA L) (KCR 0 23) EX-8W EX-8W EX-8W EX-8W EX-8W W EX-8W EX-8W EX-8 EX-8W EX-8W EX-8W EX-8W EXIST. R.O.W. VARIES 0 20 40 60 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025 Scale: Date: Proj.No.: Dwn.By: 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS Dwg.No.: 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS OLD DOVER POST 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS EXISTING 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CAW 1"=20' 5209A001 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE C-101 CONDITIONS FEBRUARY 2026 8/20/2026 67 Item 5.

Item 5. SITE HATCH LEGEND: SITE LEGEND: 8/20/2026 A STOP SIGN (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-103) EXISTING CONCRETE B HANDICAP PARKING SPACE WITH SIGN (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-103) C MODIFIED 1-6 CURB (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-103) EX-12SS D DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-103) PROPOSED CONCRETE E PROPOSED SIDEWALK F PROPOSED ADA RAMP (WITH RAILING TO MATCH PROPOSED 4' BLACK FENCE) G PROPOSED 4' TALL BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-103) PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION H PROPOSED GATE I PROPOSED STEPS EX-12SS J PROPOSED PATIO/BALCONY K PROPOSED FLAG POLE L PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (WITH COLONIAL STYLE LAMP HEAD) M EXISTING LIGHT POLE N PROPOSED PATIO O PROPOSED BIKE RACK EX-12SS P PROPOSED BENCH INNOVATION WY. 4'-3" MAX RETAINING WALL Q PROPOSED YOGA STATION 60' EXIST. R.O.W. (CITY OF DOVER MAINTAINED) (LOCAL ROAD) (SEE RETAINING WALL SECTION-1 ON SHEET C-103) R PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL SHEET C-103) 5' SIDE 6' MAX RETAINING WALL S EXISTING WALL (SEE RETAINING WALL SETBACK SECTION-2 ON SHEET C-103) T PARKING BUMPER Q EX-12SS ' R2 F F R2 R3 F P G S CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ' ' A M G R 8' M M G 104 L L 13' 5' A C I S.F. I DOOR (TYP.) R R5 PROPOSED 2' ' H 5' EAST ZEN GARDEN H 8' OLD DOVER POST 5' 2,450 S.F. 3' 5' EX-12SS J J J J J ' I M 24' 18' R5 M B WALKING PATH (CONSTRUCTED (VARIES) J F WITH PAVERS) I K 18' 9' N K B K EX-12SS ACK PROPOSED 9' 4 STORY ETB EXIST. M BUILDING 11 11 R.O.W. ADDITION ONT VARIES 43,092 S.F. S 68 L.F. WALL 9' B 14 0' FR 24' 18' F COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 18' 023) T L) (KC M 9.75' R 4.75' EX-12SS 9' 6 T LO 5' INTAIN OCKERMAN G 9' 2' R5 J J J J ' F ED) (M ST. 9' PROPOSED INOR 5' 12' WEST ZEN GARDEN P 1,643 S.F. P ARTE RIA I 20' EX-12SS M 10' (VARIES) 8' C OT MA R 24' (DELD M 18' 18' J 20' REAR ' 9' R5 SETBACK 9' D M EX-12SS 5' SIDE 24 J 1' T G SETBACK O H S L EXISTING PORTION OF WALL TO BE FILLED L G M M S M M EX-12SS 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS M 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS EXISTING SHARED USE PARKING EASEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DOVER 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS EX-12SS P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-SITE PLAN.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:19pm warc Date: FEBRUARY 2026 Scale: 1"=20' Dwn.By: CAW Proj.No.: 5209A001 SITE PLAN Dwg.No.: 0 20 40 60 C-102 68 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 5. HANDICAP SIGN (R7-8) & HANDICAP SIGN (R7-8) & HANDICAP SIGN (R7-8) VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGN (R7-8P) VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGN (R7-8P) (USE THIS SIGN AT ALL (USE THIS COMBINATION OF SIGNS AT (USE THIS COMBINATION OF SIGNS AT HANDICAPPED PARKING R7-8 LOCATIONS NOTED ON PLAN) LOCATIONS NOTED ON PLAN) 3 LOCATIONS) SIDEWALK 4" CHAMFER FENCE THIS SIGN TYPICAL AT 8/20/2026 #4 BENT BARS w/ 16" ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES LEGS @ 18" O.C. #5 @ 18" O.C. HORIZ. #4 @ 18" STONE DRAINAGE O.C., E.W. 1' LAYER "U"-CHANNEL POST (2-LBS./FT.) 4'-3" (MAX.) #5 @ 12" O.C. VERT. 5' MIN. FROM GRADE/7' MAX. FILTER FABRIC 5'-3" DRAIN TILE 9'-0" 6"R 9'-0" 9'-0" 2" CLR. 1'-0" (MIN.) 112"Ø PVC WEEPS @ 10'-0" O.C. #5 @ 12" O.C. 18" 6" 4" PIPE BOLLARD PAINTED TRAFFIC 2" CLR. YELLOW, FILLED W/ CONCRETE (4) #5 CONT. 2'R 6" 1'-0" 8" 2'-6" 3" CLR. 18 SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE 18'-0" "R 4" 1'-0" 180° HOOKED 15" END, TYP. GROUND/PAVING #4 STAND 4'-2" SURFACE BARS, TYP. 3'-9" 9'-0" 3'-9" 9'-0" 3'-9" 3" CLR. 6" #57 STONE NOTES: BASE 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 3500 P.S.I. 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE 4,000 PSI. P.C. CONCRETE 2. INSTALL VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS @ 30'-0" O.C. MAX., REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THROUGH THE JOINT. 3. INSTALL VERTICAL "V"-NOTCH CONTROL JOINTS, 10'-0" O.C. 3" 4. ASSUMED SOIL PROPERTIES USED FOR RETAINING WALL 2'-0" DESIGN, SHALL BE VERIFIED BY GEOTECH ENGINEER: - SOIL DENSITY = 120 PCF - SOIL BEARING CAPACITY = 2,000 PSF - SOIL FRICTION ANGLE = 30.0° - COEFF. OF FRICTION = 0.45 4" WIDE BLUE IN COLOR, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ADJACENT PARKING SPACE PAINTED STRIPING TO BE BLUE IN PAINTED STRIPING TO BE BLUE IN 1'-6" RETAINING WALL SECTION - 1 LINE COLOR, 4" WIDE, 24" ON CENTER AND AT A 45° ANGLE COLOR, 4" WIDE, 24" ON CENTER AND AT A 45° ANGLE (SOIL HEIGHTS 3.0'-4.25') SIGNAGE FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE HANDICAP PARKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE OLD DOVER POST NO TO SCALE 3 4" CHAMFER FENCE #4 BENT BARS w/ 16" LEGS @ 18" O.C. PARKING LOT PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) #5 @ 18" O.C. HORIZ. #5 @ 12" O.C. VERT. 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" GATE GATE 8" X 18" POURED CONCRETE 6'-0" (MAX.) #4 @ 18" FOOTER - 30" BELOW GRADE EDGE OF SLAB (FOR 8" C.M.U. WALL SUPPORT O.C., E.W. STONE DRAINAGE 1' LAYER 7'-0" 6" REINFORCED EXPANSION JOINT CONCRETE SLAB COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (SEE DETAIL) FILTER FABRIC CONTROL JOINT DRAIN TILE 2" CLR. 22'-8" 1'-0" (MIN.) 11'-8" 12'-8" 1.83 6" #5 @ 12" O.C. 2" CLR. (6) #5 CONT. 1'-0" 8" 4'-7" 3" CLR. (4) - 6" DIA. X 4'-0" SCH. 40 BOLLARDS FILLED WITH CONC. @ O.C. (PAINTED SAFETY YELLOW) 1'-0" 180° HOOKED END, TYP. NOT LESS THAN 10' 24' 6'-3" R1-1 #4 STAND 3" CLR. BARS, 6" #57 (36"x36") TYP. STONE 8" C.M.U. WALL BEYOND NOTES: 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE 4,000 PSI. BASE SIGN DETAIL W/ CONC. DOMED TOP (EIFS FINISH COLORED 2. INSTALL VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS @ 30'-0" O.C. MAX., REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THROUGH THE JOINT. TO MATCH BUILDING.) 3. INSTALL VERTICAL "V"-NOTCH CONTROL JOINTS, 10'-0" O.C. 1'MIN 4. ASSUMED SOIL PROPERTIES USED FOR RETAINING WALL DESIGN, SHALL BE VERIFIED BY GEOTECH ENGINEER: - SOIL DENSITY = 120 PCF LOCK RETAINING YOKE (TYP.) - SOIL BEARING CAPACITY = 2,000 PSF AT EXTRA COST - SOIL FRICTION ANGLE = 30.0° - COEFF. OF FRICTION = 0.45 SCH. 40 GALV. FENCE POST 6'-8" AND GATES W/PRIVACY SLATS RETAINING WALL SECTION - 2 R= 8.5" ANCHOR SECURITY (SOIL HEIGHTS 4.25'-6.0') HINGES (AS REQUIRED) O.C. CAP (TYP.) 1'-5" 4.0' TYPICAL SIGN INSTALLATION NOTES: 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS FINISH GRADE 1. DUMPSTER WALLS TO BE 6"-8" HIGH 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS NOT TO SCALE 2. CONSTRUCT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WITH 8" SPLIT FACE BLOCK (EIFS FINISH 2.0' POURED RETAINING WALL DETAIL WITH FENCE 30" COLORED TO MATCH BUILDING ) 3. PROVIDE CONC, PAD STEEL SLEEVES FINISH 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS 1"=2' FOR THE GALV. LOCKING PINS IN THE 8" GRADE OPEN AND CLOSED POSITION. 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 18" (8"X18" POURED CONCRETE FOOTING BEYOND 4'-3" 1'-9" SAWCUT 1 1/2" DEEP CONTROL JOINT FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION 4000 PSI CONCRETE NOTES: 1. THE DEVELOPER MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHTING 2" CLEAR 5/8" DIA. MOUNTING HOLE FOR TO THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION AT 302-736-7070. 1/2" DIA. MASONRY ANCHOR (TYP.) 2. THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION DESIGNS AND FURNISHES TO THE DEVELOPER THE LAYOUT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE LIGHTS. THE CITY RETAINS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS AND THE INSTALLATION SEQUENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. THE PLANS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE 2" CLEAR P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-SITE PLAN.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:20pm warc DEVELOPER ALONG WITH THE ELECTRICAL EXTENSION PLANS. 3. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE MATERIALS Date: CONDUITS AND BELOW GRADE EQUIPMENT ACCORDING TO THE PLANS 2" NOM., SCHED. 40, ASTM A500, WELDED SEAMLESS-STEEL FEBRUARY 2026 AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RENTAL COSTS OF ALL STREET OR ALLEYWAY LIGHTS, AS PER THE PIPE CONSTRUCTION Scale: 5" 1" BATTER (2) LAYERS OF 6 X 6 - W 2.1 X W2.1 W.W.F. COMPACT SUBGRADE TO 95% OF ASTM D1557 AS NOTED APPLICABLE TARIFF RATE, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE STREETS ARE 3/8" X 3" H.R. STEEL FLAT-BAR FOR FOOT ASSEMBLIES NORMAL CURB DEDICATED TO THE CITY. 1/2" DIA. H.R. STEEL ROUND-BAR FOR LOCK-RETAINING YOKES Dwn.By: 6.0' CAW DEPRESSED VARIES, REFER 2-1/2" NOM., SCHED. 40, ASTM A500, WELDED SEAMLESS-STEEL LIGHT POLE DETAIL 4. FOR 3 21" 1 1 THE CITY WILL INSTALL THE STANDARD STREET LIGHT POLE AND LED HEAD 2" R CURB TO PLANS Proj.No.: 1" PIPE FOR BELOW-GRADE SLEEVES 5209A001 THE CURRENT MARKET RATE; THIS FEE WILL BE ROUTINELY RE-EVALUATED NOT TO SCALE AND WILL RECOVER 100% OF THE MATERIAL COST (INCLUDING CURRENT WAREHOUSE "R DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAIL FABRICATION OVERHEAD RATE). THIS FEE WILL BE BILLED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE “EXTENSION 18" 1 1 2 NOT TO SCALE ALL METALLURGICAL JOINTS ARE MIG WELDS - LOT FEE” WHICH IS COLLECTED PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF ANY ELECTRIC 2 21" FACILITIES, SEE SECTION II,PAGE 17. ANY NON-STANDARD STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION REFER TO PAVEMENT FINISHES WILL BE BASED ON THE ACTUAL COST OF THE MATERIALS (INCLUDING CURRENT SECTION WAREHOUSE OVERHEAD RATE), FOR EXAMPLE THE LIGHTS AT EDEN HILL. THE CITY BLACK THERMOPLASTIC POWDER COATING 8 TO 10 MILS THICK WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE STOCK OF NON-STANDARD BOTTOM OF CURB HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED STREETLIGHTS, THIS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CUSTOMER OR DEVELOPER. 4" CR-1 WHEN TREATED BASE IS SPECIFIED. 3 14" TYPE C HOT MIX (2 LIFTS, 141" & 2") SITE DETAILS COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 95% OF ASTM D-1557. 6" NOTE: 6" GABC WHEN ADJACENT TO CONCRETE PAVEMENT, 9'-0" SUB GRADE COMPACTED TO 95% OF INSTALL APPROVED EXPANSION JOINT. MODIFIED PROCTOR @ ±2% OPTIMUM PLAN VIEW MOISTURE CONTENT OF ASTM D1557 MODIFIED P.C.C. CURB, TYPE 1 DETAIL Dwg.No.: C-103 NOT TO SCALE PAVEMENT SECTION (TRAVEL LANES) BIKE RACK DETAIL PROPOSED STRUCTURAL NUMBER = 2.14 NOT TO SCALE 69 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 5. 8/20/2026 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE OLD DOVER POST 48" TALL BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-SITE PLAN.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:20pm warc Date: FEBRUARY 2026 Scale: AS NOTED Dwn.By: CAW Proj.No.: 5209A001 42" TALL BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SITE DETAILS Dwg.No.: C-104 70 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 5. SITE HATCH LEGEND: 8/20/2026 EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION INNOVATION WY. (CITY OF DOVER MAINTAINED) (LOCAL ROAD) PROPOSED PAVERS SITE LEGEND: A PROPOSED LIGHTPOLE (WITH COLONIAL STYLE LAMP HEAD) B PROPOSED BENCH C PROPOSED 4' TALL BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE (SEE DETAIL SHEET C-103) 5' SIDE SETBACK D PROPOSED GATE E PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL SHEET C-103) F PROPOSED PATIO/BALCONY C B E 8SS B I 8SS 8SS C 8SS8' 8SS 8SS 8SS 8SS 8SS 8SS 8SS E 8SS 8SS G PROPOSED WALKING PATH H PROPOSED YOGA STATION 3' E H 104 S.F. A A PROPOSED I I PROPOSED STEPS S G D ACTIVE RECREATION AREA 8S G SIDEWALK CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 8SS D 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W REQUIRED PROPOSED AREA PROPOSED 5' I 8' EAST ZEN GARDEN 13' 2,450 S.F. EAST ZEN GARDEN 2,450 S.F. 6FW F F F F F 75 S.F. OF RECREATIONAL OLD DOVER POST 2' AREA PER DWELLING UNIT. WEST ZEN GARDEN 1,702 S.F. 75 S.F. X 45 UNITS = 3,375 S.F. SECOND FLOOR GYM 506 S.F. 3W 5' PROPOSED SHRUB (TYP.) PROPOSED 6FW (SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS L-101 & L-102) 4 STORY BUILDING ADDITION TOTAL: 4,658 S.F. 43,092 S.F. NOTE: SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 3W PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR GYM. 6FW EAST ZEN GARDEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SCALE: 1"=10' 6FW 3W PROPOSED SHRUB (TYP.) (SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS L-101 & L-102) PROPOSED 6FW 4 STORY BUILDING ADDITION 3W 43,092 S.F. 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS 3W 6FW 2' 6FW 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS F F F F 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 1W 9' B B 12' PROPOSED B B WEST ZEN GARDEN 17' 1,643 S.F. 1W PROPOSED TREE (TYP.) 5' PROPOSED SIDEWALK (SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS L-101 & L-102) P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-ACTIVE RECREATION PLAN.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:20pm warc 10' 1W Date: FEBRUARY 2026 Scale: 1"=10' 18' Dwn.By: CAW WEST ZEN GARDEN Proj.No.: SCALE: 1"=10' 5209A001 ACTIVE RECREATION PLAN Dwg.No.: 0 10 20 30 C-107 71 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 5. EX-8W 4/15/2026 8/20/2026 EX-8W EX-12SS EX-8W EX-12SS EX-8W EX-12SS 60' EXIST. R.O.W. INNOVATION WY. PROPOSED YOGA STATION 5' SIDE EX-8W SETBACK PROPOSED BENCHES 1-CC EX-12SS 3-ND CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 4-RH 2-RH 2-PL 2-PL 3-ND W EX-8 8SS 8SS 8SS 8SS 8SS 8-BN 8S 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W OLD DOVER POST S 3-ND 8W EX-12SS 2-RH 1-PL 2-RH 3-ND 1-PL 3-ND 1-PL 1-CC 6FW 2-RH EX-8W 8W S PROPOSED EAST ZEN GARDEN 8S 3W PROPOSED FLAG POLE 8SS (TYP.) 8W 6FW EX-12SS 8SS PROPOSED 4 STORY EXIST. BUILDING R.O.W. EX-8W 3W ADDITION VARIES 43,092 S.F. 1-CC 30-TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 6FW PROPOSED WEST ZEN GARDEN EX-12SS PROPOSED BENCHES PROPOSED BENCHES 3W 2-ND 3-ND 2-ND 3-RH 6-NT 2-RH 6-NT 3-RH 6FW EX-8W N ST. ERMA 1W 1-QR 1-QR 1-QR 1-QR 1-QR LOOC K EX-12SS 1-MV EX-8W 1W 1-MV 20' REAR SETBACK 1-CC EX-12SS 5' SIDE 1W EX-8W SETBACK G 1W 1W 1W 1W 1-MV EX-12SS 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS EX-8W 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS EX-12SS EX-8W EX-8W P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-LANDSCAPE PLAN.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:21pm warc Date: FEBRUARY 2026 Scale: 1"=20' Dwn.By: EX-8W CAW Proj.No.: 5209A001 EX-8W LANDSCAPE PLAN Dwg.No.: L-101 EX-8W 0 20 40 60 72 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 5. SITE DATA: TREE PIT STRAPS, TYP. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. DEVELOPER: OLD POST, LLC 91 BRENDA LANE, SUITE A 1. QUALITY AND SIZE OF PLANTS, SPREAD OF ROOTS, AND SIZE OF BALLS SHALL BE TREE ROOT BALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN CAMDEN, DELAWARE 19934 ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN "AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK". FRANK DIMONDI EMAIL: FDIMONDI@MSN.COM 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE AND FINAL 2. DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. ACCEPTANCE OF SITE WORK HAS BEEN GIVEN. AT THE END OF ONE YEAR ALL 1 PARK AVENUE PLANT MATERIAL WHICH IS DEAD OR DYING SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE ALL DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES OVER 2" CALIPER MILFORD, DELAWARE 19963 CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AS ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED. AND ALL EVERGREEN TREES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT CHAD S. WARREN P.E. SHALL USE THREE STAKES FOR STABILIZATION. PHONE: 302-424-1441 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND MAY EMAIL: CSW@DBFINC.COM MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN SPACING AND/OR LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. TREE PIT CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY "AS BUILT" LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES. 3. SITE AREA: 1.267 ACRES TREE ROOT BALL 4. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER. 4. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 55 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA, DOVER, DE 19903 STRAPS, TYP. 5. ALL AREAS NOT STABILIZED IN PAVING OR PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEEDED 5. ZONING: C2 MIXED USE COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY. AND MULCHED. (SEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN.) 6. NO EXISTING WETLANDS ON SITE. 6. ALL DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES SHALL BRANCH A MINIMUM OF 6'-0" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AND STAKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTE: 7. NO EXISTING WOODLANDS ON SITE. THE STAKING DETAIL SHOWN. - WATER DEEPLY ONCE A WEEK DURING THE FIRST TWO SUMMERS. STAKES TO BE 7. THE FULL EXTENT OF ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE 4" OF TOPSOIL AND 3" APPLY A MINIMUM OF 5-10 LOCATED PARALLEL 0F BARK MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS. GALLONS OF WATER EACH WEEK. TO PAVEMENT - CAREFULLY REMOVE CONTAINERS, WRAPPINGS, WIRES AND TIES FROM PLAN 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL PLANT MATERIALS IN QUANTITIES CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE PLANTINGS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING AND AS ROOT BALL BEFORE PLANTING. SPECIFIED. - LOOSEN OUTSIDE ROOTS, AND UNWRAP ANY CIRCLING ROOTS 9. ALL PLANTS SHALL BEAR THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISHED GRADE AS THE - SECURE STAKES WITH WIDE PLANT'S ORIGINAL GRADE BEFORE DIGGING. WEBBING STRAPS OR CHAINLOCK TIES. ALLOW FOR TREE MOVEMENT. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER ALL PLANTS THOROUGHLY TWICE DURING THE - DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT DECIDUOUS TREE FIRST 24-HOUR PERIOD AFTER PLANTING, AND THEN WEEKLY OR MORE OFTEN, IF OLD DOVER POST PLANTING. DO NOT REMOVE THE NECESSARY, DURING THE FIRST GROWING SEASON. TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EVERGREEN TREE EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. IF 11. AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES ARE NOT TO BE DISTURBED NECESSARY, PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER REMOVE ANY TWINE, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND TAPE OR TAGS BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. 2"x2" STAKES NOTCH STAKES TO 4"-6" HOLD STRAPS IN PLACE EVERGREENS 4'- 6' HT., STAKE 2'- 3' ABOVE GROUND SET BASE OF TRUNK AT OR DECIDUOUS TREES & JUST ABOVE FINAL GRADE EVERGREENS 6'- 8' HT., STAKE 3'- 4' ABOVE GROUND APPLY 3-4" LAYER OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD LANDSCAPE PLANT SCHEDULE DECIDUOUS TREES & MULCH. KEEP 2-3" FROM TREE EVERGREENS 8'- 10' HT., TRUNK. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY STAKE 4'- 5' ABOVE GROUND FINISHED GRADE TREE BACKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL SYMBOL NATIVE KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE QUANTITY ROOT FROM THE HOLE. TAMP LIGHTLY AS 4-6" TALL SOIL BERM BALL THE HOLE IS FILLED. DECIDUOUS TREE - CANOPY DIG A HOLE AT 4"-6" MIN. LEAST TWO TIMES THE ROOTBALL 6"-8"  MV MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA 1 3/4" - 2" Cal., B&B 3 DIAMETER. SCARIFY DIAMETER SIDES OF TREE PIT. ROOT BALL SET ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLING  CC CERCIS canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 1 1/2"- 2" Cal., B&B 4 TREE PLANTING DETAIL QR QUERCUS robur 'FASTIGIATA' COLUMNAR OAK 1 1/2"-2" Cal., B&B 5 NOT TO SCALE TOTAL 12 EVERGREEN TREE-CANOPY TO THUJA occidentalis 'SMARAGD' EMERALD GREEN ARBORVITAE 5-6'HT., B&B 30 TOTAL 30 EVERGREEN SHRUBS ND NANDINA domestica 'LEMON-LIME' 'LEMON-LIME' NANDINA 24"-36' 22 BN BUXUS NEWGEN FREEDOM NEWGEN FREEDOM BOXWOOD 24"-36"., B&B 8 RHODODENDRON hybrid 'CONLES 2026-08-20 BUILDING REVISION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS RH AUTUMN EMPRES 24"-36" B&B 20 2026-03-09 CITY OF DOVER DAC, PW, FM COMMENTS 5'-6' HT., B&B 2026-04-08 CITY OF DOVER PW COMMENTS PL PRUNUS laurocerasus 'SCHIPKAENSIS' SKIP LAUREL 7 2026-05-12 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS 2026-06-10 DNREC WPCC COMMENTS TOTAL 57 GRASSES NT NASSELLA tenuisima MEXICANA FEATHER GRASS #1 CONT., 18" O.C. 12 TOTAL 12 P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-LANDSCAPE PLAN.dwg Aug 20 , 2026 - 4:22pm warc Date: FEBRUARY 2026 Scale: AS NOTED Dwn.By: CAW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S STATEMENT Proj.No.: 5209A001 I, TIMOTHY M. METZNER, HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. LANDSCAPE DETAILS 4/15/2026 ____________________________________________________ SIGNATURE DATE REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: TIMOTHY M. METZNER, RLA DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. 1 PARK AVENUE Dwg.No.: MILFORD, DELAWARE 19963 L-102 73 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 5. 74

Item 5. 75

Item 5. 76

Item 5. 77

Item 5. 78

Item 5. 79

Item 5. 80

Item 5. 81

Item 5. 82

Item 5. 83

Item 5. 84

Item 5. 85

Item 5. 86

Item 5. 87

Item 5. 88

Item 5. 89

Item 5. 90

Item 5. 91

Item 5. 92

Item 5. 93

Item 5. 94

Item 5. 95

Item 5. 96

Item 5. 97

Item 5. 98

Item 5. 99

Item 5. 100

Item 5. 101

Item 5. 102

Item 6. City of Dover DRAFT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT for REVISED PLAN Before Dover Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Previous Recommendation from the Dover Historic District Commission on July 17, 2025 Application: The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 Governors Avenue, HI-25-02 REVISED Assoc. Application: S-25-11 Owners: Downtown Dover Development Corporation (Downtown Dover Partnership) City of Dover Downtown Dover Partnership Corporation Location: Between South Governors Avenue and South New Street, midway between Reed Street and West Loockerman Street in Dover, DE Address: 120 South Governors Avenue Related Properties: 105, 111 and 115 South New Street Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-01-44.00-000 Related Parcels: ED-05-077.09-01-37.00-000, ED-05-077.09-01-42.00-000, ED-05-077.09- 01-43.00-000 Project Area: 1.70 Acres +/- (Main parcel) 2.03 Acres +/- (Total of all parcels) Present Uses: Vacant Lots – Former auto retail store and daycare center, building previously demolished Proposed Use: Mixed Use Commercial (Grocery, Retail, Restaurant, Child Day Care Center) and Multi-family Housing (Apartments) and associated parking Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) For Consideration: Revised Architectural Review Certification including alternative side yard setback This Report for Revised HI-25-02 Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Ave was updated upon submission of Revised Architectural package of a Summary Letter, Revised Design Narrative, Updated Architectural Graphics Package, and Updated Site Plan Sheet by the Applicant. The Planning Staff deemed the revision substantial enough to warrant the Application to go back through the formal Architectural Review Certification process with the Historic District Commission P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 103 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 2 of 11 and the Planning Commission. Application HI-25-02 was initially considered by the Historic District Commission on July 17, 2025 and then considered by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2025 as Site Plan S-25-11 The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Note: The original Staff Review Report of July 17, 2025 was initially prepared by Planning Staff. This Revised Staff Review Report utilizes that original Report as a starting point. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act to make a Recommendation for a Revised Architectural Review Certificate for a Site Development Plan Application for the proposed construction of a mixed use commercial and multi-family (apartment) development in Downtown Dover, to be located at 120 South Governors Avenue. The project is construction of a four story, 169,080 SF Mixed Use Building includes a grocery, retail and restaurant spaces, a child day care, 120 apartment units, and a roof-top courtyard with site improvements of a parking lot, a courtyard, and landscaping. The parcel contains 1.70 +/- acres. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the west side of South Governors Avenue and midway between Reed Street and West Loockerman Street. It is bounded by South New Street on the west. The owner of record is Downtown Dover Development Corporation c/o Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 120 South Governors Avenue, Dover. The project also proposes improvements on adjacent related properties at 105, 111, and 115 South New Street. One of these parcels is owned by the Downtown Dover Partnership and the other two are owned by the City of Dover. These parcels are not within the H (Historic District Zone). The design Revisions for The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue are presented and focus on a shift in the main entrance, building courtyard, and loading area, enhancing internal functionality, façade language, and some changes in site circulation to better serve fire and emergency vehicles. The Building form remains overall the same, elevations have been revised to blend more seamlessly with nearby architecture, including new trim on the ground-floor façade and revisions to the brick facades to balance the composition of the structure with the existing historic buildings nearby. Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is within the Downtown Development District, located one block north of Loockerman Street. The site is bordered by South Governors Avenue to the east, South New Street to the west, and part of the Minor Street (paper alley) to the south. As previously noted, the parcels are zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and within the Historic District. Properties immediately adjacent to the subject project location are also zoned C-2. Others in the immediate area are zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The subject property is currently vacant, the previous auto parts store and day care center building having been demolished several years ago. The largest of the subject parcels is within the H (Historic District) Zone, as are properties to the south and east, as well as to the north fronting South Governors Avenue. The smaller parcels that are adjacent to the main subject of this application are outside of the H (Historic District Zone). Properties west of the 104

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 3 of 11 subject site across South New Street are also outside of the H (Historic District Zone). Surrounding uses are a combination of mixed use and residential, with a church located at the southeast corner of South New Street and Reed Street. Previous Applications The property owners are the Downtown Dover Development Corporation c/o Downtown Dover Partnership and the City of Dover. On June 20, 2024, the Historic District Commission granted approval of the Architectural Review Certification allowing demolition of the previous structure, a one-story Auto Parts/AutoPlus retail store and daycare center, located at 120 South Governors Avenue (HI-24-05). On March 14, 2025, a Narrative Letter, a Site Plan set, and Architectural Graphics set with building elevations and 3-D views were submitted to the Department of Planning and Inspections as the initial filing of the application to the Historic District Commission. Only 120 South Governors was included in that submission, not the additional parcels located at 105, 111, and 115 South New Street. The application was held at the request of the applicant while additional design refinements were made to the submission. The design changes were made to the proposal and the status of the three additional parcels located at 105, 111, and 115 South New Street was clarified and incorporated into the 120 South Governors Avenue Mixed Use Development Narrative Letter, Site Plan set, and Architectural Graphics set with building elevations and 3-D views, which were submitted to the Department of Planning and Inspections on June 13, 2025. This was reviewed as HI-25-02 Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue by the Historic District Commission on July 17, 2025, with a recommendation of conditional approval. It was then reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2025, achieving conditional approval of the site plan S-25-11 and ARC approval. There was previous proposal in 2011 for demolition of the building and redevelopment of the property with applications HI-11-04 Acme Site Redevelopment Master Plan and S-11-11 Lands at DDP at 120 South Governors Avenue: Master Plan; the plans were never finalized and expired. II. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION Review of Historic Maps Historically, this block of Downtown between South Governors Avenue and South New Street north of West Loockerman Street was part of an area known as the Comegy’s Lots laid out in the 1850s with development occurring 1859-1885. The 1868 Beers Map shows the subject site primarily vacant with one building owned by L. Geiser and a school building. By 1885, a series of residential dwellings fronting on both Governors Avenue and New Street were in existence. The subject site is just north of the original building location of the Robbins Hose Fire Company building. The 1887 Map of Dover published by W.B. Roe continues to show a public school in the southern portion of the site with dwellings to the north. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Series from 1885 – 1944 with updates also documents the history of buildings on the subject site. The 1885 Map shows a two-story school building and a Sunday School & Meeting House building with two-story residential dwellings with accessory buildings (garages, sheds). By 1897, the school building was replaced by a Methodist Protestant Church building with the residential dwellings remaining. These uses for the subject site continue through the early twentieth century. By the mid-twentieth century, the church building was replaced by a one-story cinderblock store building adjacent to Governors Avenue. In the late 1960s, the subject site was redeveloped with 105

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 4 of 11 the recently demolished masonry commercial building (the Acme grocery store building) setback in the middle of the block; its construction appears to have eliminated approximately nine residential dwellings. Property Information The subject property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. There are four contexts that contribute to the historic character of Dover, including the Green Historic Context; the Victorian Historic Context; the Loockerman Historic Context; and the Capitol Square Historic Context. This property is located within the Loockerman Historic Context. Buildings in the Loockerman Context include a wide variety of nineteenth century commercial buildings. The Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone describe this context as “a coherent, densely-built commercial area that would have an attractive mix of historic and new buildings and related parking.” The subject property is located within the boundaries of a National Register of Historic Places Historic District, specifically the Victorian Dover Historic District (K-396) but the previous mid- twentieth century commercial building was considered a non-contributing building. III. PROJECT PROPOSAL PROJECT PROPOSAL as Revised (Summary Letter, Revised Design Narrative, Updated Responses to Recommendation, Architectural Graphics Package and Site Plan Sheet dated August 24, 2026) The Revised Application proposes construction of a Mixed Use Structure and other site improvements for the development of The Governor. The project location also includes three parcels to the north, two owned by the City, and one owned by Downtown Dover Partnership. The Applicant’s original submission to the Historic District Commission included a Design Narrative, a site plan graphic, and building elevations and 3-D views. The original site plan application also included a Tree Mitigation and Active Recreation Plan, as well as parking plan for the property. The Documents were originally filed August 01, 2025. The Applicant’s Revised submission of August 24, 2025 includes a Summary Letter giving an overview of the Design revisions, a Revised Architectural Graphics Package, and an Updated Site Plan sheet. The elements of the project are as follows with notations on the Revisions: 1. Entrance and Loading Area: The proposed Revisions to the main building entrance include a shift of the entrance along South Governors Avenue to align better with the center of the residential lobby and amenity spaces. The Loading area, which had initially shared access with the fire lane along the south side has been relocated to be a loading entry rollup door 106

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 5 of 11 on the S. New Street (west) elevation of the building. This enhances site circulation and fire and emergency vehicle access. This shift has not impacted the overall building form. 2. Facades: The Building Architecture of the Revised facades consists of a tall ground (fuirst) floor with trim work detailing, storefront window system and an entry clad in a dark grey color. The revised upper floors of 2 – 4 are presented more in a building section pattern with increased usage of brick and other sections in two colored (taupe and white) fiber cement panel systems. The Revisions include the introduction of divided-light windows, which are more reflective of the architectural language of the surrounding area. There has been additional façade articulation proposed along South New Street to support the overall continuity of design on all sides of the proposed building. Storefront windows have been incorporated into the grocery-facing elevation, and integrated canopies have been added to activate the sidewalks and provide shade. Further Revisions have changed the design on the South New Street elevations, creating an opportunity for a mural, and relocating an egress stair tower on a less prominent portion of the building where there are already service- related activities. The building continues to architecturally consist of a base, wall, then cornice at the top roof line. Again, these modifications have done little to change the shape of the building but have impacted the architectural aesthetics. See the attached Revised Design Narrative Letter, the Revised Architectural Graphics Package, and updated Site Plan Sheet for the associated graphics and drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. IV. ZONING REVIEW The large parcel that fronts South Governors Avenue is located in the H (Historic District Zone) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §3.2 outlines the review process for Architectural Review Certification and related building height, bulk, and setback standards. The entire project area is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). The C-2 zone allows for “retail stores, apartments and multi-family dwellings; uses accessory to the residential units such as lobby and amenity spaces are permitted on the first floor; live-work units; parking lots and parking structures” as principal uses. The subject property has frontage on two streets: South New Street and South Governors Avenue. Code Compliance for C-2 Required Provided Front Setback 0’ > 5’ Rear Setback 20’ above ground floor. At 37’ ground floor ground floor, 5’required 54’ above ground floor Side Setback None required, but 5’ min. 10’ on the North if provided 22’ on the South Building Height (Max) 10 stories (125’) 4 stories (60’) The C-2 zoning district also includes some design standards provisions. See the code excerpt below: 107

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 6 of 11 Article 3 Section 13 13.5 Design standards. The following standards shall apply to the site and building development in the central commercial zone (C-2): 13.51 Façade articulation. Building facades should incorporate design elements to provide a base, middle, and top of the building to reinforce the pedestrian scale at the street level. 13.52 Height. For buildings greater than four stories in height, then the upper floors above the fourth story shall step back six feet for fifty percent of the width of the primary facade. For buildings greater than six stories, then the upper floors above the sixth floor shall step back an additional six feet on the primary façade. These step back areas may begin at a lower height than these minimums as part of the building design in order to be compatible with the character of the area. 13.53 Step back areas. The step back areas should be open to the sky and can be open air balcony spaces or other design architectural features that are not enclosed spaces. 13.54 Off-street parking. Off-street parking lots shall not be permitted to be situated between the street line and the primary facade of the principal building. Consideration should be given to locating parking to the side or rear of the building. 13.55 Screening. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Off-street parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential zones and residential uses. This screening provision does not apply to adjacent alleys. V. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject project area is located in the Dover Historic District Zone within the Loockerman Context. The Loockerman Context is described on pages 2-7 and 2-8 of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This Design Standards and Guidelines describe this context as “a coherent, densely-built commercial area that would have an attractive mix of historic and new buildings and related parking.” Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for demolition, new construction, additions, and certain renovation or rehabilitation activities to existing buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” In accordance with Article 10 §3.2, the Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the Revised project’s compliance with the architectural review standards. This Revised proposal must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. Information on the review considerations is given below. New Construction The Design Standards and Guidelines for New Construction (Chapter 4: pages 4-1 through 4-8) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The guidelines specify the following individual considerations for new construction to be considered in the review by the Historic 108

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 7 of 11 District Commission (and Planning Commission) of the project for Architectural Review Certification: • Style • Scale (building to reflect dominant cornice and roof height of adjacent buildings) • Elevation of the First Floor • Floor-to-Floor heights • Bays, windows, and doors (size, relationship, spacing of) • Absolute Size (compare overall size of new building) • Massing (relationship of solid-to-void) • Orientation (location of primary façade) • Proportions (comparison of height to width of building and elements) • Materials • Forms (shape of building and roof to be complementary) • Siting (location of building on lot and in relation to street) • High density/ large-scale construction Design criteria and development guidelines specific to the Loockerman Historic Context are detailed on page 4-6 of the Design Standards and Guidelines and provide that “the siting of new construction in the Loockerman historic context should conform to the building line of adjacent buildings, to reinforce the sense of the ‘wall’ of buildings, especially along Loockerman Street. New commercial buildings should occupy the full width of their lot at the street line. Freestanding "object" buildings that do not conform to the street and lot lines should not be permitted in the Loockerman historic context. Where a commercial building is built adjacent to a vacant lot, it should be built with a party wall in anticipation of subsequent new construction being built adjacent and up to the property line.” The Design Standards and Guidelines Chapter 3 includes information about the use of certain materials within the Historic District. The Revised proposed project must also be reviewed for compliance with the standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards include items such as setbacks from property lines, lot coverage, height, etc. This Revised Proposal for the 120 South Governors Avenue Mixed Use Building appears to conform to the bulk requirements of the C-2 zoning district; however, this will be verified via Site Plan review. The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Historic District Commission to waive certain bulk standards when issuing its recommendation to the Planning Commission for an Architectural Review Certificate if necessary; this was authorized by the earlier application review and will also be required for this Revision. In this case there was no bulk modifications authorized by the Historic District Commission, or recommended in the Staff Report. HDC Recommended a redesign of the north and south elevations and façade cornices to incorporate the brick elements with the possible dentiling and/or bracketing. The Design Standards and Guidelines note that “the vacant lots to the north and south of Loockerman Street are not desirable locations for large-scale construction, because they are in the transition area between the commercial and residential zoning districts.” ACTION on ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CERTIFICATION (for HI-25-02 with July 2025 Review by the Historic District Commission and September 15, 2025 Review by Planning 109

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 8 of 11 Commission): The application was considered at the July 17, 2025 Meeting of the Historic District Commission. The following members were present at the July Meeting: Chairman Eric Czerwinski, Vice-Chair Mrs. Ellen Richardson, and Mrs. Ann Horsey; one member was absent and one member not appointed. The application was represented by Todd Stonesifer, Chair/President of Downtown Dover Partnership Board; Ken Anderson, Downtown Dover Partnership; Mr. Michael Henry, Becker Morgan Group; Ms. Candice Schuster, CoreStates Group; and Mrs. Leslie Smallwood- Lewis and Ms. Meagan Whetstone, Mosaic Development Partners. Public testimony was received during the Public Hearing from Tom Smith of 36 The Green. During the Meeting, the Historic District Commission heard the applicants’ presentation on the project for the Mixed Use Building at 120 S. Governors Avenue. and including their response to the series of Staff Comments and Recommendations. They presented information on the site’s history; the development site and building placement; building architectural features and materials; and other site items. Questions focused on the building elevation detailing, parking lot and its screening, shopping carts, types of brick, the cornices, window sizing and operation, architectural form design of the grocery section of the building, and planned uses in the building. The Meeting Minutes of the Historic District Commission are provided. Action on Architectural Review Certification Recommendation by Historic District Commission: The motion to recommend approval passed 3-0 of the members present for application HI-25-02 at the July 17, 2025 Meeting. The Historic District Commission recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for Application HI-25-02 The Governor: 120 South Governors based on the applicant’s presentation and plans with reference to the Staff notes and amendments (Staff Recommendation Report – Section VI). The Historic District Commission also required the consideration for redesign of the north and south elevations and façade cornices to incorporate the brick elements with the possible dentiling and/or bracketing to improve the cornice presentation. Action on Architecture Review Certification and Site Plan by the Planning Commission: Application S-25-11/HI-25-02 was considered at the September 15, 2025 Meeting of the Planning Commission with 8 members present. The application was represented by Mike Riemann of Becker Morgan Group; Michael Cane and Bob Bloczynski of Core States Group; Ms. Meagan Whetstone of Mosaic Development Partners; Mr. J.D. Bartlett of EDiS Company; and Staff of the Downtown Dover Partnership. Public testimony was received during the Public Hearing from Ms. Karen Speakman of NeighborGood Partners and Mr. Zach Prebula of the Kent Economic Partnership. During the Meeting, the Planning Commission heard the applicants’ presentation on the Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue, The Governor Project includes a Tree Mitigation Plan for off-site tree planting, an Active Recreation Area Plan, and Conditional Use Approval for the proposed Day Care center, as well as approval of a waiver for the fence component of the design. The motion to approve Site Plan S-25-11 The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue passed 8-0 of the Planning Commission members present for this application at the September 15, 2025 Meeting. This action included approval of the Architectural Review Certification with the alternative side yard setbacks, approval of the Tree Mitigation Plan, Active 110

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 9 of 11 Recreation Plan, conditional approval for the day care and approval of the Waiver for Opaque Barrier – Fence Component. VI. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff Comments and Recommendations for this application regarding project activities and Architectural Review Certification were originally provided in the Architectural Review Staff Report issued for the July 17, 2025 Historic District Commission Meeting. The comments and recommendations were updated for this Report following Staff’s review of the Revised Submission dated August 24, 2026. The following are Staff comments and recommendations for this application regarding project activities and Architectural Review Certification for the Revised Submission. 1) Staff again recommends conditional approval of the Revised Architectural Review Certificate for The Governor, Mixed Use Building at 120 South Governors Avenue project, finding that the building as Revised to be of a compatible design with the nearby buildings and with the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. The proposed multi-use site enhances the pedestrian scale of the Downtown area and supports the Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover Master Plan. The revised brick and fiber cement paneled exterior finishes take cues and architectural style from the buildings downtown and the form breaks up the total façade into smaller building segments and set back (steps-back) in certain areas making it look like multiple connected buildings. Sidewalk expansions and the implementations of pedestrian elements will add to the urban activity expected within the Loockerman Historic Context. 2) Staff again recommends the following conditions to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are the recommended conditions: a. The selected brick choice should be compatible with the brick of other existing buildings in the area. Clarify the brick size and patterning. b. Clarify the window glass area material as mirrored or colored glass is not always appropriate for use in the Historic District Zone. c. Clarify the edge treatment (railing material and form) at the west roof facing the courtyard area. It appears to be a dark colored picket style railing. d. Consideration of wall or free-standing signage may require additional review and will need to go through the Sign Permit application process. e. Consider screening and placement of any roof-mounted equipment. f. Any light fixtures utilized on the property should be consistent with the style of the lighting used in the nearby areas of the Loockerman Context of the Historic District g. Any revisions or changes in the identified material may be subject to further review by the Historic District Commission. 3) The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S. Governors Avenue appears to comply with the design standards of the C-2 zoning district in regard to the building façade articulation (having a base, middle and top). The project has also incorporated the step backs for the lower floors 111

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 10 of 11 (under the fourth floor) and balcony elements. The project design show consideration of the pedestrian at the street level. 4) In regard to the placement of off-street parking, South Governors Avenue is considered the primary façade of the building. The placement of a small on-site parking lot along the S. New Street frontage of the property can be considered as it is a secondary front elevation due to the full block depth of the development site. Appropriate screening by landscaping or low fence/wall elements of the parking must be considered. There is space between the parking and the street frontage sidewalk; renderings show shrub plantings. 5) Some of the site improvements/amenities were not specifically described or had limited information within the application information. Please provide information for consideration and discussion. a. Consider the format of the area to the south of the building for its surface treatments, ability or limitation for pedestrian access, landscaping of area, and any screening of this loading/fire lane area at its connection to South Governors Avenue. b. Section 5-5 of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone details recommendations for signage. Signs at the storefront level should be oriented primarily to pedestrians and sized and designed for pedestrian vision. Large-scale signs are not recommended. c. Off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Page 11 of the proposed submission indicates the off- street parking lot will be screened by shrubs. Screening in compliance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 6, Section 5 – Supplementary Regulations for Parking and Loading Facilities and the design standards of the C-2 Zone are evaluated with the Site Development Plan submission. d. Provide information on the dumpster enclosure/ utility area construction and screening. 6) Clarify whether existing trees on the site or adjacent streetscape area will be preserved. If they are proposed to be removed, replacement of removed trees will be required. The development area (the property) is also subject to tree planting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This is considered during the Site Plan Review. 7) Staff recommends the following pertaining to the site design elements of the project: a. The sidewalk system on the street frontage along both South New Street and South Governors Avenue should continue and include barrier free access, crosswalk striping, etc. at the points of intersection with the entrance and exit drive aisles. These appear to be shown. b. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting locations, and lighting fixture locations should be depicted on the plan and be consistent with the character of these elements as they exist within the Loockerman Context area. Lighting fixtures are shown for the parking lot and street frontages. 8) The review of the development of the three adjacent parcels along S. New Street occurred with the Site Plan review process as some of the planned amenities are tied to code requirements for certain uses such as the Child Day Care Center and Active Recreation for the residential units. 112

Item 6. HI-25-02 REVISED Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission September 17, 2026 Meeting Page 11 of 11 9) The central Courtyard/Wellness Area may be an opportunity for public art installations. 10) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Building Inspections Staff and Fire Marshal regarding these requirements. The resolution of these items can impact the site design in some cases. 11) In the event that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 12) This site development plan for this project is also subject to the application and review process for Site Development Plan (Article 10 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations were identified during the Site Plan Process for Site Plan S-25-11. The Revised project remains subject to the DAC Report and comments issued for S-25-11 (See attached Report issued for Sept 2025). 13) The applicant shall be aware that Building Permits are required to proceed with any construction activities on the project site. The permit applications must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Revised Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. 14) The applicant should be aware that a Sign Permit is required to proceed with the placement of signage on the property. VII. Historic District Commission Action Required on Revised Submission The Historic District Commission shall conduct a Public Hearing and shall consider the proposal and provide a revised recommendation in regard to the Revised Architectural Review Certification for the 120 South Governors Avenue Mixed Use Building development. The recommendation should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This revised recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission at their September 21, 2026 Meeting with Public Hearing and Review of the Revised HI-25-02/S-25-11. 113

C F Item 6. I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 09/02/26 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: HI-25-02 and S-25-11 Revised The Governors Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors FILE #: HI-25-02 and S-25-11 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is an architectural review only using the exact footprint of S-25-11 ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. It is noted that this is an architectural review only, all S-25-11 comments apply 2. In door storage is new. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 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 2021 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. 114

Item 6. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 APPLICATION: REVISED The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue FILE #: S-25-11 & HI-25-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Kate L. Mills, P.E., Interim Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL: kmills@doverde.gov T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION 1. Every commercial customer shall provide such premises with a sufficient number of solid waste containers to provide adequate capacity for the solid waste placed out for collection without overloading the capacity of the containers. The City of Dover shall provide commercial customers with a maximum of two (2), 90-gallon trash containers and two (2), 90-gallong recycling containers. 2. Trash collection site shall be oriented for side-loading pick-up if customer is utilizing City of Dover sanitation services. 3. Any commercial customer requiring more containers, or larger containers, than provided above, must utilize private service. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District is submitted to our office. 2. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all stormwater structures. STREETS 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a letter of no objection, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. 2. The current City of Dover standard street section provides for a 3’ grass strip between the curb and sidewalk. This standard was administratively revised to meet ADA and FHA compliance with cross slope requirements and to prevent cars from scrapping at driveways. The revised standard utilizes a five feet (5’) wide public sidewalk with a five feet (5’) wide grass strip behind the curb. Sidewalk and curb shall be installed for the width of the project scope. 3. Please add the following notes to the plans: a. Standard City of Dover sidewalk, as per chapter 98, article IV of the Dover Code of Ordinances, shall be required to be installed along the entire public street frontage of a property. Where frontage sidewalk exists but does not meet the standards of chapter 98, article IV, the sidewalk shall be re-laid to meet the standards. Sidewalk shall include barrier-free 115

Item 6. REVISED The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue File #: S-25-11 & HI-25-02 September 2, 2026 Page 2 of 4 access ramping at points of intersection with street crossings and at other locations so as to afford reasonable barrier-free pedestrian movement and site access. b. In accordance to Appendix A, Article VI, Section B.3, all sidewalks shall ascend from the curbstone to the building line at the ratio of one-quarter of an inch to the foot. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any pavement previously laid by order of the city council, until it is taken up and relaid. WATER 1. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. b. Any existing water lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater Construction Manager at (302) 736- 7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater must observe and approve all City owned water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the water connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. Please be advised that effective May 1, 2022, water mains can now be constructed using DR 18 PVC. 4. Water usage projections (peak demand or plumbing fixtures) must be submitted to our office to correctly determine the size of the domestic and irrigation (if applicable) water meter for the proposed buildings. These projections must be submitted prior to approval so the meter size can be placed on the final site plan. The proposed water meters must be installed in a pit per City of Dover requirements and manufacturer’s recommendations. Also, a dual check valve is required downstream of the meter. 5. The domestic service, fire main connection and valves must be clearly shown for each building. A valve must be installed at the tee to isolate combined fire and domestic water service to the building from the water loop. Typically, this valve is installed at the tee or an acceptable distance from the building. A valve must be provided on the domestic water service, which must be tapped off of the combined eight-inch (8”) fire/domestic service outside of the building. The domestic water tap and valve should be as close to the building as possible. Typically, the domestic tap and valve are located within five feet (5’) to ten feet (10’) of the building. A blow up detail of this layout is recommended. 6. Provide a construction detail for the proposed restraining system for the fire main located within the buildings. There shall only be one (1) water service per building. The Department of Water & Wastewater will test and inspect all fire mains to a blind flange located inside the buildings. The blind flange with tap is used for hydrostatic pressure testing (200 psi for two (2) hours) and dechlorination. The flange must be restrained in the direction of the pipe entering the facility. A pipe entering horizontally through a wall sleeve shall be restrained with rods through the wall. A pipe entering vertically through a slab shall be restrained through the floor to the ninety degree (90°) bend and thrust block. All rods shall be a minimum of ¾” all thread. All pipes through walls and slabs must be Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. Confirm particulars to meet this requirement with mechanical designer. 7. Water services shall be either type K copper or SDR-9. 1. All non-metallic water lines (mains and services) shall be installed with a tracer wire and identification tape. The wire shall be a minimum of twelve (12) gauge blue coated solid copper wire, wrapped around the pipe, and extending up into all valve and curb boxes. The identification tape shall be six-inches (6”) wide, laid one foot (1’) above the pipe, with the following text: “Caution: Buried Water Line Below”. 3M marker balls, model 1423-XR, or approved equal shall be installed at every service line connection to the water main and all bends on the service line. 116

Item 6. REVISED The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue File #: S-25-11 & HI-25-02 September 2, 2026 Page 3 of 4 8. On October 24, 2022, City of Dover Council approved the new Cross Connection Control Program. This program requires certain backflow prevention assemblies on water service connections to the city’s distribution system. Please provide a specific description of the activities in this building. 9. Prior to final site plan approval, a plan must be submitted and agreed upon for the 12” water main relocation that is currently located in the alley. The 12” water main shall be cut and capped north of the proposed development with a blow off assembly. 10. A fire hydrant shall be installed at the end of the water main extension in S Governors Avenue. WASTEWATER 1. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Any existing sanitary sewer lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater specifications and requirements. b. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Sec. 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes, exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created with the site improvements. 3. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures. 4. Cleanouts must be installed on sanitary sewer laterals within five feet (5’) of the building, one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way and at all bends. Any cleanout located within a traffic bearing location shall be installed with a heavy duty cast iron frame and cover to prevent damage to the cleanout and lateral. 5. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer mains showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. 6. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 7. If kitchen facilities are proposed a minimum 1,000 gallon, two chamber grease trap, meeting all Kent County ordinance requirements, must be provided. A construction detail for the proposed grease trap, as well as the proposed location, must be provided on the plan. 8. Depending on the effluent flow, the downstream pump station may be required to be evaluated by the developer / engineer to verify it can handle the additional effluent flow. GENERAL 1. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to final grade in accordance with current City of Dover requirements and practices. This must be included as a note on the plan. 2. No trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of utility infrastructure. 3. No structure may be installed within ten feet (10’) of utility infrastructure, please depict all underground utilities and structures on the utility plan sheet to confirm compliance. 4. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2021 (.dwg format). b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). 117

Item 6. REVISED The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue File #: S-25-11 & HI-25-02 September 2, 2026 Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Water & Wastewater directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Water impact fees will be required to be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy for this project. Each apartment unit is equal to one (1) Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The retail portion will also have impact fees, the amount will be dictated by the proposed fixture count. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, it may be required to submit the sanitary sewer system plans to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. Profiles of the sanitary sewer main must be provided with the construction plans. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings must be shown on the profiles. 4. Wastewater impact fees will be required to be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy for this project. Each apartment unit is equal to one (1) Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The retail portion will also have impact fees, the amount will be dictated by the proposed fixture count. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . 118

Item 6. From: Jones, Tijah (DelDOT) To: Melson-Williams, Dawn Cc: Hickman, Kevin (DelDOT) Subject: EXTERNAL: DAC Comments Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 3:00:04 PM You don't often get email from tijah.jones@delaware.gov. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning Dawn, Here are the comments from DelDOT for the applications discussed in the DAC Meeting 02 September S-26-13 Winner Subaru Building Additions at 1387 North DuPont Highway 1. Schedule a pre-submittal meeting with the department. S-26-14 William Henry Campus Improvements at 65 Carver Road, Dover, DE 2. Schedule a pre-submittal meeting with the department. HI-25-01 Revised #2 and S-25-07 Revised #2 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza 3. Schedule a pre-submittal meeting with the department. HI-25-02 Revised and S-25-11Revised The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue 4. Schedule a pre-submittal meeting with the department. TiJah Jones Subdivision Review Engineer Economic Development Coordination Delaware Department of Transportation (302) 760-2124 tijah.jones@delaware.gov 119

Item 6. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan ADVISORY BRIEF Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 9/9/2026 Organization HI-25-02 Revised and S-25-11 Revised The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue FILE # HI-25-02 / S-25-11 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Attached, please find comments submitted by Dover Kent MPO for each of the current City of Dover Development Advisory Committee (DAC) applications. These comments are a part of the MPO’s ongoing goals of promoting transportation safety and connectivity within the region. They are submitted in accordance with the support given by the MPO Council on November 6, 2024. Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Site Development Plan Review HI-25-02 Revised and S-25-11 Revised The Governor: Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue Sidewalks are included in the site plan, both along the property’s frontage and internally. The applicant should follow both the City of Dover Code for sidewalks 1 and the DelDOT specifications for sidewalks, 2 to make sure the requirements of both entities are met. Any sidewalks that are damaged or removed during the construction process will need to be replaced. A connection between New Street and Governors Avenue should be considered. The loading zone on the southern end of the property would be an ideal location for this complete connection. 1 “Dover Code: Appendix B, Article 5, Section 18.” City of Dover, DE. https://library.municode.com/de/dover/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_APXBZO_ART5SURE_S18 PEBIMUDAACRE. 2 Pedestrian Accessibility Standards Manual. Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) (2021). https://deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/pedestrianAccessibility/pdfs/2021/Pedestrian-Accessibility-Standards-for- Facilities-in-the-Public-Right-of-Way-2021-Edition.pdf. 120

Item 6. The current site plan requires large vehicles to back into or out of the loading zone and exit the property by driving past the daycare, which could lead to conflicting uses during peak hours. By creating an exit onto Governors Avenue and restricting its use to certain types of vehicles (such as fire trucks and trash collection vehicles), the traffic flow of the property would be improved. A related issue is the availability of space for large vehicles. The planned building will include 120 apartment units, a grocery store, retail and restaurant spaces, and other residential and commercial uses, all within a small area. This will result in large vehicles (such as moving vans, freight trucks, and trash collection vehicles) constantly needing to access the property. The loading zone and parking area will not always be able to fit all of these vehicles. As a result, the applicant will need to coordinate with the City of Dover and strategically direct these vehicles so that they do not obstruct the flow of traffic on Governors Avenue, a major corridor for vehicle traffic, and that they do not block the drive aisle or parking area on the property. A crosswalk should be added to the parking area on the western side of the property, extending northward across the drive aisle and towards the daycare. Pedestrians tend to use the most direct route, which means if they are headed to the daycare, they are less likely to use the planned crosswalk that extends eastward. Another crosswalk would help with keeping these people safe and giving them a designated place to walk. The applicant should ensure that bicycle racks are included in the plan, in order to meet the City of Dover’s requirements on bicycle parking. This should be done at a rate of one (1) bicycle parking space for every twenty (20) vehicle parking spaces. 3 If more information on specific types of bicycle racks is needed, please contact Dover Kent MPO. Finally, motorists are likely to park their vehicles and then walk across Governors Avenue between this property and the planned mobility center, either as tenants of the apartments or customers at one of the businesses. They will probably try to cross the road directly in front of the parking garage, as the nearest crosswalk is to the south at the intersection with Loockerman Street, which is not as convenient. Given the expected increase in pedestrian traffic, a crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) should be considered for the purpose of creating a safe connection between the two properties. RRFBs are identified as a Proven Safety Countermeasure by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and they have been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by up to 56%. 4 They are most useful at unsignalized locations with noted pedestrian safety concerns. Dover Kent MPO is willing to work with the applicant and DelDOT to find solutions to the issue of getting pedestrians safely across Governors Avenue. 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. 3 “Dover Code: Appendix B, Article 6, Section 3.10.” City of Dover, DE. https://library.municode.com/de/dover/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_APXBZO_ART6OREPAD RLOFA_S3REOREPASP. 4 Kent County Safety Action Plan. Dover/Kent County MPO (2025). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2025/06/Kent-County-Safety-Action-Plan-FINAL-June- 2025.pdf#page=61. 121

Item 6. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 17, 2025 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 3:30 PM as an In-Person Meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers (anchor location) and virtually using the audio/videoconferencing system Webex. With Chairman Czerwinski presiding, the other members present were Mrs. Richardson and Ms. Horsey (virtual). Mrs. Mason was absent. (There is currently one member not appointed.) The Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Salzano, and Mrs. Savage-Purnell. NEW APPLICATION HI-25-02 Mixed Use Building at 120 S Governors Avenue – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation on Architectural Review Certification for the construction of a four story, 169,080 SF Mixed Use Building including a grocery, retail and restaurant spaces, a child day care, 120 apartment units, and a roof-top courtyard with site improvements of a parking lot, a courtyard, and landscaping. The parcel contains 1.70 +/- acres. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the west side of South Governors Avenue and halfway between Reed Street and West Loockerman Street. The owner of record is Downtown Dover Development Corporation c/o Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 120 S. Governors Avenue, Dover. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-01- 44.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that this is a proposal for a four-story mixed-use building with a mixture of commercial and residential units that are being proposed. As part of the process, there is an Architectural Review Staff Report that is prepared that gives a narrative about the project, the different Code provisions and Design Standards and Guidelines for the Historic District that you need to be looking at as well as a series of Staff Recommendations. The location of 120 South Governors Avenue is to the north of Loockerman Street which is at the bottom of the image here (as she referred to the slide presentation) its the main parcel shaded in blue. You can see that it expands the full width of the block between South Governors Avenue, which is on the right-hand side and then South New Street is on the left-hand side of the block. There are several adjacent parcels to the north of this large tract that are not within the Historic District but may involve improvements in those areas as it moves through the Site Development Plan review process that it will have to go through. The building is on a property that is zoned C-2 which is the Central Commercial Zone and also found in the Historic District Zone. Anytime you have new construction in the Historic District, it is going to be subject to the process called Architectural Review Certification. This property previously held what we call and know as the Acme building. The demolition of that building has occurred. That occurred after the request for its demolition appeared before this body in June of last year as application HI-24-05 and that was approved for demolition of that mid-20th century commercial building (grocery store building) that was there. The narrative does include some information on the historic development of this 122 Excerpt of Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2025 Page 1 of 13

Item 6. parcel, but that commercial building was the last in the line before this new proposal here. The property is fully located in the City's Historic District Zone. I will also note that the property is within the National Register of Historic Places in the Historic District, known as the Victorian Dover Historic District, but that previous commercial building was considered a non- contributing building to that district. The project proposal today, as we will hear more from the Applicant about its details, is a mixed- use building. It is 4-stories in height. As part of the project, there is part of the parcel that would be developed as a parking lot and then there's other associated site amenities that would be proposed for improvement or new construction, things like sidewalks, placements of trees, and the like. With this property being in the C-2 zoning district, there are some design standards related to that. Our report outlines the code compliance items related to setbacks. They are meeting those with the placement of the building overall. The C-2 zone does allow for a building of four stories in height as the maximum building height is ten stories or 125 feet. This Plan proposes four stories at 60 feet for this project. In reviewing this project, the Historic District Commission is charged with looking at the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, specifically mostly focused on Chapter 4 where new construction is discussed and the appropriate kind of guidelines and standards for doing such a new construction. There are also some references to Chapter 3, which is where each kind of building element and materials are discussed in greater detail. For new construction, they're really looking at things related to the massing of the building, like how does it present itself to its street and its adjacent neighbors. And also, things like orientation, size, overall portions of things like walls to window, and those types of criteria. The Planning Staff in doing the Staff Review Report always gives a series of Comments and Recommendations in regards to the project. Those are found on the Report beginning on page 7. Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate, finding that the building is of a compatible design with adjacent buildings and would meet the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines. We believe that their use of the various brick finishes takes cues from the adjacent and greater Downtown Dover area, and how the facade particularly is broken up, it really, even though it is one overall building could be easily read as several smaller buildings along a streetscape area. The other Staff comments that are included in the Report, ask some questions about things that probably should be clarified. The Applicant may actually focus on some of those as we continue a review on this project. I’d be happy to circle back to those comments after we hear from the Applicant and if the Historic District Commission members have other questions. But at this point in time, I think your time is best used in hearing from the Applicant and the details of their project. There are a number of the project team members here. I'm not sure who is taking the lead today. Representatives: Mr. Todd Stonesifer, Chair of the Downtown Dover Partnership Board, Mr. Michael Henry, Becker Morgan Group, Ms. Candice Schuster, CoreStates Group, Ms. Leslie Smallwood-Lewis and Ms. Meagan Whetstone, Mosaic Development Partners. Presentation Mr. Stonesifer stated that he lives at 115 N. State Street, Dover, Delaware. I'm also the Chair of the Downtown Dover Partnership. Just to paint a little picture, we would like to present to you as much information as we can to make your decisions easier. We may miss the mark. If so, please ask us questions and if not, then wonderful. We did a good job. I'm here with my team. I'm simply the Chair of the Board of Directors and we have established a wonderful team over the last couple of years. So, in 2021, we set out to find out what the solution is to make Dover more attractive. 123

Item 6. And the solution is we went through a planning process for a little over one year. We engaged community members to give us input, and the community came together wonderfully to provide feedback and to build through this process where they provided information. We took the information and collected that into iterations of ideas, brought it back, presented it, they gave us more feedback, we went back and drilled down into finer details. The Plan was delivered to us in January of 2023. Part of that Plan was that we would find Staff and have someone dedicated to implementing this Plan through a Property Development Director. I am pleased to introduce Mr. Ken Anderson. Then we'll meet the rest of our team: Jed with Colonial Parking, Monica and JD Bartlett with EDiS Construction, Candice Schuster with CoreStates Group, Leslie Smallwood-Lewis and Meagan Whetstone with Mosaic-Colonial Associates, and the Civil Engineers of the Becker Morgan Group. This was a one-year process just to get us to the overarching Plan that conceptualized this. We have now been working on the implementation stages to get us to this point. Mr. Ken Anderson stated that he is the Property Development Director Consultant for the Downtown Dover Partnership. I am so excited to be at this portion of the project. In my role over the last 18 months, I've primarily been responsible for the assessment with some key structures that are specific to our Downtown Dover Master Plan. As a result of site assessments, overseeing the bid and procurement process, identifying remediation requirements from some of the structures, and having to come before you previously for a couple of little structures where we had to get permission to demolish certain buildings. I'm grateful that through all the community input that we got as part of that process, all the feedback, and the menagerie of phone calls we received while demolishing buildings. While doing remediation, we have successfully gotten to this point. I think this building is a benchmark and is iconic representation of what this Master Plan is all about. When Todd asked me to come and participate with this incredible team, this is what I was looking forward to. At this moment, I'm grateful that when we came to you regarding our request to demolish the old Acme building, you gave us unanimous consent to do so. As a result, concurrent with all these other activities that we just heard about, the design process took place by this team. We are at, I think, an incredible next step and next phase of the Master Plan. Thank you for your input today as we look forward to going forward. Mr. Stonesifer mentioned that we'll turn it over to Meagan and Leslie from Mosaic Development Partners. They are the ones really driving the train on this design and leading the charge. Hello, I'm Ms. Meagan Whetstone the Senior Vice President at Mosaic Development Partners. I'm here today with those Development Partners. What we are really trying to talk to you about is the broad sweeping market identity for this project. You know, a healthy walkable city comes with the verb and people to drive it. And so, what we are trying to do with this Site is not only embrace outcomes of the new Mobility Center but also pay attention really carefully to New Street and make sure that there is no real backdoors, which is an incredibly hard thing to do in a building that is supposed to have grocery and retail and all these amazing things. We're trying to do it really carefully because within that Historic District, the scale has to be at the pedestrian level. So, what we're hoping to achieve here is something that fits the cadence along Governors really matches the identity of the town. And also allow for people to really inhabit the space. What we are envisioning in the residential part of this is affordable luxury units that are going to be delivered at 124

Item 6. kind of a market luxury level, but with different funding mechanisms used on our capital stack side to enable people of any income level to join in on this project and be part of the community. It's not really, you know, for any one type of person. It's for everybody, but really providing a high level of care and community within the building itself. With that, a lot of the units have requirements, but there's a really high level of mix so we can have emerging professionals as well as families starting to enjoy this space as they're looking to put permanent footing down in Dover. The retail is along South Governors. A lot of times the grocery store actually heads back to most of the space because it all requires refrigeration. So, what we've done is have three special little micro-retail pieces along Governors to kind of give startup space back to the community and to provide a front door. Then the grocery store itself is more extended back into the building. It is accessible for both sides just thinking about the way people will engage with the building itself. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that Michael Caine from CoreStates Group has also joined us online. I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Candice Schuster of CoreStates Group and she'll talk to you more about the architectural realization as well as the programming along the street. Good afternoon. My name is Ms. Candice Schuster and I'm the architect for 120 South Governors. I'm the Associate Director of Housing for CoreStates Group, formerly known as Bernardon. The proposed community is a four-story multifamily, mixed use, mixed income residential property offering thoughtfully designed apartments while maintaining the historic character. Exterior and shared spaces help in reinforcing the street grid and the historic pedestrian connectivity. The ground floor of the building is programmed to serve a variety of activities which promote the urban experience. Key occupancies will include a grocer, a cafe, a daycare, and three small retail and restaurant spaces that are perfect for small businesses serving a community. This building concept proposes two front doors as Meagan previously stated which gives revitalization to New Street as well as Governors Avenue. These two spaces will give use to the exterior courtyard located at the rear of the building to help stitch in the existing community. There is surface parking at the back that will accommodate both the grocer and the daycare. The upper floors are a mix of studios, one beds, two beds, and three beds with an outdoor rooftop courtyard above the grocer. Rendering Although contemporary in design, the development's architecture respects the historic context rather than replicating the neighborhood structure. The building incorporates the guideline principles of scale, rhythm, proportion, and materiality. It enables the structure to harmonize with the surroundings and avoid appearing foreign in the community, while introducing additional contemporary textures and materials to complement the historical context. The building massing follows the surrounding historical communal vernacular. The building is scaled with the urban fabric of Dover’s Downtown context. The southern façade is four stories while the facade steps down to the north of the building where we have two-story adjacent buildings to weave in with the fabric that's existing there. The facade lends itself to more of a neighborhood aesthetic to fit in with a local community. The dynamic process of the facade allows for a pedestrian friendly walkway both on Governors Avenue and New Street. It also creates identifiable entry points at the corners of the building as well as the residential entry in the center. The facades are treated with brick, masonry, and historic talent aligned with the context in the surrounding neighborhoods. Decorative cornices and bandings align with the historic cornice heights within the district, upper floors are treated architecturally to blend and maintain focus on the first story. Large storefronts on 125

Item 6. the ground floor with tall narrow windows are to maximize the comfort of the units and the aesthetic of the overall building. Railings will tend to hold historic character while using modern materials. The façade will feature a primarily retail frontage alternating between masonry piers, glazing, and premanufactured panels. The brickwork employs varying orientations, particularly in the column bases and at the cornices or perceived cornices lines of the building. This technique ensures the harmonious line of Dover’s historic vernacular. All street facing elevations, follow the brickwork pattern up to varying cornice lines that step down as you get more into the residential area of Dover that's on the north side of the property. These design choices reflect the commitment to honoring the previously received public input, integrating the contemporary style with historical contexts, and aligning with the Design Standards and Guidelines of the City for the Historic District Zone. Chairman Czerwinski asked if the Board members had any questions? He mentioned that he had questions. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that she had questions, but would like to see and hear the full presentation before asking questions. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there was anyone else presenting? There were no other presenters. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that she was in favor of the project and was also impressed. Mrs. Richardson asked about the off-street parking on page 16 of the pictorial presentation. It shows a hedge. The presentation shows a hedge and a hint of a low fence. Will the final design include both a fence and a hedge? If you don’t have a fence, someone is going to walk right through it. Mr. Mike Henry (Civil Engineering Team of the Becker Morgan Group) replied that right now, only a screening hedge has been shown, but there is a possibility; we just haven't proceeded that far at this point. Mrs. Richardson said she would recommend it. Okay there is a screening requirement and the hedge meets that, but I'm asking if there's going to be a fence condition because if there's an illusion of it maybe you can't really see it on that. Ms. Leslie Smallwood-Lewis mentioned that they were also concerned about putting up a fence and creating an optics of that the community is not welcome and we don't want them in; sometimes provides that illusion. So, we want to make sure of that because there is going to be interior space that public installations might be able to occur. We don't want it to look like we are closed off. It’s something that we just want to make sure that we consider collectively. Mrs. Richardson mentioned on page 4 of the pictorial presentation it stated that there are 14 parking spaces. She asked will there be a maximum time limit on parking in these spaces? The proposal indicates that this parking lot is to accommodate the needs of residents, business owners, and shoppers. And if it's going to be the employee of a business, they are going to come in at 7:00 o’clock in the morning and park all day, when they only have 30 minutes. Ms. Smallwood-Lewis mentioned that primarily, this parking has been envisioned to serve the grocery user, which is a big because of the size of the grocery actually really requests further needs, really high turnover parking and not a lot of them. Another use we're envisioning is for leasing so you can come in and then daycare drop off is a huge part of it. That's kind of why it's a 126

Item 6. wide lane and for fire lane use. It is more of a temporary stay lot with the parking envisioned across the street. Mrs. Richardson said but back to part of my original question. Do you plan to have a limit, like a 2-hour parking limit on these spaces like the rest of the town? Ms. Smallwood-Lewis responded by saying that it has not been considered yet, but certainly could be considered. Mrs. Richardson stated that she would recommend it. Mrs. Richardson asked on what street will the entrance to the parking lot be located? On page 5 of the pictorial presentation, it indicates that it will be on Minor Street, which is just an alley. Is that how you are going to get into the parking lot? It's one way, you know, the one entrance and then the other side is the exit. Mr. Henry replied the parking will come off of New Street. It's basically a U-shape. Minor Street is technically a paper alley that doesn't truly exist. Mrs. Richardson asked, is it the same entrance as the truck access to the back of the grocery loading area? Mr. Henry replied yes. Mrs. Richardson mentioned it appears that there is only one return for grocery carts which are located on South Governors. Are there other areas planned? Will there be a routine collection of carts which have not been returned? For example, if carts were left near where customers parked. Ms. Weststone replied that they are going to park across the street in the parking garage. Mrs. Richardson said then they are going to leave the carts up there. They are not going down and pull them (the carts) across the street. Mrs. Richardson asked if they are in the parking lot, do they come in the back door? There's only one cart return area and it's looking to be at the front of the grocery store away from where anyone is going to park. Ms. Weststone replied we have discussed these operational questions with the grocer as well as the parking team to understand the best-case scenario for them. Likely, it would be an operational exercise by the grocers themselves. The grocery has two entrances and so that the hallway in between that funnels in the middle is envisioned as that collecting space for the shopping carts. Should we need to add more (cart) parking in the same parking lot or elsewhere we can certainly consider it. Right now, the grocer that would go here is a smaller on their footprint and more of a grocery basket type. So, it's not envisioned that they would need it and they're not heavy cart users. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that she understood. She assumed that it would be the grocer’s responsibility, but the concern was it didn't look like you could return your carts through the backdoor. It was only at the front of the grocer. Ms. Weststone replied that it is also in the back. There will be a sliding door to connect to that corridor. Ms. Horsey asked if she could interact with that because she had the same question about the shopping carts. We have shopping carts left all over the Dover and it's a huge problem. I would suggest that this grocer please charge $0.25 (twenty-five cents) like Aldi’s. They don’t have any 127

Item 6. carts anywhere. They are the one place where you get your quarter back after returning the cart. She would really like to see that. Mrs. Richardson asked why we are using three different types of bricks versus staying consistent (reference page 7, item IV #2 of the submitted proposal)? This is reminiscent of the smorgasbord of material used on the Dover Library. She has heard many comments around town after the library was built that it was obvious a committee put that building together. Ms. Schuster mentioned looking at all the different materials here, it can seem like a lot. We studied this building for quite a long time as was said previously. When we got all of the opinions and the public's comments on this building, we decided that to fit in with the neighborhood of Dover and to really stitch into the fabric that we were going to go for more of a communal façade. That look is where you kind of start getting these different materials. Now, we are very careful that these materials relate to each other. It may be a different brick color, but the brick size may stay the same. The portions of the building are going to stay materially continuous in that section. We are not mixing and matching different materials within the same portion of the building where we have one brick type. We are keeping that and then we are having a separate façade look. We are doing something that compliments that, but it's not matching the building to get one cohesive building feel although the scale is breaking down to more of a pedestrian level. Mrs. Richardson stated that she did understand that, and you did clarify that in your initial comments. Mrs. Richardson, other than two very plain metal cornices, the design doesn't seem to include any decorative historical details that other buildings in the area have. That is a disappointment to her (see picture of Priscilla Block another historic building in the area). I'm not seeing anything historical in this building. Ms. Schuster mentioned when we were looking at this building, we certainly wanted to have a nod to the historical context of Dover, which is very important. The building should feel like it fits. We did also look at the building having a little bit more of a contemporary look to kind of lead the future building opportunity. We can certainly look at putting some cornices in, but I think the way that the cornices lay out with this façade kind of stepping down feels appropriate too to the building façade. Mrs. Richardson said it is very plain. It doesn't add anything to it. Ms. Whetstone stated that I think one thing about replicating what is there is respecting it, which we do because we are trying to pull the columns up and really connect it to the edges to get context and those kinds of cornices. I don't think they are in the drawings, but you can kind of see them in the rendering where you start to get a little more play with the brick and articulation. I think one thing that we're thinking about, you know, is the marketing of this space and bringing people down. It is also a second layer of bringing additional private investment in with other people. And so its having that kind of fresh feel while merging it into the middle. Plain, we don't want plain. So, we will absolutely look at that and how it kind of demonstrates the shadow lines coming together to become clearer. I think that's coming back to what we're talking about with the pedestrian scale. You really feel it when you're on the ground floor. But also coming back with the bricks. You're coming down Main Street and every single brick building is brick and it's worn 128

Item 6. brick, but they come from a very slightly different place. It is a slightly different clay, and they are all a little different as you march your way down. That's kind of what we are trying to do; so, you feel like you're not just walking past a monolith and it's something to get past, but it’s something to stop and consider. So, with this lens of trying to bring people in and trying to make something familiar for everybody. Within a historic district, it has to have that scale. From an investment perspective, you know making people understand you know Dover is doing something here and it’s something really cool. And what does that look like? So, it looks like a little bit of everybody but with that same rhythm and then with that same scale demonstrates I think you're speaking to. That is our vision. Mrs. Richardson said okay, thank you. Mrs. Richardson said none of the windows pictured in the pictorial presentation reflect any hint of historical connection with the area. They are all modern windows. Ms. Schuster mentioned that with the window sizing and proportion of the window, we tried to match what was in the vernacular. That means tall and more narrow in size. The materials of the window are going to be more modern. I think that kind of lends to the type of living that's going to be happening in this building and the users at the end of this using these apartments. But with the proportion of the windows, we try to match the historical context. Ms. Whetstone mentioned on the brick buildings, you're seeing a black frame on the windows and on the newer stuff, you're seeing the white frame. Coming back to that play of old and new, the brick is kind of replicating the idea of more of a warehouse window look. So, it's old and it's going to be reminiscent of what's already typically within the brick frame. I'm wondering if this is a render issue because it's so early in this concept is reading a little flat. It would be more set in. We would get shadow lines. There are millions on there that you would start to see. We can definitely take a look at how that could read with modern materials in a more contextual way. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if they could look at page 15. I think that page would probably help a little bit in the discussion you are having about cornice lines, windows, and old versus new. Ms. Whetstone said that it is absolutely helpful. I defer to my team for all of the technical stuff, but that's not my strength. I do want to just note from a more global approach to this is the Master Plan. That is what Mosaic was brought in to focus on and to make sure that there is a true impact on Downtown Dover. In order to do that, there's constantly a balancing act that has to occur where we respect your City, because we love it so much. It's got such a quite feel to it because of its historic background. But we also know that it's very important to meet the needs of what people are looking for now in their living environment. And a lot of that has to do with a somewhat of a fresher look, the windows, the balconies, how things are laid out, and the amenities that will be in this building. We are charged with making sure that we actually do what was put into the Master Plan. We know and have done this so much that we know what these future residents and commercial tenants are going be looking for. We are always having this push and pull between what the social needs are going to be for the future residents and tenants and how do we respect the City of Dover to make sure that comes out. It's not going to look exactly how everything else does in Dover because we won't achieve the ultimate goal of really densifying and bringing in a kind of a new generation of residents to Downtown Dover. 129

Item 6. Ms. Horsey mentioned overall I really like what you have done here. I think you have achieved the goal of making it people's street level friendly facade. I do have one comment on this north end which is on the right side of the slide is that it seems to be what you see first. It is plain and kind of white and it will definitely show a little more. I was thinking possibly that could be a slightly darker color or maybe a little more interest in just the plain facade that it reads now because it looks like a white cube. So, that would be my only comment. I think you have answered a lot of questions that I had. Some of them were similar to Mrs. Richardson questions. The only other question I might have would be the trees. Are they hopefully canopy trees, or do we know yet or is this too early in the process? I would urge you to plant some canopies to bring in the shade because as we all know, that's what makes Downtown's livable are the trees. Thank you. Chairman Czerwinski commented that overall, the design is really nice. I think it is a postmodern kind of look. Mixing the old and new, he appreciates that. I think that the idea behind it is wonderful. My concerns about it are as follows. I think when she was talking about the cornices, I think there's an issue when you are dealing with cornices and trying to draw the eye down. So, what you're trying to do is you're drawing everybody away from the higher elevations or higher façade. I think you need a little bit more detail than just putting sheet metal or sheet aluminum because that's what it is going to be or represent the cornice. What we are talking about it simple, either incorporating that within the brick structure by making the cornice itself brick and then adding maybe some bracketing or some dentiling that adds a little bit of design elements to that. Because if you're going draw people's eyes down and you are going to respect the historical architectural features of Downtown Dover, you are going to have to make those little features. I say just some simple bracketing or dentiling on the corners. I would hope that maybe you would stick with brick instead of trying to use aluminum. What you're trying to do, and I'm not an architect myself, but, you know, there's a fine line between trying to draw people's eyes down and being brutalistic within building design. Because effectively the top half of the building is not existen; there is no design elements up there. It's just the box, the white box. And so, if you're going to draw people's eyes down, I would ask that you enhance the details of those areas that you want to pop out. I think the idea of making the north elevation and darkening it down to like a gray might work, you know, just to break up the white. I understand what you're saying is you want that to disappear. One of my biggest problems is the south elevation. What I'm finding with these new buildings, and we typically do this all the time, is we ignore the elevation and put everything out on the façade and then there's nothing on the (side) elevation. And the thing is, this is a four-story building. So, from Loockerman. that building is going to stick out. If you have just an elevation with the brick and then the rest of it is just the white, you are going see a white building from Loockerman. It is going to be a featureless white building going all the way back. I'm asking that on the south elevation is wrapping that brick building all the way around for twelve bays on the elevation side of the building. Because we have another building on the Water Street where they just did the façade and it’s very painfully obvious when the roof ends right there at the façade. It cuts off, you can just see where there's no roof there and there is no features. It's going to be the same thing right there especially from Loockerman where all you're going to see is that brick ending at the corner. You are just going to see a plain white building going all the way down to the rest of the building. So, I asked if you could wrap the facade of the south side around the elevation instead of just having to stop. On the back, it's kind of weird because you have the features. Go to page 16 and at the rear of the building, you go to a wainscoting which is kind of weird. The wainscoting really kind of brings out a warehouse look to the building. I'm not sure if that's necessary. I would just stick with the white going all the way around the back. The wainscoting 130

Item 6. gives off the feature of a warehouse; it's not necessarily attractive. And then where the grocery building is, you kind of lose all the architectural features and you basically have the rear of a hospital right there. So, I would ask that for the grocery area to put a little more features on that to match the rest of the brick, because that looks really sterile. But basically, its like the emergency entrance to the hospital and especially from New Street. It's going to be extremely visible if you're walking. You want something that looks neighborly and that doesn't really look neighborly. So, I'd ask that you continue that same sort of treatment as far as the brick with the columns. Ms. Whetstone mentioned that they are all in set brick panels and it can be a little difficult to see, but okay. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned they are very subtle. Ms. Whetstone said okay. Chairman Czerwinski said it's a square box back there. That's another thing I see. But like I said, overall, I think the building design is very well executed. I just wish architects would look more at the elevation sometimes to give a little bit more respect to the elevations. We have the same thing with the other project with parking garage where the side stops, and it just becomes concrete along the whole back side of it. And these are big structures. So, when you are talking about massing and height these things are absorbing everything else, whether it's the Kent County Family Court Building, or whether it's this. These buildings will be seen from blocks away literally because everything else is two to three stories. So, all I ask is to respect the elevations. I know we talked about the facades, but I'm trying to get away from the facade so we can get more into the building to look like a complete building instead of just adding stuff onto the front of it. Ms. Whetstone said okay. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned as he referred to the Staff notes that this project has unusually not a large number of questions that are brought up in Staff notes. The Staff summary for this was in the Review Staff Report for this project in Section 6. In Section 6, there is a whole list of details that were not clarified in the project and some of it was highlighted by my counterparts here. And so, to me it's kind of hard to go ahead and approve an Architectural Review Certification when you have two or three pages of unclarified details. It's not on the building but the bushes, the fences, the masking of the parking lot, and things like that. If Staff does recommend, then we can go ahead and approve it. However, we need strict adherence to Section 6 of the Review Staff Report to make sure that everything's been addressed to Staff’s satisfaction to make sure the project gets pushed through. Chairman Czerwinski asked if any of his counterparts have any further questions? Ms. Horsey stated that she thinks they also have to include all the comments in question seven. There are a lot and as long as you are all aware of these and are working on them, I don't really have a problem with this. Mrs. Richardson asked if they could get clarification on your page 8 of the Staff proposal at the very top: clarify the window glass area material if it’s mirrored or colored glass. Ms. Schuster replied that the windows do not have mirrored or colored glass. 131

Item 6. The public hearing is open. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that we do have one individual that joined us online and that's Michael Caine from the CoreStates Group. He did not have any comments. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there were no written comments received by any members of the community. Mr. Tom Smith: I live at 36 The Green. I thought the comments so far have been really good. First, I'd like to say that this morning when I was emptying the garbage, I looked out and I saw the facade on the side of the new parking garage that's for the Family Court had been built. The windows there looked fantastic. I thought, geez, this parking garage is beautiful; and you know, how can a parking garage be beautiful? It was really terrific. It was so good that I wrote a note to Bill Lenihan congratulating him. In some sort of the same manner, my daughter bought a new electric car, a very fancy car. She loved the car, but on the front of it there's a grill. And the grill is totally fake. And you can see right through the grill. You can see the metal of the regular car. And it was just sort of objectionable. In the same way, all the different facades that we're talking about, in some respect to me, are a little objectionable. I think that the facade should be specific for a purpose. To make a distinguishing difference between the residential and the retail, is important. That part is good. I think that in some respects; this may be a little overdone. I think it might be too much, especially if you talked about the hospital appearance with the marketplace; you know, I totally agree with that. I briefly looked over the Plans and I saw where the third and fourth floors that were residential had different colors on the side. And I thought, “Well, what's the reason for that?” And I'm thinking that it's more like the library. Do the windows open because the windows are tricky here and I could see them overtime being not as attractive. For instance, the windows in that parking garage are spectacular, with the trim and so forth. I thought that something needs to be done to dress up the windows here. If they open that's kind of important. That makes them more attractive than if they don’t open. Chairman Czerwinski asked for clarification if the windows open or don't open? Ms. Whetstone asked if he could be more specific regarding which windows. Chairman Czerwinski said any apartment windows. Ms. Whetstone replied that the residential windows are operable. For the portions of the windows are operable. The storefront on the ground floor, those are fixed. Ms. Schuster mentioned for clarification that this building is going for a really, really high level of sustainability. We are not only considering LED, but also Passive House. And so, as we explore the Passive House, which is like a Net Zero, it’s a really incredibly resilient and environmentally responsible type of building. That might limit our ability to do operable windows, but it would only be because of that reason we would not. Chairman Czerwinski asked is that something that you actually had in your design. I assume that you had it in the design elements for the building that there was supposed to be a “green” building. Ms. Schuster replied yes. Chairman Czerwinski said he was just checking. The public hearing was closed seeing no one else wishing to speak in the room or virtually. 132

Item 6. Chairman Czerwinski commented that there are a lot of Staff notes that would have to be questions that have to be addressed. I know there's design elements that I would like to see and then I don't want to approve the Application as is: the problems with the cornices and the change of the wraparound of the façade onto the elevation on the south elevation. They did it on the north but not on the south. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that I think we can probably ask the applicant to clarify that question on the north and the south elevations because I think that it is in our packets if there's questions about material on those. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that page 13 shows the elevations. If you look at the south elevation it is a little confusing of how it is presented. It has the south and then the north, but is the north, I assume at the bottom? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied we are on page 13, and it’s the interior of the courtyard. This is a u- shaped building if that helps you. So, the page before it, page 12 is actually the true, I guess, north elevation and south elevation of the building. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that he was satisfied with that. Perhaps we request a redesign of the cornice with more elements. Mrs. Richardson stated that she would prefer to seek more Historic District details included. I understand the basic concept. I appreciate that you did your homework and went around to the different historical details around town and took pictures. I'm not seeing where they've been incorporated into the design. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that he could see what they were talking about regarding the Victorian window massing. Mr. Stonesifer mentioned regarding the elements that you would like to see, can we approach this from a conditional approval and have Staff and Planning help us work through that in the interest of time? We are open and certainly open to doing all the suggestions. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that Planning Staff to the Historic District Commission are making a recommendation on the Architectural Review Certification for this project. So, if you have specific concerns, you can note those in making your recommendation. The ultimate issuance of the Architectural Review Certification for this project will be issued by the Planning Commission as part of their review of the Site Development Plan for this project, because it's required to go to them. The Staff presented a series of comments and recommendations. A number of these are, I would consider them more minor things, or they may be things that are more in the realm of some of the Code requirements that the Planning Commission would be looking at: things like screening of that parking lot area, some of the other tree planting requirements, and those types of things. Some of them are truly comments or things that were not real clear, such as that window glass area. Then its clarifying what the material truly was in the Presentation that we had received in their graphics package. So, there are a number of things that way. Certain elements that were not real clear,like is it mirrored (the glass) or tinted? We have determined that answer is no. What are the 133

Item 6. certain edge treatments for things like the railings and other elements of the building or site detailing. I think as the project progresses they will be flushed out. But if there is certainly some particular elements or design features of the building that you have concerns with, your action on the recommendation for this building could certainly articulate those. Chairman Czerwinski moved to forward a motion of the Recommendation of the Architectural Review Certification for Conditional Approval of the Architectural Review Certification of HI-25- 02 Mixed Building at 120 South Governors Avenue with inclusion requirements of complying with Section 6 of the Staff Review Report to be in compliance with those. In addition, with a requirement for consideration for redesign of the north and south elevations and façade cornices to incorporate the brick elements with the possible dentiling and/or bracketing. With one or the other to improve the cornice presentation of the building to better reflect the Downtown Dover area. The motion was seconded by Ms. Horsey and approved 3-0. Ms. Mason was absent. Mrs. Melson-Williams summarized the motion that your recommendation regarding this Application is for conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certification. It's subject to compliance with the items identified in Section 6 (of the Review Report), which is the Staff Comments and Recommendations, and then to consider potential design changes on the north and south elevations and cornice areas to add potentially more brick in certain areas and/or cornice detailing. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that a written Notice of Decision, the information found in this Report and the action of the Historic District Commission will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. It will accompany your Site Development Plan once that is filed. That next step of a Site Development Plan review process is with the City's Planning Commission. 134

The Governor Context Photos Item 6. 1 New St. Residential Entrance Dark Fiber Cement Panel 152 S Governors Ave. 125 S Governors Ave. Governor St Entry Cladding Taupe Fiber Cement Panel`` 2 W. Loockerman St. 107 W. Loockerman St. 52-DD Brick White Fiber Cement Panel The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 135

The Governor Site (PREVIOUS DESIGN) Item 6. 2 The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 136

The Governor Site Item 6. 3 The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 137

The Governor Governor Ave.. (PREVIOUS DESIGN) Item 6. 4 CORE STATES GROUP The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 138

The Governor Governor Ave. Item 6. 5 The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 139

The Governor Governor Ave.. (PREVIOUS DESIGN) Item 6. 6 CORE STATES GROUP The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 140

The Governor Governor Ave.. Item 6. 7 The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 141

The Governor New St.. (PREVIOUS DESIGN) Item 6. 8 CORE STATES GROUP The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 142

The Governor New St.. Item 6. 9 The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 143

The Governor New St. (PREVIOUS DESIGN) Item 6. 10 CORE STATES GROUP The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 144

The Governor New St. Item 6. 11 The Governor - 120 S Governor Ave. Dover DE 19904 August 24, 2026 145