1-21-20 PC Paperless Packet

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, January 21, 2020 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall, City Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING of December 16, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for TUESDAY, February 18, 2020 at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. 2) Update on City Council Actions 3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates 4) Education & Training Opportunities: a. University of Delaware, Institute for Public Administration Trainings to be held at Kent County Levy Court Building. See Planning Staff to Register. i. “Planning Your Community’s Future” on January 24, 2020, 9:00am to Noon ii. “Land-Use Law, the Constitution, and Takings” on February 14, 2020, 9:00am to Noon iii. “Land-Use Administration” on February 28, 2020, 9:00am to Noon OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES OLD BUSINESS 1) Request for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Continuation of Development Application Review: a. S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) – Continuation of the Review of Revised Implementation Plan for the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Revised Plan for the Residential District proposes to revise Phase 2 areas; to extinguish lots 339-346 to create a new clubhouse and active recreation space; to create two (2) clubhouses within the Active Open Space; to build five (5) apartment buildings to contain 180 dwelling units on lots 6-10, while using lot 11 as Open Space; and to change the unit types of lots along Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street, Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way) to achieve 665 total lots. The Residential District consists multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street and Wemyss Road and east of the POW-MIA Parkway. The owner of record for the area of revision is Eden Hill Residential, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. The Implementation Plan was previously reviewed as SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Implementation Plan consisting of 665 dwelling units with the Planning Commission

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: January 21, 2020 Page 2 of 2 conditional approval granted June 19, 2006 and other subsequent approvals related to lot layout and Pattern Book revisions. Related Applications: SB-07-01, MI-08-03, MI-08- 20, MI-09-03, MI-09-13, MI-10-04, MI-10-14, MI-10-20, and S-15-07. • The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and began Review of this Application S-19-25 at their Meeting of December 16, 2019. Action was deferred seeking submission of clarifying information. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) Z-20-01 Lands of William E. Ardito at 4 Lakeview Drive – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application for one parcel of land consisting of 0.63 acres (27,443 SF +/-). The property is zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). The proposed zoning is RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The property is located on the southwest side of Lakeview Drive and southwest of Sunset Drive, immediately abutting Silver Lake. The owner of record is William E. Ardito. Property Address: 4 Lakeview Drive. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.13-01-08.00-000. Council District 3. Ordinance #2019-22. 2) MI-20-01 Text Amendment: General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 9 – General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O). The proposed Ordinance allows for barbershops to be included as a preferred use permitted subject to conditional use review within the City’s H (Historic District Zone) in the RG-O zone. The Ordinance also seeks to remove the word “zoning” from the section heading and replace it with the word “zone.” Ordinance #2019-19. • A copy of the Proposed Ordinance #2019-19 is available on the City’s website www.cityofdover.com under the Government Heading: Ordinances, Resolutions & Tributes. https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions • First Reading was held by City Council on December 9, 2019 where the Public Hearing dates were set for Planning Commission on January 21, 2020 and City Council on February 10, 2020. 3) SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the subdivision of two existing parcels a total of 1.79 +/- acres of land into five (5) lots. The properties are located on the southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road. The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Steven D. Heiges. Property Addresses: 1504 & 1506 College Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-01- 02.00-000 and ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000. Council District 4. Request for Consideration: Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area. NEW BUSINESS 1) Update on the Status of the City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan ADJOURN THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Posted Agenda: January 10, 2020

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 16, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Dr. Jones presiding. Members present were Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin (arrived at 6:53pm), Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Maucher and Dr. Jones. Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek and Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish. Also present were Mr. Clifford Mitchell, Ms. Enghofer, Mr. John Paradee, Mr. William Harman, and Rev. Erica Crawford. Speaking from the public were Ms. Annette Mathis, Mr. Kenneth Morse, Mr. Brian Bashista, Mr. Tolano Anderson, Ms. Christine D’Gangi, Mr. Jack Phillips, and Ms. Kathleen Doyle. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach and Mr. Baldwin absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2019 Ms. Maucher moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of November 18, 2019, second by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach and Mr. Baldwin absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 2020 in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Hugg stated that in the packet there is a Schedule of Meetings and Deadlines for 2020. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on November 25 and 26, 2019 and December 9 and 10, 2019. Mr. Hugg stated that in terms of Planning and Inspections updates, the most important item is obviously our Public Hearing tonight on the Comprehensive Plan and its consideration by City Council at their meeting in January 2020. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that their new Planner, Samantha Bulkilvish joined the office two weeks ago and has gotten the crash course in finishing up the Comprehensive Plan and is helping them out this evening. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS 1) S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) – Public Hearing and Review of Revised Implementation Plan for the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Revised Plan for the Residential District proposes to revise Phase 2 areas; to extinguish lots 339-346 to create a new clubhouse and active recreation space; to create two (2) clubhouses within the Active Open Space; to build five (5) apartment buildings to contain 180 dwelling units on lots 6-10, while using lot 11 as Open Space; and to change the unit types of lots along Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street, Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way) to achieve 665 total lots. The Residential District consists multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street and Wemyss Road and east of the POW-MIA Parkway. The owner of record for the area of revision is Eden Hill Residential, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. The Implementation Plan was previously reviewed as SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Implementation Plan consisting of 665 dwelling units with the Planning Commission conditional approval granted June 19, 2006 and other subsequent approvals related to lot layout and Pattern Book revisions. Related Applications: SB-07-01, MI-08-03, MI-08-20, MI-09-03, MI-09-13, MI-10-04, MI-10-14, MI-10-20, and S-15-07. Representatives: Mr. Clifford Mitchell, Karins and Associates; Ms. Lauren Enghofer, Karins and Associates Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a related to the Eden Hill Farm TND which is a Traditional Neighborhood Design Project. This specifically focuses on the Residential District of that location. The Residential District area is shown on the screen. To the top of the screen would be where the Commercial District is that currently has the Nemours Pediatrics Offices and then the larger Eden Hill Medical Center would also be to the top of the screen. The left-hand side of the screen would be where the POW-MIA Parkway is, and they will talk about the colors on the map in a moment. With a TND, there is a requirement for an Implementation Plan which outlines how you are proposing to develop an area. For the Eden Hill property, there is an existing Implementation Plan for the Residential District; it dates to 2006. Over the years, there have been a number of amendments to that Plan, some successful and some while successful with the Planning Commission were never implemented. This evening, we are focusing on another Revised Implementation Plan for this district area. There are a number of things that they are proposing to change with this Plan, but she wants to talk about the TND Zone in particular. It is a particular zoning classification that has a list of permitted uses in the Residential District and most of the permitted uses focus on residential activity. There is also the ability to have open space areas and then also a number of civic uses. Our DAC Report actually has a chart in it that outlines the whole series of every application that has ever happened with the Residential District. At this point, we are well over a dozen applications over the years to make changes or to amend a portion of that development. Along with the plan aspect of a TND Project, there is also 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 what is called the Comprehensive Design Standards Manual also known as the Pattern Book. The Pattern Book sets forth how you build in the District. It includes things like approaches to building architecture; it establishes the setbacks and how much of the lot that you can cover and elements like that along with details on streets, tree plantings, and things of that nature. With the Eden Hill Resident District, the original Pattern Book is from 2005 and over the years there have been a series of five Addendums to that book. Where we are today with the Eden Hill Residential District is that the red shaded area on the screen is where the existing houses are located. There have been eighty-three permits issued for construction of what have been predominantly townhouse units and there are a series of six duplex units meaning that two units share a wall in that neighborhood as it exists today. The project as it exists tonight is a revision to some other areas of the Plan that have not yet started construction and that is what the Planning Commission will be evaluating. The first of those is a revision to what is the area that is to be encompassed in Phase 2. This will focus on the area immediately to the south or towards the bottom of the screen from the red (the area that is currently built). In Phase 2, they are looking to enlarge it to make Phase 2 really encompass what was originally labeled as Phase 2 and Phase 3 with several other additional lots as well. So not really a change to the plan or units in that area just a phasing line change. The second item for revision is a consolidation of lots in order to create a southern Clubhouse. On the map, this is the lightly shaded green area towards the bottom of the development. This would basically consolidate a number of single-family detached house lots and in that location construct a Clubhouse to serve that area. That Clubhouse area is close to several other areas of existing open space in the proposed plan. The next item for revision focuses on what is the dark green area just to the east of the red. That was the proposed location of a Community Center Building. With this project, they are proposing to create two Clubhouse buildings on that parcel of land still retaining the necessary active recreation area for the project but instead of a one building in that block, they will be proposing two buildings. The next revision deals with a revision to the overall dwelling unit count. When Eden Hill was first established it was limited to a total of 665 units. Over time with changes to the Plan, there have been some units that have been lost. There was a proposal that actually increased the number of units to over 700 units when there was a concept for an increased presence of apartments in the project, but this plan would take the residential dwelling count back to 665 dwelling units overall. What that does mean is that there is some change to the mix of unit types in number and location. The teal blue color at the far northeast part of the site towards the top of the page that is where the multi-family units are proposed. With this project, they are looking to construct multi- family in the form of apartment buildings. This is predominantly where multi-family was originally planned in the overall development. Their scenario makes use of those lot areas to create 180 apartment units. One of the block areas that was proposed for an apartment building originally, is being revised with this plan to turn into open space area. The other component to changes of unit type is shown in purple. Currently, the existing plan has a series of townhouses located in that area. This Revised Plan proposes to change them to a series of duplex units. Overall, this plan will propose 582 dwelling units so it is a mix of single family detached houses with a couple of different lot sizes for them; duplex units, townhouse units, and the multi-family in the form of apartment buildings for a total of 665 dwelling units. With this project as with all of our residential development there are landscape plan requirements that require tree plantings and then there are also requirements for active recreation. With these proposed changes for the Clubhouse areas, they are actually increasing the amount of open space for the project overall and it’s just the amenities are being refined with those Clubhouse buildings. Should the 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 application be successful this evening, they do have additional work that they will have to do with the plans in order to develop construction plans that make refinements to the lots that they are proposing this evening. It will be through an administrative process with Staff and the regulatory agencies to finalize those plans. With the DAC Report, there is some basic information on the plans submitted for corrections that Staff has identified and additional information that will need to be updated. With this proposal for the revisions, Staff is basically in support of all of their recommended changes. The Planning Commission can find the Staff Recommendations on page 13 of the DAC Report. They are recognizing the changes in phasing, the consolidation for lots and their new concepts for Clubhouse units, the revision in the units count to take it back to 665, and the mix in the changes of the townhouses, duplexes and apartment units. We do in our Recommendations remind the applicants of some of the key concepts for the TND. They do also note that since there have been a number of changes over time there isn’t actually one final version of the Pattern Book; Staff is recommending that the requirement be placed that a Final Edition of the Pattern Book be put together for the Residential District. As she mentioned there is the original book and then five Addendums, so helping people understand what the requirements for building in there or even reviewing Permits can be complicated to say the least. The DAC Report also includes information from other agencies including the Public Works Office related to water and sewer planning, the Fire Marshal’s Office which has a number of comments related to planning for the apartment buildings, the State Department of Transportation, and the Kent Conservation District. Mr. Tolbert stated that in looking at the Plan there are six phases and he doesn’t see Phase 3. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Enghofer stated that they are trying to keep this plan as close to looking the same as the previous plan as possible. They did not go through and re-number all of the other phases. Mr. Hartman stated that he recognizes that the Pattern Book is very old. Do you need an updated Pattern Book in order to make an informed decision on this project? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Pattern Book exists in pieces at the moment. There is the original book and then all of the Addendums all of which are in place and are enforceable, but the difficulty comes in because you can’t just open one book. You have to open one book and then double check the other five pieces to make sure that the element that you are looking for did not change in a subsequent approval. In the past, they have worked with prior applicants to suggest creating a final document for the Residential District specifically to help that review process go smoother both for Planning Staff in reviewing any future plans and permits as well as the applicant builder or developer of the project in understanding the requirements specific to their project. Mr. Hartman questioned if Staff was concerned that the Pattern Book as old as it is does not address the apartment complexes or the new recreation Clubhouses? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Pattern Book presents general information in regards to both of those items: general information about how you build multi-family and how architecture overall should be approached. The question of the Clubhouses is very similar; there is information about the aspects of architecture but what will be needed for this project is a little more detail of the amenities of those Clubhouse areas. Do they include any specific outside recreation amenities, game court surfaces? What is the inside of the building? Is it meeting 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 rooms and how is that divided up? Those items of detailing out the Clubhouse areas can be achieved through an Administrative Site Plan process. The existing Pattern Book in its many pieces goes to inform that design. Mr. Hartman stated that Staff’s comments suggest that there are not enough parking spaces except on-street. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Pattern Book does not specifically outline a parking requirement for apartment units. The regular Zoning Ordinance provisions for apartment buildings require a parking rate of 2.25 parking spaces per unit. With this project as it is designed, they are proposing what they would call off-street parking both in surface lots and then under the apartment buildings but they do somewhat rely on on-street parking in those areas if you are looking to hold them to the 2.25 per dwelling unit requirement. Some of that could be considered that visitors would be an on-street parking option. The overall concept of a TND is meant to be multi-modal meaning people arrive by vehicle, on foot or through public transit in the area. The concern is not extensive, but they do not that it does not currently appear to meet what is our regular parking requirement for apartment units. Mr. Hartman stated that he just wants to make it clear for the record that Article 10, Section 2.23 of the Zoning Ordinance requires these 2.25 parking spaces for the use of the people living there and for visitors and for obviate the parking of off-street vehicles. If this is in the Zoning Ordinance as a requirement, why wasn’t this submitted as a waiver of some sort in the application? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the TND Zone is a little unique. The Code reference that you just made to Article 10, Section 2 focuses on Site Plans. The TND Zone has its own particular process to it outlined in the section of Article 3 that deals with the TND. It does make reference to other portions of the Code related to things like tree planting and parking but with a TND the parking rate can be established through the Pattern Book itself. That is something that if they are not meeting that exact 2.25, they can present an item for the Pattern Book to revise that to something more appropriate. This is really focused on the overall concept of the apartment units. The more finalized design of apartment units would come through an Administrative Plan Review process and if that time they are still not meeting it, they could pursue a change to the Pattern Book to accommodate what they believe is the necessary parking for the apartment units. Dr. Jones opened a public hearing. Ms. Annette Mathis – 422 S Greenberry Lane Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Mathis stated that she has been living here for a little over eight years now and all of these things that are being said now were promised then. She wants to know if they have a builder now for this plan or how long do you think this plan is going to take this time. She was promised the Clubhouse. The last person that she knew as the builder was Pettinaro, but she doesn’t know if they are still on board with this or not. Responding to Ms. Mathis, Mr. Mitchell stated that at this point the developer has multiple builders lined up to start working on the project as soon as they get through the whole process of the approval from the Dover Offices. Ms. Mathis stated that they said this time it is supposed to be like 180 apartments. Will the residents in the apartments have to pay an HOA fee like they do? Responding to Ms. Mathis, Ms. Enghofer stated that is legal and they don’t really get into that end of things. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would imagine that as part of the development of multi- family apartment units, some type of fee may be incorporated in their rental amount. That is typically how they see that done. There is an overall property management of the apartment units that may participate in taking care of various Clubhouse activities or active recreation amenities. This is somewhat unique when you’ve got both individual homeowners and then potentially the apartment style buildings within the same development but the City’s rules and regulations say that all property owners are to be members of the HOA and/or Property Management Association to take care of those common area elements, whether it’s an active recreation area or just open space so there will be some type of participation. They may not see it specifically as a line item like you do as a property owner as a payment to an HOA but that is typically how the process works. Ms. Mathis questioned if they know who the HOA is for that development now? Responding to Ms. Mathis, Mr. Mitchell stated that they do not know. Mr. Kenneth Morse – 422 S Greenberry Lane Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Morse stated that he does not think that the road is built to have two way. They have been there since they started building. You are building all of this around us and we are sitting there in the front. They had promised us when we first bought that townhouse that nothing would be in front of us; that view was supposed to be clear. When you start building all of these developments all around us and we have been there since it first started, what do they get in return? For instance, he has three trees on his land that are dead. It looks like a ghost town. No leaves grow on them. He wants to know what they are going to give the original people who are there now besides building all around us. Can we get any fences around our properties? Responding to Mr. Morse, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that if the trees are actually on your property they were required to survive for two years so if they survived the two years then there is not much that Staff can do in regards to the ones that are on your property. She will let Mr. Lyon speak about street trees in the area. You can apply to construct a fence on your own property. If it was not part of your original plan and you would like a fence, the Pattern Book is going to dictate the maximum height of that fence; however, it is subject to a Building Permit. If you want to reach out to Staff, they can provide some information about what your fence options would be in your development. Mr. Lyon questioned if the dead trees were located on their side of the property or the street side of the sidewalk? Responding to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Morse stated that these trees are on his property. The trees that are on the sidewalk are most likely on his property to because he is an owner. As you are riding into Eden Hill on that long highway, you have to make that turn to come in his house is the first. If it doesn’t look decent and you are developing behind us and around us, what can you give the owners that have been there from the beginning? How can you fix our properties to make it look presentable as the rest that they are building? Responding to Mr. Morse, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would give him her card and add Mr. Lyon’s contact information to it. Mr. Brian Bashista – 523 Ann Moore Street Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Bashista stated that he bought this property two years ago for his son when he comes back 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 from the Marines this year. He does not live there himself; however, he has been in Dover for 28 years. In the original layout of Eden Hill, how many apartments were to be built in Eden Hill? Responding to Mr. Bashista, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the original plan for Eden Hill referred to this multi-family area as condominiums. Condominiums are really a form of ownership, but the style was equivalent to an apartment style building. The original plan from 2006 or 2007 timeframe called for 216 condominiums. There was a previous attempt at a Revised Implementation Plan that increased that number significantly, but that plan was not finalized. The project today is proposing 180 apartment units. Mr. Bashista stated that when Eden Hill was developed and approved in 2006, no apartments were to be built in Eden Hill. Responding to Mr. Bashista, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the condos were a form of multi-family which would be considered like an apartment style building. Mr. Bashista stated that you own condominiums. Responding to Mr. Bashista, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that typically with a condo, yes you would own the unit different than a rental scenario. In the original Pattern Book, she does not know that it made the distinction of ownership versus rental; it was the term that they used for multi-family at that point. Mr. Bashista stated that as you look around Dover and you look at the multi-use properties that have been built across the City: Village of Westover with a mixture of dwellings and apartments, Baytree with a mixture of dwellings and apartments, Mapleton Square which dates back and even Liberty Court next to Fox Hall. You look at those apartments where people have a vested interest, but they don’t have an ownership interest. In his opinion, often times when you have people who don’t have an ownership vested interest in the property that they don’t always take care of the property. In the past five years, there have been a large amount of apartments built in Dover so it is not like Dover isn’t building affordable houses in the form of apartments. He will tell you that if you go to the Dover Police Department website as he did today, and you can look at the crime in these areas. You cluster the crime on the website which you can do, most of it is Downtown as we know but there are also higher crime rates in apartments. As a property owner in Dover he is concerned with that. He remembers when Eden Hill was developed. At that time, he was the Fire Chief in Dover, so he had firsthand knowledge at looking at what Eden Hill was, and he understood what it was. Of course, what happened in the economy happened and here where are today. But he will tell you that people who own their properties have a vested interest in their neighborhoods and their community. He first lived in Courtside Apartments when he first came here so he understands living in an apartment and moving to difference properties; however, he thinks that we are trying to slide by the fact that this was not supposed to be apartments. We can talk about it however we want to, but it was not apartments; it was condos. He knows that he is not the only one who has that concern. It is nice that they are going to build these two recreational buildings on the property. To most people sitting here, it looks like they are going to build two recreational facilities which is great. He bets that they are both under 10,000 square feet so that you don’t have to put a sprinkler system in them which is probably the real reason that they are building two. Mr. Baldwin arrived. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Mr. Tolano Anderson – 50 Dove Creek Ln Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Anderson stated that he is the property owner of 655 West North Street. He was having a little bit of trouble trying to understand from the map exactly where the entrances and exits from the subdivision are located. He is particularly concerned with traffic on West North Street. He can’t tell whether there is an ingress/egress access on North Street and if so, he would like to have some details about that. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that looking at the map, the red area shows the existing townhouses. They are currently accessed from Wemyss Road; it comes in off of the POW-MIA Parkway. With the full build-out of the Residential District there are two other connections to the Parkway. One is Ridgely Boulevard. There are some houses that front on Ridgely Boulevard, but you can’t take Ridgely Boulevard to get to the Parkway at this point. The last kind of half block has not been constructed. There is also another entrance called Horsey Boulevard. If you ride the Parkway, you kind of see where part of that entrance would be. There is not a direct connection from the Residential District to North Street. If you take Wemyss Road, the traffic circle that is there connects into the Commercial District (which is not going to be shown on the map). It is about where the words Eden Hill are on the plan drawing. There is one building there now for multiple tenants. It then connects from that Commercial District over to Garrett House Circle that makes a connection to North Street. If you follow from the blue and purple area, there is a connection there which would be the connection to Banning Street. Banning Street continues north through the Professional Office District where you find the Center at Eden Hill and the Eden Hill Medical Center Buildings. Banning Street is the signalized intersection with North Street. There are multiple connections from the Residential District into the other areas of the overall TND and then also to the Parkway. Mr. Anderson stated that there is an entrance from North Street where the Nemours Building is. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, that is the traffic circle entrance and exit. Mr. Anderson stated that further down you have the entrance at Clarence Street where you have the traffic signal. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes. Mr. Anderson stated that his concern is because there are ways to get to the residential areas through the commercial areas. He is not sure whether it has been taken into consideration as to whether or not there is going to be any significant traffic impact. For 665 units, that particular intersection is already heavily inundated with traffic as it stands right now, and it has to increase because everyone is not going to go out to the POW-MIA Parkway. He just wants to make sure that this is something that is taken into consideration with the Planning Department especially since he has a project that he has been working on. The Eden Hill organization made an issue with that particular traffic signal because of the traffic that they would add to that intersection which caused them to relocate our entrance. If this subdivision is also going to add traffic into that same intersection or those two intersections, he thinks that is something that should be taken into consideration so that if it has to be upgraded or something has to be done that should also be noted. Ms. Christine D’Gangi – 514 Ann Moore Street Dover, DE 19901 Ms. D’Gangi stated that as it stands right now, when you are trying to exit out of the Eden Hill 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 residential area you cannot actually turn left onto the POW-MIA Parkway. The one exit that looks like it’s in Phase II that would allow people to actually turn left on the POW-MIA Parkway, is that going to get finished first with the possible expansion of everything or are these entrances/exits going to be left until the end? Responding to Ms. D’Gangi, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that the construction of connections to a public street are actually predicated on the number of units. Right now, there are eighty-three units. When they reach a threshold of either 125 or 150 units, there has to be two connections to a public street. So that means that connection at Ridgely Boulevard would have to be in place before they could issue Permits for construction beyond that or the connection to Banning Street would have to be in place before they could issue anymore Permits. That is a threshold that is set by the City’s Zoning Regulations and applies to large developments like this. It was made a requirement of our Code for emergency response situations to ensure that there are multiple ways to get into an area. The answer is yes. She would anticipate them focusing on a build-out in that Phase II area immediately south of the red. That last bit of the red line is Ridgely Boulevard so she would imagine that that’s going to be their prime focus of getting that entrance established and constructed. It is subject to DelDOT review in how they build it. She would imagine that this is one of the first things on their “to do” list moving forward with any new construction in the neighborhood. Ms. D’Gangi stated that before becoming a homeowner she actually rented an apartment. She lived in Woodmill Apartments for a good eight years before she became a homeowner and she had seen a lot of changes in just that area itself. Her concern is that with the apartment buildings that are proposed here, there obviously is a percentage that has to be set off to the side for low income housing. Is that correct? Responding to Ms. D’Gangi, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is not a City requirement that requires a set aside for an income-based scenario. Depending on how a project is financed, there are some that participate in a tax credit program that may have requirements such as that but there is nothing in the City’s Zoning Regulations that requires that set aside. The Building Code may require a certain number to be fully handicapped accessible but that is about the only requirement in the City regulations. Ms. D’Gangi questioned if they have an idea of if any of those things apply to the builder of these apartments at all? Responding to Ms. D’Gangi, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Planning Staff has not been advised that they are seeking to pursue anything in that fashion. It is their understanding that the apartments would be market rate but even with market rate apartments there are programs that provide assistance for paying that market rate rent. Mr. Jack Phillips – 934 Ruth Way Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Phillips stated that there are a lot of questions that he is hearing tonight that leave a lot to be desired in his mind. They say you will proceed with this plan and then they can ask for exceptions later. If I was a developer, I would want those answers now and he is not hearing that from this group. They are saying that we are going to have two Clubhouses. What is going there for the kids? There was a promise of a swimming pool. What is the relationship of this group of people that are now going to run this project to the group of people that all of them bought from? He is not hearing anything about those of us that live there. He thinks that the Commission needs to do some homework. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she didn’t know if the applicant had any information to share on the recreation aspects. The project overall for Eden Hill does have a variety of open space areas; some of them are just a walking area that has benches and others do have amenities. There is at least one area that does have playground equipment. She is not sure what the applicant is seeking to do with the Clubhouse areas, but the playground equipment will be located in an area that is shown just below the purple area on the map. Mr. Phillips asked if they can hear something from the developers that are here tonight instead of from Staff thinking on what they are going to do. Responding to Mr. Phillips, Ms. Enghofer stated that she would like to point out that they are actually changing precious little of the approved plan that theoretically could be built right now. They are not changing any of the streets or entrances. They are changing types of units, but they are not changing the overall count. The overall count is still the originally approved amount. As far as the proposed open space, they are adding more open space than what was there before. The reason that they are splitting to two Clubhouses is because that is what the owners and developers think the market wants. All of the new areas of open space do propose active recreation. In discussing things with their clients, they still have not definitively landed on exactly what that active recreation is. A swimming pool is one of the things being discussed especially considering the fact that it is one of the things that was originally supposed to be constructed. The concern that they have is that a lot of HOA’s end up selling subscriptions to swimming pools because of the cost of the upkeep. That is something that they are investigating, and they have not made a decision yet. When they do make a decision, it will be on the Plan. Mr. Phillips stated that speaking of the HOA, they have an HOA now and if we add all of this what does it mean? Do we all become members of another HOA, or do we keep our own? Responding to Mr. Phillips, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the current HOA would be expanded. The original HOA documents would have covered all of the units in the subdivision. You would have to go back to the documents that established that HOA. A lot of times an HOA has a management company so that as new units and new lots come on they are advised of the HOA procedures for the neighborhood whether that is how often you pay fees or what amenities there are and those types of things. Mr. Brian Bashista – 523 Ann Moore Street Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Bashista stated that the HOA did not cover anything to do with apartments; it was condos and he thinks that is the sore spot here tonight to be quite honest. Dr. Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman questioned if there were four or five apartment buildings? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are a total of five apartment buildings. The blue area should carry over to one more block to the east of what you are seeing on the map. The apartment buildings are Lots 6-10. Mr. Hartman stated that from what he read from the past meetings here before he was aware of this project, the Planning Commission actually requested a Pattern Book from the applicant didn’t they? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, in the past there was 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 a requirement for a Pattern Book with some of the other previous attempts at Revised Implementation Plans. There was in 2015 a Revised Implementation Plan that was approved that was approved by this Commission and did carry with it the requirement for a Revised Pattern Book meaning a Pattern Book that encompassed everything. With this application, Planning Staff is recommending that a Revised Final Version of the Pattern Book also be a requirement of this project. Mr. Hartman stated that if it was required before then he doesn’t understand why we don’t have it before us at this point. He would like to get back to the TND Zone. Mrs. Melson-Williams had mentioned before that there was leeway with the parking. In Article 28 Section 4.23, “the Planning Commission may act to approve the Implementation Plan once it is determined that the Implementation Plan meets the purpose and intent of this Ordinance as well as the objectives found in Article 10, Section 2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.” If you go to Section 2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance there is the parking requirement of 2.25 units. This is a quality of life issue for these people. There is nobody there now but there will be. Under the parking, there are thirty-six spaces allotted to each apartment building and thirty-eight spaces to Lot 10 and the rest of it is on the street. You are going to have mothers with their children dragging their groceries down the street to the apartment buildings. He just thinks that is a quality of life issue and the Commission has perfectly good reason to deny this application because it is against the Ordinance and it wasn’t even addressed as a waiver. Ms. Edwards questioned what the purpose was of changing from condos to apartments? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Enghofer stated that is what their client feels is needed by the market housing conditions. Ms. Edwards further questioned how they came to that conclusion? Is it through market research? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Ms. Enghofer stated that she cannot answer that. She was not part of the research coming to that decision. Mr. Hartman moved to disapprove application S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) based on the fact that it does not meet the Ordinance and based on the fact that they did not provide the Pattern Book as required. (There was no second; motion is lost.) Dr. Jones asked Mr. Hartman to hold off on his motion until they were sure there were no more questions or concerns from the Commissioners. Ms. Enghofer stated that she understands that Mr. Hartman has some great concerns about the Pattern Book, and she would like to point out that their client has already started reaching out and discussing with Mrs. Melson-Williams about creating this new complied Pattern Book. They have started talking with her trying to get a hold of some of these previous versions because they didn’t create them. They are trying to make sure that they have all of the correct information to assemble and create this new Pattern Book. It’s not we don’t have it now; it’s being worked on. Ms. Edwards questioned what options they have to at least address the parking? The parking does seem to be a little bit of an issue particularly with safety with the on-street parking. What 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 options do they have as a Commission to address that? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are a couple of options. One would be for them to build to the Pattern Book and Code requirements. That is something that could certainly be addressed by looking at the design of those apartment buildings and number of units. The Planning Commission could defer action on the entire request this evening. You could approve part of it and hold out the apartments seeking additional information about the parking specifically whether they would need to come back with a Pattern Book Amendment that deals with what the rate for parking would be for that area or Mr. Hartman’s potential motion was to deny the whole thing. You can certainly approve with conditions, defer action, or approve part of it. Mr. Hartman moved to defer action of application S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) until the Pattern Book and the questions about the parking can be resolved and parking should follow the Ordinance, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 5-2 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Tolbert voting no; this project has been before us for a considerably long period of time and Staff has been working cooperatively with the builders and developers. He thinks that Staff can continue to work with them to resolve every problem that has been stated because DelDOT is a whole other ball game. Mrs. Welsh voting no; she agrees with Mr. Tolbert’s statement and in the past with all of the issues that we have addressed with this project the applicants have worked with Staff. She believes that their intent is to make the project work so that it is a good neighborhood and facility for everyone involved. She believes that Staff will work with them. She thinks to jeopardize progress on it would be something that would detrimental to the community and what they are trying to do in that area. Ms. Maucher voting yes; she does share the concerns about continuing the delay of building out this project; however, it is better to get it done right rather than swiftly. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she does agree with Mrs. Welsh in that this project has been before the Commission a couple of times but the issue with the safety and the parking is of concern. Dr. Jones voting yes; some of the issues need to be resolved. She thinks that this application has been before the Commission many times even during her time and she thinks that we probably need to try and get it right. It doesn’t mean that you can’t come back; there are just some minor things that need to be dealt with. NEW BUSINESS 1) 2019 Comprehensive Plan - The City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan includes text and a Map series outlining information and policies regarding land use activities in the City of Dover. The FINAL DRAFT 2019 Comprehensive Plan (12.3.2019) document is on file at the Department of Planning and Inspections, City Hall, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover and at the Dover Public Library, 35 Loockerman Plaza, Dover. See Project website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan a) Project Scope and Process Mr. Hugg stated that this is an important step in a process that goes back to at least June 2018 or perhaps even further than that to review or refine and ultimately recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council a new Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dover. 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 You have probably heard him say many of these things before and he will try to be brief. Dover’s current Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 2008 and formally adopted in 2009 and it has served the City very well in the decade. Since then, it has had a few modifications but as he has said multiple times, it was a very good Plan to begin with and so the challenge for the Planning Staff was to take an already excellent Plan and make it better. To make it a contemporary Plan that reflects what has happened in Dover over the last decade and where we see the community going in the future. The requirements for preparation of a Plan are set by State Code and they require among other things that every ten years a municipal jurisdiction has to review and adopt a new Comprehensive Plan; hence, the fact that they are now doing it in 2019. There is an extensive list of items that must be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan: a series of policies and recommendations and implementation steps; ultimately a Land Development Plan showing how land will be used in the community and then an Annexation Plan showing how the community will grow in the future. Where they are in the process is that they are kind of at the next to the last step. They have spent a long time modifying and addressing and preparing this plan and getting public input. It has gone through a couple of reviews internally and externally and reviewed by the State; he will touch on those in a few minutes. It is their intention to have a fully certified and adopted Comprehensive Plan in affect by February 2020. Julian Swierczek stated that the project schedule for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan was broken down into five main phases. The first one and perhaps the most important one was the Information Gathering. They started, as Mr. Hugg said with the 2008 document, gathered various other plans and studies and most importantly they engaged with the public as much as possible before they could begin the plan and map development which was the second phase of the 2019 Plan update. From there, they moved to Consideration of the Plan Recommendations which is where they obviously reflected on what they did, and they reached out to confirm that they were sort of in the right direction with this new plan. Currently, they are now in part of the Formal Review and Adoption Process. Finally, they will be moving hopefully by February 2020 into the Plan Implementation Phase. Mr. Swierczek continued for the Information Gathering activities, they of course started with the website for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. This is where they made available to the public, all of the information that they were working on, contact information so that they could leave the door open to the public as much as possible to reach out to them in the process. In Summer 2018, they had done the evaluation of Goals and Recommendations of the 2008 Plan. It was a good plan and it was a good starting point for us. In 2018 and 2019, there was ongoing reporting and project updates to the Planning Commission and City Council; so, thank you again for your valuable input and participation in this project. They did project team meetings of Planning Staff as well as with City Departments and Divisions. They also met with other State Agencies and other groups like the State Planning Office and other relevant departments. In 2019, they were doing intergovernmental coordination meetings with neighboring municipalities and the County. For the engagement activities, they held a series of events because they wanted to reach out to relevant parties and the public as much as possible. June 13, 2018 was their first public event which was the “Dover Economic Development Forum.” June and July 2018 were a Survey Questionnaire. Many of the Commissioners remember Mr. Eddie Diaz, he was instrumental as all of us were in trying 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 to formulate what they needed to find out from the public and other relevant agencies trying to get the feedback to begin this process. On July 11, 2018 they attended the “Understanding the Housing Market Trends Forum Event” where they brought together different representatives from the housing sector. On August 23, 2018 was an Open House Event; the first of several. September 27, 2018 was their presentation to a Wesley College class where they got some really good feedback from young adults in the community. June 20, 2019 was the Historic District Workshop. Of course, we are all aware of our City’s beautiful historic character. On October 23, 2019 was another Open House Event and the following day, October 24, 2019 was a Visitation Event at City Hall. Throughout their time, they have been working on the process of updating the plan. They formulated several drafts. There was the Preliminary DRAFT of the Land Development Plan Map Series, the Preliminary DRAFT of the Annexation Plan Map Series, DRAFT #2A Goals and Recommendations, and the Preliminary DRAFT of Chapter 15 Implementation Plan. All of these were pulled out as key components of areas that they really needed to focus on to finalize the Plan. On August 24, 2019 they released the Staff Draft, and this was really with all of the other City Agencies that were so instrumental in working with us and coordinating our efforts to get this Plan written. They wanted to share with them and really get their okay that they were satisfied with any parts of the Plan relevant to their field of work. On October 1, 2019 they released a First DRAFT of the Documents and Maps. Then on December 2, 2019 they released the Final DRAFT of the Documents and Maps and that is what they have shared with the Commission for discussion this evening. b) Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Review by State agencies: Letter of November 8, 2019 Mr. Hugg stated that throughout this whole process the various drafts and various versions have been available on our website and available to the public. They have been made widely available to people to look at, comment on and have input. One of the key steps in the process of putting together a Plan is something called the Preliminary Land Use Services. It is a State process where the Office of State Planning Coordination and various State agencies are provided both an informal and a formal opportunity to comment on various drafts of the Planning document. Although it isn’t on the list, very early in the process they went to the State submitted the 2008-2009 Plan to them and essentially said tell us what you think of it so that we have a starting point for any issues that the State might have. Then they had multiple discussions with State Agencies throughout the entire plan development process. In order to meet our approval deadlines, they had an October 1, 2019 filing deadline. This essentially sent the Release Draft to the PLUS Process. They had a meeting with the State Agencies to discuss the document and give them an overview of sort of where we were. On November 8, 2019 they received a comment letter back, a formal response from the State, identifying both technical and grammatical issues as well as potential certification issues that might result in the Plan ultimately not being approved. One of the things that they provided to Planning Commission in their packets is a chart that says PLUS Comments. That is our official response back to the State and what that did was respond to every comment that every State Agency raised during the course of this process. Some are certification issues which mean that they have to be addressed before the State could consider certifying and approving the Plan. Some are comments like you should go back and create a couple of new 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 maps; or some of what you are trying to explain isn’t necessarily clear. They were a couple of cases where they pointed out topics that they could elaborate a little bit on and at least in one case a suggestion from DelDOT that they had used some data and text that even they weren’t so sure was appropriate; that it was more confusing than it was informative so we actually took some things out of the Plan as a result of the State review. As you look through that section you can see what the comment was, what we did and then importantly where in the document they responded and what our response was. The FINAL DRAFT Plan is again at the Office of State Planning with this Chart. They are hoping that the revisions that they made, the charting of the changes and the other materials that they supplied allow them to ultimately certify the Plan. He would like to have Mrs. Melson-Williams walk everyone through the key components of the Plan and at least give some background on where we are and then they will certainly address any questions or concerns that you might have. We do have six items/questions that have been brought forward by various property owners that the Commission will need to deal with tonight. c) Review of FINAL DRAFT 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with the review of the FINAL DRAFT of the Comprehensive Plan, this is what they would call the formal review and adoption process. That of course starts with the issuance of the FINAL DRAFT and that is the document dated December 3, 2019. It’s the text portion as well as the entire Map Series. From a review process standpoint, a public hearing and review must occur with the Planning Commission and then a review and public hearing has been scheduled with City Council for their January 13, 2020 meeting. Focusing on the introduction to the Plan itself and the key pieces, there is the Plan Document and a series of maps. There are Goals and Recommendations. The Land Development Plan Map focuses really on land use and has a text and map component, likewise with the Annexation Plan Maps and then ultimately the Implementation Plan. i) Plan and Map Series Format Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that starting with the Table of Contents, there are a total of fifteen chapters. The beginning is an introduction and then we move into some data rich chapters in Chapters 2 and 3 that talk about things like population and applications over the last few years. Chapter 4 is where we have to present information on how the citizens participated in the process. Chapters 5 through 11 are really the meat of the document focusing on very specific topic areas. Chapter 12 is the Land Development Plan. Growth and Annexation is Chapter 13. In Chapter 14, they have to report on intergovernmental coordination and that’s basically with our adjacent neighboring jurisdictions like the County and nearby municipalities as well as their interaction with State Agencies. Chapter 15 is ultimately the Implementation Plan, so moving forward what happens. That is the text side of things and the next side is the list of maps. There are a significant number of maps. Some chapters have multiple maps associated with them and the text references the maps. The beginning is with things like where is Dover with a location map. They move into information on existing land use, natural features and historic resources. Continuing onto the next list of maps, this is where there are a number of maps now included as part of the Transportation Chapter that focus on things like streets and their functional 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 classification as well as things like byways and then concerns where if improvements aren’t made, then there are low levels of service issues perhaps. There is also information about our Downtown Area and where in the City there are low- and moderate-income areas. Perhaps the most significant map series in the document is the Land Development Plan Map and then the Annexation Maps as well. For Chapters of 5-11, there were Planning Staff members assigned to each chapter and they kind of became the experts in the topic areas ranging from things like natural resources. The Historic Preservation Chapter actually had some grant assistance in writing that chapter dedicated to Staff time. Other chapters are titled Transportation, Economic Development, Community Services and Facilities which really focuses on other City Services that the City provides, where Utilities has its own chapter as Chapter 7 for Water, Sewer, Stormwater and Electric. ii) Goals and Recommendations Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that a number of the chapters have chapter goals so even up front in Chapter 1 as they wrap up the introduction to the Plan, they present the quick summary chart of the chapter goals. So, each chapter is identified and then has series of four or five goals for that specific topic area. For example, at the end of Chapter 5 there is a section that lists the goals. Each goal has a series of recommendations and then the bullet points are the action items to then strive to meet those recommendations and ultimately the goals. This is the format that was utilized for those topic chapters. iii) Land Development Plan Map Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this really has two components and they have to be utilized together. Chapter 12 is considered the Land Development Plan and the key element of the chapter goes through talking about each of the land use categories and then the Land Use Matrix that is at the end of Chapter 12. This takes each of the land use categories that are identified and then lists the corresponding zoning districts that are appropriate for those land use categories. This is key in that this chart is utilized for any future Rezonings and will actually be a key element in dealing with a Comprehensive Rezoning which is one of the Implementation Plan steps. With the Land Development Plan Map and there is also the Map Series, as presented on the screen is the overall city view, it is the really colorful map. Each Land Use Category is identified by color. The range of yellows for example are residential areas; green is open space areas. There are shadings of red that identify our commercial areas and that is actually one of the changes in this Comprehensive Plan. In our commercial areas, they’ve identified a Commercial - Low Intensity, a Commercial - High Intensity, and then a Commercial - Entertainment Land Use Category so that is something new for this 2019 Plan. We have areas that are Mixed Use that are a light purple color. Also, areas of Public Utilities have been separated out in a dark purple color from what are Institutional areas which are blue and then in Industrial areas which are gray. The royal blue color is the Dover Air Force Base. We have the overall City Map and then for better readability we developed what are really quadrant maps which takes this map, chops it up and focuses in on areas across the City so that it is quadrant based. There is one that focuses right in the Downtown because it ended up on the corners of four maps. One of the suggestions that the PLUS Process gave was to show them a map that just focuses on the Downtown area; so, they did that. 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 iv) Annexation Plan Maps Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is Chapter 13 which is the Growth and Annexation Chapter. The text has to describe what the City’s approach to Annexation is and for them, they have divided Annexation areas into three categories. Category 1 which is their High Priority Annexation Area is the darkest green. That is basically areas that are pretty much surrounded by the City otherwise known as “enclaves.” Category 2 areas are a Priority Annexation Area. These areas are perhaps on the outskirts of the City, but they make sense to round off boundaries and make boundaries a little easier to read and understand in the landscape. Category 3 is kind of the Long Term Annexation Areas. These areas may require ultimately more properties to come into the City before they can even be considered contiguous. They also are areas where it makes sense to create as a boundary for the City. For example, in the south, the Isaacs Branch is kind of a dividing line between us and the Town of Camden. There is a light green color that mean Areas of Concern. They are marked as Areas of Concern because they may be a concern of our jurisdiction as well as another jurisdiction. An example is some of the lands in the area of Wyoming Mill Road where there is concern with the Town of Wyoming and what their expansion may be versus what the City of Dover’s future expansion may be. There are also a number of areas to the east of State Route 1 where the City is not looking to expand but we have concerns about what happens on our borders. So, this is a way to make that known. The second map that is associated with Annexation is a Land Use Map. So using the same land use categories that we used for areas within the City, we have to identify for the Category 1 and Category 2 areas, what the potential land uses would be for those to help with future zoning selections should these areas become part of the City. It was done for Category 1 and Category 2 areas. Those are the areas that are most likely or most potentially available for annexation into the City. They did not identify land use for any locations that were identified as Category 3 or Areas of Concern. If annexation was anticipated or confirmed eligible for one of those areas, they would need to move through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to focus on what the appropriate land uses should be in those areas before they could be annexed. Those were envisioned as Long Term Annexation Areas and they did not necessarily want to predict what their future activity would be at this point. v) Implementation Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the last key piece of the Comprehensive Plan is Implementation Plan Chapter; this is Chapter 15. It does not have an accompanying map, so you have to read the text. It takes the Goals and Recommendations and the series of action items that are part of those Goals and divides them up into a work plan. This is a work plan that is not just for the Planning Office; it is for the City as a whole. That means other departments would likely be involved in some of these items. What it does is first identifies Immediate Actions. Immediate Actions would be adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and getting it certified and then they have to move into what would be a Comprehensive Rezoning Project. There are a number of things that they have identified as just Ongoing Activities that are not specifically tied down to one timeframe or another, but the City is probably working on a more constant basis. Then they have divided the other items into what are called Short Term, Intermediate Term, and Long Term 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Implementation. That focuses on the years up to 2025 and beyond. What it does in each of these areas is identifies things by project, studies, Code amendments, and other activities. It does focus in on chapter by chapter so you can easily go back and reference some more detailed information on those items. With the Plan as noted, has been out for public review since early October 2019. The differences between the October DRAFT and the FINAL DRAFT are really a lot of housekeeping type things, proofreading, data correction, name correction, and then focusing on the PLUS Review comments. Over the time period that they have been dealing with the Comprehensive Plan, there are a number of specific requests that have come in and Staff has tracked those. We have six of them and Mr. Hugg is actually going to take us through those. For the Planning Commissioners, we are going to do a combination of presenting each Request to you and then also conducting the public hearing on that individual Request. Once we have dispensed with those, they will come back to the overall Plan to address it. d) Review of Comprehensive Plan Requests: e) Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Requests: Mr. Hugg stated that obviously in an undertaking of this nature with as much detail and all that they have been through, there will be certain situations and certain Requests that come from property owners requesting a particular consideration of their property or a group of properties that will need to ultimately be determined as the Plan is finally adopted. We received six formal Requests that were not otherwise resolved and are before you tonight. As Mrs. Melson-Williams said, we are going to take them individually and conduct a public hearing and then at the end have the Commission make a recommendation regarding each one. We may not have representatives for a couple of them here, but they will at least introduce them. He will give the quick version of the application and then give Staff’s Recommendation and then we can open to a public hearing. i) Request #1: 5.0-acre parcel on north side of Route 8/Forrest Avenue Representatives: Mr. John Paradee, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Mr. Hugg stated that this Request is to change the land use classification from Residential Medium Density to either Mixed Use or Commercial Use for a 5.0-acre parcel on the north side of Route 8 on Forrest Avenue. This is a Request from Draper Farms, LLC via the attorney John Paradee. The Request dates back to August 20, 2018. In the letter, it asks about the particular piece of property which is on the north side of Route 8 west of Mifflin Road to be shown on the Land Development Plan as a Mixed Use or a potential Commercial use. The DRAFT Plan shows it as a Low Density Residential Use. From the letter written by Staff back to Mr. Paradee: “In your letter dated August 20, 2018 you had requested that land use classification category for the parcel (identified by number) be changed from Residential Medium Density to Commercial in the Land Development Plan Chapter 12 Map Series 12-1. The FINAL DRAFT will reflect the recommendations of Planning Staff regarding your request in reference to Map 12-1C.” 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 “Planning Staff is not recommending your Request finding that the character and the existing use of the immediate area of the subject parcel is residential and there is an extensive commercial corridor further east on Route 8 to the east of Mifflin Road. The section of Route 8 Corridor is a residential area and with nearby institutional uses (this area is across from the high school and immediately east of two church locations) are a transition from the rural areas west of Dover to the commercial areas and center core of Dover. The land use classification as Residential Medium Density allows for a series of residential zoning districts with a variety of housing types and it also allows consideration of the C-1 Neighborhood Zone where smaller scale commercial activity is permitted. The smaller scale commercial activity is likely a more compatible fit given the traffic concerns along the overall Corridor, the availability of bike and pedestrian facilities and the adjacent residential land uses.” Dr. Jones opened a public hearing. Mr. Paradee stated that he wants to commend the Staff for their excellent work on the Comprehensive Plan; it is a long and laborious process. He has been working with Staff on a number of different properties along the way for almost two years it seems. You are very fortunate to have an excellent Staff. He works in a lot of jurisdictions and the City of Dover is one of the best and one of his favorites to work in. He wants to talk a little bit about the points that were raised in his letter because what they are asking for here is not as dramatic as it might appear at first blush. He doesn’t believe that the difference between the Staff view of the matter and his client’s view of the matter is all that great. They would like to modify the request slightly. When they first sent it in back in August 2018, it was a request that the Comp Plan designation be changed from its current designation to either Commercial or Mixed Use. After conferring with his client and speaking with Staff, they believe that Commercial would be asking for too much. All they are really going to be asking for tonight and next month at City Council is for a designation of Mixed Use not Commercial. Having reviewed the DRAFT of the Comp Plan, he believes that Commercial is in fact too much to ask. As Mr. Hugg indicated, the property is located directly across from the new Dover High School and it is on a major arterial roadway which serves as the western gateway to this City. It is also not very far from a lot of existing commercial uses. It is about 1,700 feet from the intersection of Mifflin Road and Route 8. If you think about this particular area of the City of Dover, it is a lot like Route 10 on the south side of Dover where he happens to live. He lives in the Windswept Subdivision which was built in the early 1990’s. When that subdivision was built, there really wasn’t a lot on Route 10 other than residences. They ultimately ended up with a shopping center across the street. There are a couple fast-food restaurants as you get closer to the Air Base but there wasn’t anything on the north side of Route 10 until Wawa came along. He doesn’t know how many of the Commissioners remember that, but it was in the County and still is in the County. Every one of his neighbors opposed it; they thought it would ruin the neighborhood because as in this case, everything on that side of the street for as far as you could see was residential. His neighbors knew that he was a lawyer and they asked if he would get involved and try to help them fight it. Ultimately, the County approved it and now for every single one of his neighbors it’s the first place they stop on the way to work in the morning and it’s the last place they stop on their way home at night. The point simply is that it provides a very much needed convenience to a residential neighborhood. If you think about the modern concept in Planning as village development or neighborhood villages; that is what we are talking about here. You can’t simply 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 build a City that has all of the commercial and retail in one part and all of the residential on the outskirts. You need to have village or neighborhood areas where certain retail conveniences are provided. What that does is it helps reduce vehicle trips and traffic throughout the City because if you only have to travel a quarter of a mile to get milk, bread, gas or cigarettes then that is less traffic that is going all the way across town. The concept of village development is what we are suggesting here. You can look to your very own Comprehensive Plan to find the justification for it. The existing Comprehensive Plan says that among its goals are the creation of neighborhood centers and urban centers which the Plan recommends be established along major roadways and feature mixed use development. The Comprehensive Plan also acknowledges that Route 8 west of the railroad tracks has become a key commercial corridor for the City. That jobs and commerce in the retail, wholesale and service sectors are an important part of Dover’s vitality and that commercial centers and corridors contribute to the City’s overall image and positive feeling of its residents. Finally, in regard to the Route 8 Corridor in particular, the existing Comprehensive Plan recommends that “the area continue to develop as either commercial or professional offices.” You are also talking about long term, where is the City of Dover going to grow? There is not a lot of room to the east because that area is environmentally sensitive. There is not a lot of room to the south because you have Camden-Wyoming. There is not a whole lot of room to the north other than on the highway because eventually you run into Smyrna. There is a lot of room on the west and you think what is Dover going to look like 40, 50, 60 or 100 years from now? Chances are that growth is going to be on the west side of town and you already have a lot of residential development that has crept out that way over the years. He would respectfully submit to you that those residents are going to need services. They are going to need groceries, they are going to need gas, they are going to want some retail; the neighborhood conveniences that he was talking about earlier and the village concept. He thinks that it would be unrealistic to simply draw a line at Mifflin Road and say we are not going to allow anything other than residences west of Mifflin Road. It is not good planning and it doesn’t make sense in the long term. What they are asking that you consider in this particular instance, is a small 5-acre piece of ground directly across from the High School that would be proposed for a Mixed Use development, not commercial. That would allow a number of very limited commercial uses but only upon a Rezoning approval by City Council. This body would not be deciding tonight what is going to happen at that property in the future beyond a range of possibilities that the vision of the City can adjudge a later time when it’s appropriate. It is not this body’s job tonight to say what is going to happen specifically, what type of use specifically is going to happen at that property. You are looking at a broad range, a category. There are specific types of zoning uses that permitted within those categories. What he is respectfully submitting to you is that Mixed Use would be appropriate here. It would give you and City Council the flexibility in the future to say upon application we might consider Rezoning this to C-1, C-2 or C-2A and that is as high as you can go in Mixed Use. The more intensive commercial uses are not the type of neighborhood village uses that you would want to see in an area where there are a lot of residents; however, C- 1, C-2 or C-2A are. They have an honest, professional and respectful disagreement with the City about how far you can go here. He and Mr. Hugg have worked together for a long time and he respects his opinion and he hopes that Mr. Hugg respects his. They just think that Mixed Use here is appropriate given what your Comprehensive Plan has said. If the City is desirous of growing west in the future, even if it is 30, 40 or 60 years from now as part of that natural growth and expansion of the City’s western boundaries, that continuing growth and development on Route 8 at the western gateway is contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. They simply think 20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 that it would be a responsible thing to allow a neighborhood center under Mixed Use to occur at this property. Dr. Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman questioned that if what Mr. Paradee is proposing is different from what is in Mr. Hugg’s letter because what that proposes does not include the C-2 or C-2A zones? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated that was correct. What they are showing on the Comprehensive Plan at this moment, that land use designation includes C-1 but not C-2 or C-2A. As Mr. Paradee indicated, it’s kind of a matter of scale or intensity that the Planning Staff feels that Mifflin Road is appropriate point for those higher intensity commercial uses to be east of Mifflin Road and if this area were to accommodate commercial development that it be at the lowest intensity. This is one of those challenges in land use where the distinctions between particular uses can get very fine at times. Staff believes that with the neighborhood that is around it and the school across the street, they would prefer that it remain at a lower intensity commercial. Ms. Edwards questioned what types of commercial entities can be placed in a Mixed Use? What is the worst-case scenario? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is looking at the Matrix on Page 12-27 which is the Land Use Matrix. It gives the category for Mixed Use and then the second column lists the potential zoning classifications that a property could upon application, which is not what is happening here, seek to go to. It lists C-2 but this project wouldn’t be eligible for that given its location. It also lists C-2A, C-1, C-1A and a number of residential zones from R-8 through RG-4. It does allow for the consideration of a C-3 which is a Service Commercial zone and then CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) and then IO (Institutional and Office Zone). Most of these commercial zones are going to allow for the mix of typical commercial uses whether that is a restaurant, personal service establishment, other service establishments, or the office use. Depending on the commercial zone that you seek, there are in some cases prohibitions. Some of the commercial zones prohibit things like gas pumps. For example, in the C-1 there is a size limitation on the establishment. While the Mixed Use category allows for a variety of zoning districts ranging from commercial to more office oriented to residential, the specific zone is where the details of any particular use would be evaluated. That’s where a Rezoning application would really delve into. Action tonight would not lock them into any particular zoning classification; it gives a list of opportunity and even with that, they can’t lock them into one use or another. Mr. Paradee’s request to go to a Mixed Use category does allow for a mix of zoning districts. What the Comprehensive Plan FINAL DRAFT is showing is this property as Residential Medium Density which has much more of a residential focus and does allow for C-1 as the only commercial option. Ms. Edwards moved to recommend approval to City Council for Request #1 Draper Farms, LLC property as submitted as Mixed Use, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 5-2 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she agrees with Mr. Paradee’s reasoning in that with the limited amount of commercial businesses that can be placed there it would be a good transition at the gateway of the City. Mr. Hartman voting no; with his limited experience he has to go with the recommendation of the Planning Office to have this remain as Residential Medium Density. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; since the proposal was changed to just Mixed Use and not Commercial. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. 21

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Ms. Maucher voting no; based on Staff recommendations as well as the location of the property right across from the High School and the large number of students and residential areas around that area. Dr. Jones voting yes; she buys into the concept of the village development. ii) Request #2: 1436 New Burton Road Representative: None Mr. Hugg stated that this is a Request from Mr. G. Michael Glick on behalf of Lighthouse Construction. It relates to the parcel of land at the southern end of the POW-MIA Parkway adjacent to the railroad. The proposed Land Development Plan identifies this piece of property for Industrial Uses. Mr. Glick has requested that the designation be changed to Commercial to provide for development of this tract of land fitting the present future land uses by the government sector, business and professional sector and medical sector and to classify it to Commercial. Staff has reviewed the Request and the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Planning Staff is not recommending your Request finding that the location of the subject parcel between the POW-MIA Parkway and the railroad corridor has transportation advantages for its development. The location is isolated from residential development limiting its potential for targeted retail or service commercial activities. This location is more appropriate for uses that can take advantage of the proximity to major road and/or rail frontage and access. In its current zoning classification of IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone), the opportunity exists for industrial type activities like manufacturing as well as for office park or other employment center type development needing road and/or rail access to meet the economic development goals of the plan.” Dr. Jones opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for Request #2 1436 New Burton Road as recommended by Staff to have the property retain the land use category of Industrial, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Hartman voting yes; in order to try to meet the economic development goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. iii) Request #3: 1.81-acre parcel on north side of White Oak Road Representative: Mr. John Paradee, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt; Mr. Bill Harmon, Jr Mr. Hugg stated that this is a Request to change from the designation on the Land Development Plan of Agricultural to Commercial for a 1.81-acre parcel on the north side of White Oak Road adjacent to State Route 1. The Land Development Plan shows the land use category as Open Space Conservation and Recreation. The Request is from Mr. William Harmon with Harmon Brothers, LLC by a letter dated September 22, 2018. The Request is to change the designation to Commercial. The applicant owns adjacent parcels whose current zoning is C-2A and they wish 22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 to have all of their parcels in the same category. The Planning Staff is not recommending that Request finding that the location and environmental and natural features of the subject parcel limit development. Direct access to the parcel is limited by land elevation and the type of the adjacent roadway elevation difference of White Oak Road and State Route 1 as a limited access highway. Environmental sensitivity concerns include existing woodland areas, impacts of a Special Flood Hazard Zone (100-year Flood Plain), and potential for wetlands. The Land Use category classification of Open Space, Conservation and Recreation, they believe is more appropriate to preserve the natural environment that is found here. Dr. Jones opened a public hearing. Mr. Paradee stated that he is speaking on behalf of Harmon Brothers, LLC and Mr. Harmon, Jr. is passing out a handout that they would like to share with the Commission. This is more of a housekeeping application because at the time that they submitted this Request last September there was a possibility that they may be able to use some of this acreage as part of a development of the balance of the property. They have since found out that that is not likely or possible at all. This property has been approved for a Site Plan which is the second page in the packet that you have. They have preliminary approval for apartment units on the western side of the property immediately adjacent to White Oak Road. The parcel that is in question tonight has been the subject of a Flood Plain Map Amendment and prior to that amendment there was a lot more of the frontage of this parcel that was potentially usable. They have since found out that the Map Amendment makes this property almost entirely in the Flood Plain and there are wetlands on it of course. As a practical matter, they are never going to be able to do anything with this property no matter how you zone it but as a housekeeping matter, they think it makes sense to have all four of these properties zoned the same because it at least eliminates the disagreement or the risk that someone could say you can’t have an open space or recreational use on an agricultural piece that serves a Site Plan Development on a commercial piece. There is an inherent conflict in that. Frankly, it probably doesn’t matter much but they would just like to have all four pieces zoned the same because it is all part of one Site Plan application. Notwithstanding the fact that they won’t be able to do anything with this piece because it is in the Flood Plain. He is going to ask Mr. Harmon to give a little bit more information. Mr. Harmon stated that he works for Harmon Brothers, LLC. His family has owned this property since 1990 and you notice the three adjacent parcels are zoned C-2A. They have worked with the Planning Commission and City Council to reach an approved Preliminary Site Plan for residential on those areas. One of the things that they are looking to have is flexibility in terms of open space use and juggling parking. One of the things that they haven’t decided yet is what type or form the open space or recreational would take. There is a need in the City for over-55 housing but there is also the need for families to have housing as well. If we have an over-55 development, certainly the type of recreational or open space amenities that they would have would be very different. It would probably be an enclosed building rather than an outdoor playground based on the tenants. They are asking for this to be uniform and they think that there might be some added benefits of being flexible where they can maybe move some parking to different places. The entirety of this parcel is not fully covered by either wetlands or Flood Plain. The wetlands are a little more to the northwest and that is only a small portion. It is more of a Flood Plain issue. They would appreciate any sort of consideration that the Commission can take 23

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 in regards to keeping these parcels uniform and allowing them some flexibility in the future. Again, they really can’t do much in terms of putting a ton of impervious surfaces on the property and they would pledge to use this land responsibly. Dr. Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert moved to defer a motion on Request #3: 1.81-acre parcel on north side of White Oak Road due to the unsureness of the applicant and he would suggest that they work further with Staff to come up with a more conclusive agreement about what should be done with the property that is being discussed. The motion was not seconded so motion failed. Ms. Maucher moved to recommend approval to City Council for Request #3: 1.81-acre parcel on north side of White Oak Road to change the zoning from Agricultural to Commercial, seconded by Mrs. Welsh. Staff asked what level of Commercial Land Use Classification that the motion maker is seeking, reminding that the Commercial Land Use Categories include: Commercial - Low Intensity, Commercial - High Intensity and Commercial - Entertainment. Ms. Maucher stated that she would clarify that it would be consistent with the adjacent properties so that would be C-2A. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the land use category for the adjacent properties is the Commercial - Low Intensity. The motion was carried 6-1 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Ms. Maucher voting yes; she had some concerns the initial application for the other properties and she thinks that this will allow them to make some benefits and they fully recognize the limitations on the property. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the fact that the property is primarily in the Flood Plain and there are some wetlands on the property and there is limited use of the property. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting no; consistent with his thoughts. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; based on the fact that the applicant has clarified their intentions and their understanding of the limitations of the property and she can see why it would be beneficial to have everything categorized in the same classification. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. iv) Request #4: Various properties owned by Mt. Zion AME Church in Downtown Dover Representatives: Mr. John Paradee, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt; Reverend Dr. Erica Crawford, Mt. Zion AME Church Dr. Jones recused herself from this application because she is a member of the church. Mr. Tolbert recused himself from this application because he is a member of the church. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Vice-Chair Ms. Maucher would need to be the Acting Chairperson. 24

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Mr. Hugg stated this Request comes to us on behalf of Mt. Zion AME Church in Downtown Dover. It involves thirteen parcels, eleven of which are currently designated and zoned for Residential Medium Density Use and two of which are currently Mixed Use. The Church recognizes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to revitalize Downtown Dover. The Church has indicated that their long term vision for future use and development of their properties is to extend the vision of Mr. Richard Allen to develop their properties for Institutional Uses such as worship space, classroom facilities, parsonage or other uses which basically benefit the neighborhood. This is a somewhat complicated request in part because the Church’s properties are not necessarily all in one block there. They are scattered across a couple of individual blocks and as a matter of normal practice, they try to avoid creating situations where non-contiguous or scattered properties are independently zoned different from their neighbor or what looks like kind of a hodgepodge of uses. Staff’s recommendation states: “The Request would be for land use classification of the properties to be changed to Institutional in the Land Development Plan. This would be for all thirteen properties so eleven of them would go from Residential and a current Mixed Use classification. Planning Staff is not recommending approval of your Request but instead has made an alternative recommendation; please see Map 12-1F Land Development Plan. While we are sympathetic to the desires that the Church as set forth in your letter, the Planning Staff does not support making changes to scattered parcels within this larger neighborhood. The Land Development Plan reflects the designation of three blocks including these parcels and properties owned by others as Mixed Use. This land use classification allows for institutional and office uses as desired by Mt. Zion AME Church as well as a variety of residential and commercial activities better meeting the opportunities for revitalization, renewal and redevelopment of this portion of the City.” He would add that the blocks immediately south of these areas are in fact designated for mixed use and he thinks that Staff’s position is that by putting a Mixed Use designation on the area they create many more opportunities for both AME Church and other property owners to request uses of properties in some cases that might not necessarily otherwise meet minimum requirements for a particular zoning classification and then would also allow for some consolidations of properties for a variety of uses. Ms. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. Paradee stated that he commends Mr. Hugg for recognizing what the Church is asking for because it is actually what Mr. Hugg has recommended. He has an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Hugg and he did not realize it at the time of the request that everything that the Church wants to do can be done in Mixed Use as opposed to Institutional/Office which would potentially have some other bad things. As his letter indicates, this is part of the Downtown Dover Target Area. It is in the same neighborhood as Wesley College and some other institutions of learning and worship. What the Church would like to do is ultimately develop a campus for a sort of comprehensive unified approach to worship which might include additional congregational space, perhaps reception areas, maybe a parsonage or some other residential uses. Mr. Hugg is very wise; he recognized that Mixed Use would do very nicely. They agree 100% with the Staff recommendation and ask that you give it favorable consideration. Reverend Dr. Erica Crawford – Mt. Zion AME Church Dover, DE 19901 Reverend Crawford stated that Mt. Zion AME Church has been a staple in the Dover community for 146 years in the Downtown Dover area. They have been asked by the City repeatedly to do 25

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 something with our parcels of land to develop it but based on the fact that is has all been residential, it has not been developable for the Church. So, they are seeking your favor that as they try to meet the request of the City to do something other than cut the grass that you will grant our Request. Mr. David Anderson – 217 Cecil Street Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Anderson stated that he has no comments on the issue because it is not his place to make any comments because he has that opportunity at another time. Will the Mixed Use be just for these properties or does that affect other properties in the area? Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg stated that the designation is basically three full blocks. It is the AME Church properties as well as all of the others that fall in that extended area; so, it is a broader designation. Ms. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend to City Council approval of Request #4: Various properties owned by Mt. Zion AME Church in Downtown Dover following Staff recommendations of Items 4A through 4K to change the category to Mixed Use and to retain the current Mixed Use designation for 4L and 4M, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 5-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent and Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert recused. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons annotated in the Request. Ms. Edwards voting yes; the applicant and the City are in agreement. Mr. Hartman voting yes; because the City and the applicant are in agreement. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff’s recommendations. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons previously mentioned. Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert returned to the meeting. And Dr. Jones resumed the activities as Chair. v) Request #5: Lands of Dover Motorsports, Inc./Dover International Speedway Representatives: None Mr. Hugg stated that this Request involves a number of parcels. The Request was submitted by Dover Motorsports, Inc under a letter from October 5, 2018 as a request to preserve the Commercial designation of Dover International Speedway property or properties. The letter is from Mr. Dennis McGlynn, President and CEO of Dover Motorsports, Inc. They feel that it is very important to preserve the Commercial designation of Dover International Speedway’s property. Firefly Music Festival and NASCAR provides significant economic impact to the region and they do so by making significant investments in the events themselves and on the property through construction activities. Without the assurance and confidence that Commercial designations will remain intact, it will be difficult for Dover International Speedway and Firefly to make future investments in Firefly like events and activities. For the record, Staff worked closely with Dover Motorsports and Dover International Speedway to create a new zoning (land use) classification which appears on the Land Development Map as a dark red and it’s called Commercial - Entertainment. The idea was to more formally recognize the fact that those properties are not just your standard commercial properties that would otherwise be designated in a commercial zoning district. Staff’s recommendation states: “Planning Staff has worked diligently to craft a land use classification of Commercial - Entertainment that recognizes the unique nature of the Dover 26

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 International Speedway properties. This designation focuses on entertainment, indoor and outdoor recreations, supports gaming and similar uses where retail activities are secondary to the primary purpose.” They supplied that language to them and Mr. McGlynn’s letter goes on to say that “Staff had requested that they (the speedway) provide language that could be added into the 2019 Comprehensive Plan that would identify their unique use. The references that you provided from the current Comprehensive Plan seemed more than adequate and is difficult to imagine any enhancements. Dr. Jones opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Maucher questioned just to verify that Dover Downs is agreeable to the Staff recommendation. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated yes, Dover Downs is agreeable to Staff’s alternative recommendation which was to create the Commercial - Entertainment category with its specific focus on those kinds of activities. Ms. Maucher moved to recommend approval to City Council for Request #5: Lands of Dover Motorsports, Inc./Dover International Speedway for the alternative recommendation made by Staff to create a Commercial - Entertainment category, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations and the agreement from Dover Downs. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on comments previously made. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on Staff recommendations and their hard work with the Speedway. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; due to the fact that the City Planners and the applicant both concur with this new classification. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. vi) Request #6: Designation of Employment Center in vicinity of Kent County AeroPark Representatives: None Mr. Hugg stated that this is a Request relating to the Annexation Plan. It was a Request submitted by Kent County Levy Court. It is a Request to include lands north and west of the Kent County AeroPark for potential annexation. These lands are identified for a potential employment center development in the 2018 Kent County Comprehensive Plan. The letter was sent on behalf of Levy Court by Michael Petit de Mange, the County Administrator on January 25, 2019. Staff agrees and recommends the approval of this request. The recently adopted and certified the 2018 Kent County Comprehensive Plan identifies the land area north and west of the AeroPark for potential employment center development. The County Plan recommends that Master Plans be developed for such employment center in advance of any land use changes. Staff’s response to the applicant states: “They are writing to request that the City consider an amendment to the current Annexation Areas Map. A component of the Comprehensive Plan is to identify lands north and west of the AeroPark for potential annexation to accommodate business park expansion.” The letter indicates that Planning Staff concurs with their request. 27

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 The reason that this is an issue is that this is outside of the normal or expected growth zone on the east side of Route 13 and Route 1. It involves changes to both the County Plan which they made and changes to our initial philosophy. It’s probably one of the two or three major changes in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan versus 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Jones opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Edwards moved to recommend approval to City Council for Request #6: Designation of Employment Center in vicinity of Kent County AeroPark as submitted, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the fact that Staff concurs with the Request. Mr. Hartman voting yes; to support the County and the creation of an employment center. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff’s recommendation. Mr. Tolbert voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; in concurrence with Staff’s recommendations. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Dr. Jones voting yes; based on Staff’s recommendation. f) Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan g) Discussion h) Action by Planning Commission Mr. Hugg stated that it is his privilege to ask the Commission to take action recommending to the City Council the 2019 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dover with this amendments and corrections as presented. Dr. Jones opened the public hearing. Ms. Kathleen Doyle – 500 North State Street Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Doyle stated that she hasn’t looked at the FINAL DRAFT. The last time that she read the Plan was in October but her two main areas of interest these days are the components that deal with watershed quality as well as improving air quality. She feels like she had to really do a scavenger hunt to try to find the specifics that are in the Plan for both of those items. For example, for air quality, there is no mention of trees anywhere. Towards the end of the document there is something about ongoing activities. The more trees, the better the air quality. The City has recently taken down forty trees in town and she is not sure what the plan is to replace those trees. She knows that it does say somewhere that there will be ongoing efforts with updating the Tree Planting and Preservation Ordinance. For watersheds, there has been a lot of great things done along the St. Jones River, Silver Lake and Mirror Lake over the last ten or fifteen years with planting a lot of great trees and native plants but then the City allowed those items to not be managed well. About six months ago or less, they just sprayed everything and now everything is kind of dead along the North State Street Bridge, along parts of Silver Lake, and parts of Mirror Lake. The accomplishments that are listed in Comprehensive Plan say that we have updated the Tree Planting and Preservation Ordinance and developed a buffer along St. Jones, Silver Lake and completed remediation activities at Mirror Lake. Those are accomplishments and then they are not mentioned again for the next ten years and yet trees have been taken down and vegetation has been destroyed. She is concerned about those things. She is hoping that there are some 28

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 specific actionable items that are going to happen and that it’s not just saying that we have added to these Ordinances. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Chapter 5 is the chapter of the Plan that deals with Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. There are goals there. An overarching goal of protecting the natural environment and there is also an overarching goal of improving air quality. For the Planning Commissioners, she is reading from Pages 5-15 and 5-16. There are a number of Recommendations that focus efforts in those areas. The Comprehensive Plan does list some action items, but it may not be as detail specific as what Ms. Doyle is looking for. Yes, in the past there have been amendments to our Tree Planting regulations. They clarified some of the how you calculate it but as you all know ordinance writing is always ongoing and their Tree Planting and Landscape elements of the Zoning Ordinance are probably likely items that we would focus on in the future. If you look at some of the Implementation items, they are to continue to identify and help protect those environmentally sensitive areas. One of the things that they do want to focus on is looking at the City’s Recommended Tree List. There are certainly efforts in recent years to focus on more native plantings and updating their tree list is certainly one of those tasks. Air quality is a little more elusive on the local level. A lot of the regulations are at the State or Federal level so their partners with DNREC and others have enforcement mechanisms in that realm. Certainly, the City is a caretaker of our park areas such as Silver Lake Park. There have been some changes in the Department of Parks and Rec and with what Public Works also manages. She thinks that there is at least some recognition of those caretaker activities that there needs to be a better focus on those areas perhaps and that long-term management planning has been recognized in those areas as well as other areas of City infrastructure Citywide. She thinks that there are certainly efforts in this Plan to recognize that the caretaker responsibility in addition to the regulatory side of the City as well. Dr. Jones closed the public hearing seeing no one else wishing to speak. Mr. Hartman stated that he has a quick list of housekeeping items that he saw. Pages 2-5 and 2-6: TND, PND, SCHO are just listed and not spelled out and he had to look them up. Page 2-10 and 2-11: there are two tables labeled Table 10. On Page 3-7 with all of this data that is coming from different organizations, Censuses and labor departments but on Table 3-5, you have Management listed for 2014 as 220 and for 2024 as 150 and on another table, Management is listed with a much higher numbers. What is the discrepancy there? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated that these tables show Employment by Occupation and Employment Projections. You would think that both coming from the Department of Labor that they would be consistent definitions but unfortunately, they are not. They wrestled with rather or not they even wanted to include them or not because in some cases he couldn’t necessarily reconcile them, but they are the best information that’s available. Mr. Hartman stated that on Page 12-1 it references the Comprehensive Zoning Map Amendment Process and it references Article 10, Section 5.3 and it should be Article 10, Section 5.4. In Table 12-1 (they have looked at that table several times tonight), the table identifies the TND but not a PND. Why is that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that TND is actually a zoning district. PND while it sounds like it’s a zoning district it is not; it is more an application process. That is why you do not find it listed in the Land Use Category Matrix. 29

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Mr. Hartman stated that the over-pumping in the Columbian Aquaphor was something that he noticed in the Report right away and when he reviewed the PLUS comments he sees that it was the PLUS Process that actually prompted you to put that in the Comprehensive Plan. That is at the Long Point Road well. He is not sure where that is because he couldn’t find it on the map. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it is not a specific well that is labeled on the map. The well locations are identified in a general sense, but it does not identify which aquifer the specific one pumps from. There are a collection of wells that are in the vicinity of Long Point Road. Mr. Hartman stated that the Comprehensive Plan mentions a Report by the Delaware Geological Survey and in that Survey, it talks about over-pumping of the Columbia through irrigation sources and an electric generating station. In the Comprehensive Plan, you don’t mention the electric generation station. What generation station are they talking about in the Survey that they are concerned about with over-pumping of the Columbia? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lyon stated that the electrical generation station is Calpine which is located at the Garrison Oak Technical Park. Their concern is that they believe that the proximity of that power plant and the proximity of the wells which are on the east side of town directly feed from those wells to the generation plant but is not accurate. It is fed off of the Distribution System which gets its water from various locations and it is all interconnected. We only have one pressure system. Mr. Hartman stated that he recalls when that plant was first considered by the City, there was a question about over-pumping of the Columbia Aquifer with saltwater intrusion into the aquifer and partial destruction as the over pumping brings down the level of it and it can’t really be brought back. As a Planning Commission, shouldn’t that be an action item for us to look at when something comes into that location where the electric generation station is? Shouldn’t the City look at their water usage and at least the plan for it in some way? It appears to him that it should be an action item in the Comprehensive Plan. This Plan is great; he has never looked at it from the point of view as a Planning Commissioner and it’s an excellent road map. But he would like you to address the Columbia Aquifer and the industry out there. He knows that this is a sensitive point with the City because it is one of your economic development areas, but if you could address how they are supposed to approve Site Plans and development in that area with this specter of pumping dry the Columbia Aquifer. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the comments about the over-pumping are in the Comprehensive Plan in the text on Page 7-9 that talks about a general discussion about planning for utilities. While it is not a specific item in the Goals and Recommendations, there are goals that are specifically targeted. For example, Goal #1 is to proactively maintain existing infrastructure and expand infrastructure when beneficial. So, one of those is relating to Utility plans. As Mr. Lyon indicated, any one entity doesn’t exactly get water from just one well because of how our system works. So, she thinks that it is part of the overall charge of really the Department of Public Works in addressing how we have an adequate water system. We are regulated related to our draw of water and from where. Some of it is beyond the expertise of what the Planning Commission is charged with; it’s more on the side of how the Utility provider provides the water source under all of the regulations that we are required to meet as a City. Mr. Hartman stated that it is certainly something that the City should look at. Responding to Mr. 30

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 Hartman, Mr. Lyon stated that they do. There was a 1.5-million-gallon tank built for that specific energy center as well as the interconnection at three different points to our distribution system. They did water modeling and they modeled it as best as they could based on the information given to us from that developer. Just to reiterate, we have requirements from DNREC at each one of our well locations. We do not go beyond our Allocation Permits. The DGS Report says that there is going to be over pumping but that is not just the City of Dover; that is all of the other people on that side of Route 9. Mr. Hartman questioned who in the City looks at the water allocation? Is it 60 million gallons a year or something like that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lyon stated that Public Works looks at the allocation and they have 11.59 million gallons per day divided by three different aquifers: Columbia, Cheswold and Piney Point. They keep an eye on that and they have reports daily, monthly and yearly that they have to give to DNREC. Mr. Hartman questioned what the process is within the City if someone comes into that industrial park and wants to use a lot of water? Will you just go to your water allocation of 600 million gallons a year or will you look at other things like the Report from the Geological Survey about over-pumping the aquifer? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lyon stated that they look at the demand that the client will be providing and then will calculate based on their water model. The water doesn’t come directly from each aquifer; it is kind of a melting pot from each one. They run the model and if it works without diminishing our reserves and our fire protection then they approve it. That is done through the DAC process. When the project comes through that is when they review it before the Commission sees it and that’s what they write in the Reports that go to the Commission. Mr. Hartman stated that in the Delaware Geological Survey Report it says the potential for over- pumping will become more significant when an electric generating station served by the Long Point Road well is expected to increase capacity and requires more water. Is that accurate? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lyon stated that he has not read that Report in a long time, but the original intent of that energy station was to have two phases. The first phase was 2.3 million gallons a day peak demand and the second phase was twice that. Throughout the amount of time that it has been open, it has gone through various cycles of high demand and they haven’t come close to that number. His guess is that DGS is looking at the worst-case scenario based on those projections and running it through their modeling software and assuming that all of water is coming from Columbia which is not accurate. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan FINAL DRAFT dated December 3, 2019: Planning for a Bigger Better Dover as presented in the document and map series dated December 3, 2019 along with recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan Requests #1-6, seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mr. Adams and Mr. Roach absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; she thinks that it is a wonderful work product and she appreciates all of the hard work that went into it by Planning Staff. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she does want to commend the Staff as she knows there was a tremendous amount of time and energy invested in the Comprehensive Plan, so thank you. Mr. Hartman voting yes; it is impressive work. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it’s a job well done. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; the job was well done in a most professional manner. Dr. Jones voting 31

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2019 yes; for the reasons previously stated. Note: A Public Hearing before the City of Dover City Council on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan has been scheduled for January 13, 2020 at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. (Ordinance #2019-21) Meeting adjourned at 9:23 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 32

Continuation of Development Application Review: S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) – Continuation of the Review of Revised Implementation Plan for the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Revised Plan for the Residential District proposes to revise Phase 2 areas; to extinguish lots 339-346 to create a new clubhouse and active recreation space; to create two (2) clubhouses within the Active Open Space; to build five (5) apartment buildings to contain 180 dwelling units on lots 6-10, while using lot 11 as Open Space; and to change the unit types of lots along Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street, Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way) to achieve 665 total lots. The Residential District consists multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street and Wemyss Road and east of the POW-MIA Parkway. The owner of record for the area of revision is Eden Hill Residential, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. The Implementation Plan was previously reviewed as SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Implementation Plan consisting of 665 dwelling units with the Planning Commission conditional approval granted June 19, 2006 and other subsequent approvals related to lot layout and Pattern Book revisions. Related Applications: SB-07-01, MI-08-03, MI-08-20, MI-09-03, MI-09-13, MI-10-04, MI- 10-14, MI-10-20, and S-15-07. • The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and began Review of this Application S-19-25 at their Meeting of December 16, 2019. Action was deferred seeking submission of clarifying information. • Copies of the following items are provided: o Copy of the original DAC Report & Comments (dated 12/4/2019) o Copy of the original Revised Implementation Plan submission (3 sheets) o Copy of Handout from Planning Commission 12/16/2019 Meeting – Color Exhibit of Areas of Existing Construction & Proposed Changes • Notice of Planning Commission Action Letter of January 3, 2020 • The following items have been received for review: o Letter of Clarifying Information/Responses to Application S-19-25 with Exhibits A-D (Letter dated 1/9/2020)

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR Revised IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF December 4, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 16, 2019 Project: Eden Hill Farm – Traditional Neighborhood Design: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types), S-19-25 Associated Plans: Eden Hill Farm TND, Z-05-03 Residential District Implementation Plan, SB-06-03 Residential District Administrative Subdivision Plan: Record Plan and Construction Plans, SB-07-01 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Lot Revisions to Townhouses, MI-08-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Lot 1 Revision (Condominium Lot to Duplex Lots), MI-08-20 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Duplex Lot setbacks, MI-09-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Lots 4 and 5 Revisions (Condominium Lots to Townhouse Lots), MI-09-13 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Revisions to Lots 2F, 2G, and 2H (Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan), MI-10-04 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Townhouse Styles for Phase 2 and Pattern Book Revisions for Duplex Lots, MI-10-14 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Phase 2 Lot Revisions, MI-10-20 Eden Hill Farm –TND: Residential District - Revised Implementation Plan, S-15-07 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Active Recreation Plan S-15-10 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Architecture Concept, MI-18-10 (Consultation Discussion only) Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Pattern Book: Senior Living Residential & Townhouse Options, MI-19-10 (Not Approved) Plan Type: Traditional Neighborhood Design Implementation Plan Location: South of West North Street and Wemyss Road and east POW-MIA Parkway (southeast of the intersection of West North Street and Saulsbury Road) Tax Parcel: Multiple Parcels on Map ED-05-076.04 Area of TND: 272.04 acres +/- Area of Residential District: 109.2049 acres +/ Zoning: TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone) P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of CITY OF DOVER Dover Planning DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Office APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C MEETING DATE: December 4, 2019 APPLICATION: Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design: Residential District - Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) FILE#: S-19-25 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn E. Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE#: 736-7010 PLAN REVIEW This submission is for Review a Revised Implementation Plan for the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Revised Plan for the Residential District proposes to revise Phase 2 areas; to extinguish lots 339- 346 to create a new clubhouse and active recreation space; to create two (2) clubhouses within the Active Open Space; to build five (5) apartment buildings to contain 180 dwelling units on lots 6-10, while using lot 11 as Open Space; and to change the unit types of lots along Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street, Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way) to achieve 665 total lots. The Residential District consists multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street and Wemyss Road and east of the POW-MIA Parkway. The owner of record for the area of revision is Eden Hill Residential, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. Previous Applications The Implementation Plan was previously reviewed as SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Implementation Plan consisting of 665 dwelling units with the Planning Commission conditional approval granted June 19, 2006 and other subsequent approvals related to lot layout and Pattern Book revisions from 2008-2012. There are a number of Related Applications for the Residential District of the Eden Hill Farm TND; see listings included in this Report. In 2015, a REVISED Implementation Plan for the Residential District of the Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design (S-15-07) proposed of a total of 742 dwelling units (single family detached units, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family units), the redesign of open space areas, and the street layout. While receiving Planning Commission conditional approval the Plan was not finalized. Most recently, the Planning Commission reviewed Application MI-19-01, a series of Amendments to Revise the Pattern Book (Comprehensive Design Standards Manual) pertaining to the Eden Hill Farm TND Residential District. The proposed Pattern Book Amendments were to establish standards for a Senior Living Residential Village of one-story single-family detached

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 3 of 16 units and revisions for the Townhouse Options relating to architectural styles and lot format. However, this application was not successful. The following report provides background on the Traditional Neighborhood Design process to date for the Eden Hill Farm TND and as specifically related to the Residential District. The Report then focuses on a review of the Revised Implementation Plan submission of November 2019 for the Residential District. (*Plan Review of Revised Plan dated 10/28/2019). Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone Process The Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 28 outlines the requirements for the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone (TND) including the development criteria and procedure. The first step of the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone is an application for rezoning to TND which includes review of a Master Plan. The subject property Eden Hill Farm has achieved the zoning classification of TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) and approval of the General Overall Master Plan. Next reviews of the Implementation Plans for each District of the TND for compliance with the approved General Overall Master Plan occur. Then is review of Administrative Site Plans for individual building development or Subdivision Plans for recordation of lots. For the Residential District, there is an Implementation Plan in plan, and it has been previously amended. TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone) The types of permitted uses with the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone are outlined in Article 3 §28.5. Listed below are the uses which are allowed in the Residential District: Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 28.51 Uses allowed in all areas of the TND: 28.511 All residential uses, accessory uses, and conditional uses currently permitted in the residential zones of the City identified in Article 3, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Proposed conditional uses shall be identified in the application to the Planning Commission. 28.512 Accessory dwelling units in conjunction with detached single-family houses. A maximum of one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted in conjunction with a detached single-family house. 28.513 Open space. 28.514 Civic uses including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Government buildings; b) Education buildings; c) Libraries; d) Meeting halls; e) Museums; f) Recreational facilities; g) Places of Worship; h) Other cultural, civic or social use as designated on the approved Implementation Plan. The types of residential uses allowed include single (one) family detached dwellings, duplexes, multiplex buildings, townhouses, multiple dwellings, and apartments (garden, mid-rise, and high-rise apartments). The Zoning Ordinance defines each of these terms.

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 4 of 16 Eden Hill Farm TND: Previous Application Reviews and Plan Approvals The following provides a summary of the project review process to date for the Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District. Date Application Plan Type Action Description Number June 20, 2005 Z-05-03 Rezoning Application Planning Rezoning to TND including Commission acceptance of the General Overall recommendation Master Plan and the Master of approval for Comprehensive Development rezoning to TND Standards Manual (Pattern Book) with its Addendum of 6/9/05 for the project in accordance with the conditions of approval outlined in the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) comments July 22, 2005 Z-05-03 Rezoning Application City Council Property rezoned to TND with approval of General Overall Master Plan and rezoning to TND Pattern Book June 19, 2006 SB-06-03 Implementation Plan DAC May-June Implementation Plan and Pattern – Residential District 2006; Planning Book Amendments Commission approval 2007 SB-07-01 Administrative Staff & Agency Residential District – Record Plan Subdivision Plan Review and Construction Plan Set September SB-07-01 Record Plan – Staff approval Record Plan: Sheets 1-6 with parcels 10, 2007 Residential District 9/6/07; Record and street layout Plan recorded December 10, SB-07-01 Final Construction Staff & Agency Final Construction Plan set and Final 2007 Plans Approval Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Pattern Book) July 29, 2008 MI-08-03 Record Plan Planning Established a series of lot widths for Revisions in Phase 1; Commission townhouse units (20 ft, 22 ft, 24 ft, Construction Plan approval and 25 ft) (Addendum III) revisions; Pattern 4/21/2008 and Included review of architecture for Book Addendum on 5/19/2008 the initial townhouse units Townhouse Lots Revisions to lots in Phase 1 - Record Plan recorded; Revised Final Construction Plan sheets February 5, MI-08-20 Record Plan – Staff approval and Record Plan: Sheet 1 and 2009 Revisions to Lot 1: Record Plan Administrative Site Plan Condo into Duplex recorded Lots March 16, MI-09-03 Pattern Book Planning Reduced Duplex Building Restriction 2009 Revisions on Duplex Commission Line (setback) to 15 feet Lots approval Pattern Book sheet (page 40) to be 3/16/2009 revised (Addendum IV) October 26, MI-09-13 Record Plan Staff and Agency Record Plan recorded; Revised Final 2009 Revisions to Lots 4 Review and Construction Plan sheets and 5: Condo into approval; Record Townhouse Lots, Plan recorded Construction Plan revisions

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 5 of 16 Date Application Plan Type Action Description Number March 3, MI-10-04 Record Plan Staff Review and Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan 2010 Revisions to Lots 2F, Approval affecting three lots; Record Plan 2G, and 2H recorded November 15, MI-10-14 Pattern Book Planning Request to continue use of Phase 1 2010 Implementation for Commission Townhouse Architecture Styles into Townhouses and approval with Phase 2; Series of Pattern Book Revisions for Duplex conditions on Revisions for Duplex Lots Lots 11/15/2010 (Addendum V) December 10, MI-10-20 Phase 2 Lot Staff and Agency Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan to 2010 Revisions Review of Record reconfigure single units to duplex Plan and units and revise townhouse lots from associated Site 25 ft. width to 20 ft. width. Also Plan revisions; revisions to Site Plan for Comments issued infrastructure construction. February 22, MI-10-20 Phase 2 – Townhouse Planning Action to establish required side yard 2011 Interpretation Setbacks Commission setbacks for townhouses in Phase 2 consideration of area when more than two groupings Pattern Book of building occur. Requirement to Guidelines; PC complete a final version of the action 2/22/2011 Pattern Book. Record Plan of Record Plan of Phase 2 recorded and Phase 2 area updates to Construction Plans of recorded 3/1/2012 Landscape Plans and Utilities Plans. May 18, 2015 S-15-07 Implementation Plan DAC April-May Revised Implementation Plan – Sheet – Residential District 2015; Planning Submission of Concept Plan: Commission Increase in dwelling unit count; approval with Change in mix of unit types; Revised conditions open space design; and Revisions to 5/18/2015 street layout Check Print Review in 2017 No Final Plan August 2015 S-15-10 Revised Active Planning Revised Active Recreation Area and Recreation Area Plan Commission Open Space Plan to create large area – Residential District approval with with clubhouse building and conditions amenities 8/17/2015 Associated with S-15-07 Check Print Review in 2017 No Final Plan June 2018 MI-18-10 Consideration of Planning Request to consider an Architecture July 2018 Architecture Concept Commission Concepts for townhouse units and for November for Residential consideration on single family dwellings as 55+; 2018 District 6/18/2019, discussion of concept and PC 7/16/2018, notation of required application and 11/19/2018 submission processes January 2019 MI-19-01 Revisions to Pattern Planning Revision of Pattern Book to establish Book Commission did Senior Living Residential Village not approve (55+ as SFD units) and revisions to Townhouse Options: architectural style and lot format.

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 6 of 16 Current S-19-25 Implementation Plan DAC Nov-Dec Revised Implementation Plan – Submission – Residential District 2019; Planning Sheet Submission of Concept Plan: 2019 Commission Revise Phase 2 areas; extinguish review pending lots to create new clubhouse area; create 2 Clubhouses in Active Open Space; build 5 Apartment Buildings of 180 units; change of unit types in select area RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SUMMARY The Implementation Plan reviewed as SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Implementation Plan consisted of 665 dwelling units. The Plan Set for the Residential District depicted the development and the associated elements such as the subdivision entrance access, public street and alley network and street section design, pedestrian network, building sites, parking areas, stormwater management, Active Recreation Area (parks and Community Center building), open space and landscaping. As approved the development offered several housing types including single family detached units in three styles: courtyard lots, carriage house lots, and cottage lots; duplex units; townhouse units in four lot widths; and condominium units in two types: 12-unit buildings and 24-unit buildings. The lot sizes were developed on a module system which would allow for the mixing of unit types within a given street block. This Implementation Plan for the Residential District received Planning Commission was approval on June 19, 2006 and Final Plan approvals on September 10, 2007 (Record Plan) and December 10, 2007 (Construction Plan). During 2008-2012, several revisions to the Residential District were made affecting the Record Plan relating to lot revisions in the Phase 1 area including approvals for the subdivision of five condominium lots into duplex and townhouse lots. The Record Plan (as revised and recorded in 2012) shows the Residential District consisting of a total of 651 residential units. (See Attachment Record Plan sheet exhibit.) A Residential District REVISED Implementation Plan S-15-07 which focused on revisions to create areas of multi-family (apartment) unit development was granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2015 for a Revised Plan consisting of 742 residential units (single family detached units, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family units), the redesign open space areas, a community center, and revised street layout. This Revised Implementation Plan and its Revised Active Recreation Area Plan was not finalized. Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Pattern Book) As part of the Traditional Neighborhood Design process, the Implementation Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Pattern Book) consists of a written and graphic description of the owner/developer’s proposed approach to each of the items listed in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.84. The purpose of the Pattern Book is to set the standards and guidelines for the design, construction, and maintenance of the land and buildings in the Residential District. Any development within the Residential District must comply with the Pattern Book. The Pattern Book sets the guidelines for development within the Traditional Neighborhood Design project acting as a portion of the code requirements for development. The Pattern Book is intended to present the ‘general character’ of the project with the images in the Pattern Book giving examples of the precedents to aspire to and concepts and guidelines of the new buildings

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 7 of 16 to be constructed. The Pattern Book describes the architectural precedents for each housing type in Section A: Introduction. Then the Pattern Book in Section C: Community Patterns: Residential describes the concepts for each housing type. These pages establish the standards for the building restriction lines and porch restriction lines thus creating the buildable area on each lot; garage placement options of detached and attached garages with alley access, etc. (Note: The original Master Plan Pattern Book includes pages describing neighborhood areas; the areas have since been revised due to changes in the Residential District layout and street network layout completed at the time of the Implementation Plan. The full text of the Pattern Book describing these areas was not updated during the plan review process.) The Pattern Book in Section D: Architectural Patterns (pages 63-71) describes the various design elements for the Residential District, specifically elements including Windows & Doors, Dormers & Bay Windows, Porches, Materials, and Accessory Structures. For each specific element, the Required, Encouraged, and Prohibited elements are given. The Pattern Book describes the concepts for each residential unit type. These pages establish the standards for the building restriction lines, and porch restriction lines thus creating the buildable area on each lot; garage placement options of detached and attached garages with alley access, etc. The approved Final Pattern Book for the Eden Hill Farm Residential District consists of the Eden Hill Farm Pattern Book 1st Edition 5/6/2005 with Addendum I of 6/9/2005 and Addendum II of 5/5/2006; and by reference the Townhouse Lot Revisions of March 7, 2008 (Addendum III: townhouse unit lot widths), Revised page 40 (Addendum IV: Duplex Building Restriction Line revisions) of May 21, 2009, the Duplex Lot Revisions as approved by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2010 (Addendum V), and Interpretation of Setbacks for Townhouse units by Planning Commission on February 22, 2011. After consideration of multiple revisions to the Pattern Book, the Planning Commission prescribed the requirement that a version of the Final Pattern Book for the Residential District be prepared (this has not been completed to date). The REVISED Implementation Plan S-15-07/S-15-10 Applicant was working to complete and fully update a Final Version of the Pattern Book for the Residential District as part of its Check Print Review process; however, it was never finalized. The complete Eden Hill Farm: Pattern Book and Addendums submitted to date are on file at the Department of Planning and Inspections. Construction Activity in Residential District In Phase 1 of the Residential District, a total of 83 Building Permits have been issued and dwellings completed. The predominate house type constructed has been townhouse units on 20 foot wide lots. The townhouse units currently built are a three story unit with attached (included) garage and a two story unit with a detached garage. In Phase 1, the townhouse units have been constructed in groups: one set of three units, 10 sets of six units, and 2 sets of seven units. Three sets of duplex units have been constructed. A portion of the street network has been completed and dedicated to the City of Dover. These streets include Lloyd Street, Wemyss Road, and portions of South Greenberry Lane, Ruth Way, Ann Moore Street, and Ridgely Boulevard.

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 8 of 16 REVISED Implementation Plan 2019 for Residential District, S-19-25 (Revision – Concept Plan dated 10/28/2019): This application is for the Review of a Revised Implementation Plan of the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm. This proposed plan is presented in three plan sheets of the Residential District (Plan Review of Revised Plan dated October 28, 2019). The overall plan for the Revised Residential District depicts the development areas for specific types of residential units and the associated elements such as the street network, on-street parking areas, stormwater management (pond locations), Clubhouse locations, open space areas, and a series of smaller park areas. The Residential District area continues to be proposed to be connected to the existing nearby road network as previously identified with the key entry points from Wemyss Road and Banning Street and connections to the POW-MIA Parkway. The following are revisions to the Plan layout with the Residential District proposed by this 2019 Revised Implementation Plan. • Revise Phase 2 Area: A change in the land area proposed for Phase 2 revises it to consist of the land area (lots) previously indicated as Phase 2 and Phase 3 in addition to sixteen (16) adjacent lots to the east. It includes a Clubhouse area. It will consist of approximately 38 acres; however, construction activity will be limited to a disturbance area of 20 acres related to sequencing of the Sediment & Stormwater Management Plan. • Consolidation of Lots for South Clubhouse: The Revised Plan proposes to extinguish a series of single-family detached house lots (Lots 339-346) and consolidate the lots for a new Clubhouse location. This is located at the intersection of Nickerjack Way, Skipton Boulevard, and Ruth Way. It is adjacent to a planned open space area named Elberta Park and across Ruth Way from a stormwater management pond. The Clubhouse has a parking lot area and space for active recreation. • Create Two Clubhouses: In the existing Active Open Space area between Ann Moore Street and Ridgely Boulevard, two Clubhouses are proposed instead of one Community Center Building in the northern portion of the community. This lot of over 10,000 SF is planned to contain two clubhouses in a mirrored layout each with a parking lot and a shared outdoor seating and active recreation. • Revise Dwelling Unit Count: An overall dwelling unit count was established at 665 units for the Residential District of the Eden Hill Farm TND in 2005-2006. However, with previous revisions to the plan the current number of units (as planned/platted) is 651 units. There was a previous Revised Implementation Plan that was approved to increase the unit to 742 units; however, it was not finalized. This 2019 Revised Implementation Plan returns the plan to a total of 665 units through the revisions to unit types and lot reconfigurations. • Change in Mix of Unit Types (Number and Location): The Residential District offers a variety of unit types: single family detached units, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 9 of 16 family units (labeled as condominiums in original plan). This Revised Plan proposes changes to the number and location of the various residential unit types. The proposed plan reduces the number of single-family detached dwellings and townhouses while increasing the number of duplexes and multi-family units. See the chart below for the tallies of the various unit types. The chart summarizes the mix of unit types for the Residential District as approved and as currently proposed in the submitted Concept for the Revised Implementation Plan (of 10/28/2019). Unit Type Approved 2007 Revised Record 2019 Concept for Revised Record Plan Plans (thru 2012) Implementation Plan (10/28/2019): Built and Proposed Single Family 105 15.8% 101 15.5% 0 97 14.5% Detached Built Proposed (Courtyard, Cottage, and Carriage house Lots) Duplex 184 27.7% 198 30.4% 6 230 35.4% Townhouse 160 24% 220 33.8% 77 75 22.8% Condominium 216 32.5% 132 20.3% --- --- --- Multi-Family --- --- --- --- 0 180 27% Units TOTAL 665 651 83 582 Total of Built Proposed 665 While the street and alley network remains the same, the subdivision of the blocks into lots for different types of units has been proposed. The location changes from the 2019 Revised Plan (10/28/2019) for the types of units are listed below: o Locations of Condominium units in northeastern area of the site are proposed to be Multi-family units (Apartments) on Lots 6-10. The previous 132 units to become 180 units in total. Each building has ground level parking with 36 units above. (Note: Previous Lot 11 becomes open space.) o Changes to the unit types of lots along Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street, Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way). ▪ 18 Townhouse units on north side of Ridgely Boulevard are proposed to be 12 Duplexes ▪ 8 Townhouse units on the west side of Banning Street between Ann Moore Street and Ridgely Boulevard are proposed to be 6 Duplexes ▪ 36 Townhouse units in the blocks bounded by Ridgely Boulevard, Wynkoop Way, Little Eden Way and Alley L are proposed to be 24 Duplexes

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 10 of 16 Revised Implementation Comprehensive Development Standards Manual With this submission, a Revised Implementation Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Pattern Book) was not resubmitted. The Implementation Comprehensive Development Standards Manual consists of a written and graphic description of the owner/developer’s proposed approach to each of the items listed in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.84. The purpose of the Pattern Book is to set the standards and guidelines for the design, construction, and maintenance of the land and buildings specifically in the Residential District. Any development within the Residential District must comply with the Pattern Book. LANDSCAPE PLAN The Revised Implementation Plan is required to meet the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for Landscape Guidelines and Tree Planting and Preservation (Article 5 §11 and 15) at a minimum. The Residential District area does not include existing woodland areas. The area subject to the Tree Density requirements equals 109.2049 acres. Therefore, the project will require a minimum of 1,585 trees to meet the Tree Density requirements. The current Construction Plan (SB-07-01) shows new tree plantings as a mix of deciduous, evergreen, and ornamental trees. The trees are proposed as street trees, within park and open spaces area, and as part of individual residential lots. A Revised Landscape Plan was not submitted. The Landscape Plan will need to be updated related to the revised lot layouts, Clubhouses, and open space area designs. The Pattern Book also describes planting requirements for certain lot types. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREAS The overall Eden Hill Farm TND exceeds the minimum of 25% open space by creating a community walking trail area, parks, and greens throughout the site and large open space/potential park area in the southwest portion of the site (west side of the POW-MIA Parkway). The existing historic house of Eden Hill Farm and its tree allees (entrance drives) are preserved within a large public open space area. Focusing on the Residential District area, based on the currently approved number of residential dwelling units at 665 units, this subdivision was to provide 4.1 acres +/- (182,875 S.F.) of open space designed to function as active recreation space. The key components of this active recreation area were originally approved as a Community Center building with pool, the larger park area known as Signers Park, a walking trail system, and over 2.2 acres of land in a series of ‘pocket parks’ throughout the community. This 2019 Revised Plan appears to retain the key elements of the Open Space/Recreation Plan and also increases the amount of land reserved as open space. The most significant changes are that the Community Center site is to become two Clubhouse Buildings and an additional Clubhouse building is to be added in the southern portion of the site. The Zoning Ordinance requires an Open Space and Active Recreation Plan for all residential developments, projects and plans that come before the Planning Commission (Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, Article 5 §10). As changes are proposed to the Open Space and Active Recreation, a Revised Plan detailing the layout, design, and amenities of the Open Space areas must be submitted for review.

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 11 of 16 Traditional Neighborhood Design: Next Steps Following Planning Commission review of the Revised Implementation Plan for the Residential District the next step is finalization of the Construction Plans for Implementation and a revised Final Plat Subdivision Plans for area which received Implementation Plan approval. The detailed plans for the Clubhouse buildings/areas can be submitted through the Administrative Site Plan review process. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1) The Revised Implementation Plan (Construction Plan Set and Record Plat) and Comprehensive Design Standards Manual (Pattern Book) will need to be amended to reflect any changes recommended or approvals by the Planning Commission. 2) The Comprehensive Design Standards Manual (Pattern Book) is recommended to be updated to reflect the various approvals by the Planning Commission including the previously approved revisions. a) The approved amendments from 2005-2012 are listed below: i) Addendums I and II consist of text revisions throughout the Pattern Book. ii) The document “Townhouse Lot Revisions” included the various lot widths approved for the townhouse units (Addendum III). iii) A revised page 40 presents the duplex setback options for the lot and setback (building and porch) dimensions (Addendum IV). iv) Duplex Lot Revisions and Interpretation of Townhouse Setbacks (Addendum V) b) The Pattern Book pages related to Condominium units must be revised and updated to discuss the requirements and design concepts for Multi-family units. c) The Comprehensive Design Standards Manual (Pattern Book) is required to be amended to reflect any changes recommended and approvals by the Planning Commission for this current 2019 submission. 3) The Landscape Plan will need to be updated related to the revised lot layouts and open space area designs. 4) A Revised Open Space and Active Recreation Plan detailing the layout, design, and amenities of the Open Space areas focusing on the Clubhouse areas must be submitted for review. This can be achieved through the Administrative Site Plan review process. 5) A Record Plat for the Revised Lot and Street layout must be reviewed to include property boundary information, any proposed lot changes, data column, certifications, notes, cross access easements, easements for infrastructure or utilities, etc. This set of Sheets 1-3 is a good start on the Record Plat. 6) The site and building design of the Multi-family Units (Apartment Buildings) may require a more detailed review in order to confirm compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 12 of 16 Building Code and Fire Code provisions. This can be achieved through the Administrative Site Plan review process focusing on that specific area of development. 7) Other the proposed connections to the nearby public street system must be constructed in a timely manner i.e. Ridgely Boulevard to the POW-MIA Parkway and the continuation of Banning Street. Currently, the Residential District has 83 units complete. The Land Subdivision Regulations require two connections to public streets for subdivisions of 150 units. 8) The developer must coordinate with DelDOT regarding the design of the intersections of Ridgely Boulevard and Horsey Boulevard with the POW-MIA Parkway. Entrance Plan approval are required. 9) Provide information on any agreements established regarding responsibilities for construction, dedication, maintenance, etc. for areas with the TND project such as streets, circulation aisles, walking paths, open spaces, landscaping, stormwater management, etc. 10) The Recreational component of the Revised Implementation Plan is required to be reviewed. If the revisions are deemed to be significant then review by the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee and by the Planning Commission may be required. a) Submission of more detailed information for the layout and design of amenities in the Clubhouse areas is required for review through at least the Administrative Site Plan Review Process. b) The applicant should be aware of the requirements for construction phasing of the recreation area as associated with the development of the residential units. Article 5 §10.6 Construction Phasing. The recreation and open space areas shall be completed in a proportion equal to or greater than the proportion of residential dwelling units completed, except that one hundred (100) percent of the recreation and open space areas shall be completed prior to issuing building permits for the final twenty (20) percent of the dwelling units proposed. Building permits shall not be issued for dwelling units unless the requirements of this section are met. c) There shall be provisions which ensure that the common open space land including the active recreation areas shall continue as such and be properly managed and maintained. These provisions shall be in a form acceptable to the City of Dover. The developer shall either retain ownership and responsibility for maintenance of such open land; or provide for and establish one (1) or more organizations for the ownership and maintenance of all common open space i.e. a Homeowners Association. The organization shall be responsible for maintenance, insurance and taxes on common open space and recreation facilities. 11) Sheet 1: a) Relabel the West Dover Connector as the POW-MIA Parkway. West Dover Connector can be noted as a former reference name for clarity. b) It is noted that Townhouse Lots 91-95 currently have Building Permits filed for review for construction. c) Identify the extent of the existing street rights-of-way that have been accepted for dedication by the City of Dover (in Phase 1 area).

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 13 of 16 d) Clarify street labeling that says “City Maintained” as these are proposed to be City maintained once constructed and accepted for dedication. e) Add missing Alley labels and names in Alley Street Names table for Alley W, X, and AA. f) Revise Lot #s: Please keep the lot #s in a block as previously labeled for individual lots and just eliminate unused Lot #s if the number of lots in a row is reduced. g) General Notes #2: Clarify that the existing built lots in Phase 1 area are note proposed for revision. h) General Notes #27: Repeats Notes #26, please delete #27 or update with the action taken on this specific Revised Plan. i) In the Tax Parcel Impacted list identify “Action”: new use (Apartment, Open Space), change in lot type, lot elimination, or lot consolidation. j) Add data column with legal data required of plats: owner, zoning, size, etc. k) Notes should reference the Comprehensive Design Standards Manual (Pattern Book). 12) Sheet 2 and Sheet 3: a) Update similar items as identified for correction on Sheet 1. b) Clarify the following about the Apartment Buildings: number of stories/height including ground level parking, building access, separation distance between building and parking, parking areas associated with Fire Department Connection locations, Dumpsters for Building Lot 10. c) A number of handicapped accessible ramps are missing at terminations of sidewalks at streets/alley and a front of Clubhouse buildings. d) Note that building units displayed on the lots are examples only as other building and garage formats may comply with the setbacks of each lot based on its housing type. Compliance will be reviewed at time of Building Permit application. e) This plan provides some of the required parking spaces for the apartment units as on- street parking. The rate of 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit of the Code is not achieved by off-street parking for the apartments. The off-street parking rate should be a design standard identified in the Pattern Book. f) Locations of bicycle parking must be identified for the Clubhouses and Apartment Buildings. g) Identified the location of the overall walking trail system for the Residential District with the buffer area adjacent to the railroad and along the POW-MIA Parkway. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: 1) Several proposed revisions shown in the 2019 Revised Implementation Plan (Plan of 10/28/19) for the Residential District are to be evaluated for compliance with the intent of the Eden Hill Master Plan. The Staff recommendation on each is listed below: a) Revise Phase 2 Area: Staff recognizes the expanded land area proposed for Phase 2 as it consists of the previous Phase 2, Phase 3, sixteen (16) adjacent lots, and a new Clubhouse area. The developer is reminded that construction activity will be limited to a disturbance area of 20 acres as related to sequencing of the Sediment &

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 14 of 16 Stormwater Management Plan. b) Consolidation of Lots for South Clubhouse: Staff recommends approval of the consolidate of single-family lots for a new Clubhouse location to serve the southern portion of the community. The Clubhouse has a parking lot area and space for active recreation; however, a more detailed plan of the building/site amenities will be required. c) Create Two Clubhouses: Staff recommends approval of the concept to create two Clubhouses buildings at the site of the previous Community Center Building location in the northern portion of the community. The developer is encouraged to elevate the opportunities for shared space and amenities at the location. The site has identified parking and active recreations areas; however, a more detailed plan on the buildings/site amenities will be required. d) Revise Dwelling Unit Count: Staff is supportive of returning to the overall dwelling unit count of 665 units as originally established for the Residential District of the Eden Hill Farm TND. Eden Hill Farm TND is an area of infill development near the central core of the City’s urbanized area with access to utility and multi-modal transportation infrastructure. e) Change in Mix of Unit Types (Number and Location): Staff recognizes the change in the mix of unit types that is proposed. The specific unit type changes proposed in this 2019 Revised Plan to continue the previously established balance and percentage of unit types in the Residential District. Even with the increase in the number of duplexes and multi-family (apartment) units the overall development contains a variety of housing types and lot sizes. 2) The following are a series of key concepts emphasized for the development of Residential Units. Most of these concepts are further detailed in the Pattern Book (and approved addendums). Planning Staff offers these as reminder of the general character and intent of the Traditional Neighborhood Design. a. Staff recommends that all lots with access to an alley be required to take vehicular access only from the alley no matter the unit type. This access pattern was clearly established in the intent of the Traditional Neighborhood Design concept and the Residential District Implementation Plan. b. Staff recommends utilizing variation in the number of units grouped together within a street block such as groupings of two, three, or four units or up to a maximum of six units for townhouse groupings. c. Corner lots are considered to have two street front facades and are important visual elements. The building design should take advantage of the corner opportunity for design elements (architecture, detailing, and materials) to highlight the corner or end of building. d. Staff recommends the increased use of porches or enhanced covered entries for main entrances on the front elevations and/or side elevations of the residential units. All lots have a designated porch restriction line that allows this element to

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 15 of 16 be closer to the street than the other portions of the building. Porches are key elements of the precedents for the District and encourage interaction. e. Staff encourages variation in the house architectural style and design, color, materials, and detailing to detail to create the variations seem in the traditional residential areas of the City and to avoid uniformity of design. f. The multiple unit buildings and multi-family buildings should read as “one grand house.” The selection of elevations, exterior finishes, door placement of front and side entries, etc. play a role in how a combination of units is viewed. g. Staff supports the methods for garage placement on properties which places the garage in a secondary position where front access to the lot is required by the lot and street layout. 3) A Final Version of the Pattern Book does not exist for the Residential District. Staff is recommending the requirement of the development of a final edition of the Pattern Book for the Residential District as approved and amended to date. Currently, Staff must complete compliance review by accessing multiple documents each with its own amendments. It is very complex and will become even more so as the development progresses, involves other builders, etc. Staff can make recommendations on the contents of a final edition document (i.e. specific pages from the Master Plan Pattern Book and the associated addendums) for the Residential District. a. As a Revised Comprehensive Standards Manual (Pattern Book) for the Residential District was not received with this submission, Planning Staff reserves the right for future review, comment and assessment of the necessary review process for such document. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 2) If Planning Commission approval is granted to the proposed Revised Implementation Plan concept, the Implementation Plan (Construction Set), Record Plan, and Pattern Book must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. These documents must be submitted for review by applicable Departments and agencies as part of the Administrative Review/Check Print Review process. 3) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Revised Implementation Plan occur in the finalization of the plan or associated Pattern Book contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. 4) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities or

S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District Revised Implementation Plan: Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, & Unit Types DAC Report of December 6, 2019 Page 16 of 16 start of construction activities on the site the appropriate plan approvals, site inspections, Pre-Construction meetings, and permits are required. 5) Additional coordination as related to construction activities will be necessary to minimize the effect on the adjacent property owners and the existing roadways. During construction of streets, the developer shall coordinate the required street light placement and electric utility routing and equipment with the City of Dover Electric Department and in accordance with the Pattern Book. 6) Staff notes that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed in other districts to address topics such as responsibilities for construction, dedication, and maintenance of specific components of the Eden Hill Farm TND. A similar Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be developed for this District as well if necessary. 7) The applicant shall be aware that Revised Implementation Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit, Sign Permits and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. 8) The construction of each dwelling unit/building will be reviewed by Staff for compliance with the approved Pattern Book (Final Version) through the Building Permit process. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Office as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY DECEMBER 2, 2019 APPLICATION: Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District- Revised Implementation Plan FILE #: S-19-25 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 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 ELECTRIC 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department. WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS

Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District- Revised Implementation Plan File #: S-19-25 December 2, 2019 Page 2 of 4 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed revisions to the implementation plan. 2. The proposed subdivision plan for this Residential District will need to be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/. WATER 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 subdivision 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 Public Works specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Works Construction Manager at (302) 736-7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Public Works 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. 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 building. These projections must be submitted prior to approval so the meter size can be placed on the final subdivision plan. The proposed water meter 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. The Department of Public Works 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.

Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District- Revised Implementation Plan File #: S-19-25 December 2, 2019 Page 3 of 4 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 subdivision 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 Public Works 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, including cleanouts. 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 laterals (other than for single-family dwellings) 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. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be connected directly to the main, not manholes, unless impracticable, as determined by the Department of Public Works. 9. Per the Water / Wastewater Handbook, only one service connection shall be made to each building. If impracticable, a waiver request may be submitted for review. STORMWATER 1. Final subdivision 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 subdivision plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None 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. Trees shall be installed at least ten feet (10’) away from all underground infrastructure. 3. The final subdivision plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2004 (.dwg format).

Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District- Revised Implementation Plan File #: S-19-25 December 2, 2019 Page 4 of 4 b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this subdivision. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the subdivision. 4. Water impact fees may be required for this proposed subdivision plan. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this subdivision. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the sanitary sewer system plans must be submitted to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. 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 may be required for this proposed subdivision plan. STORMWATER / GROUNDS / STREETS 1. None. SANITATION 1. Every person occupying a residence or duplex and every owner of an apartment 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. 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. 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 .

C F S-19-25 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: 11/27/19 D S O H V A E L APPLICATION: Eden Hill Farm TND Residential District Revised Implementation Plan Phase R 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types FILE #: S-19-25 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is apartments, clubhouse (assembly), and residential duplexes. 2. Building Access shall be no further than 50 feet from a primary entrance Where buildings are provided with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, access shall be no further than 100 feet from the primary entrance. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 3. Parking shall be prohibited in front of the primary entrance for a width of not less than 1.5 times the width of the door(s) or for 10 feet, whichever is greater. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.2) 4. Perimeter access shall be 75% for the apartments and 50% for the clubhouses unless the clubhouses are sprinklered which would then require 25% and clearly shown on the plans. Perimeter Access minimum width shall be 15 feet measured from the face of the building at grade with a maximum slope of ten percent (10%). Plantings and utility services (includes condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall be permitted within the perimeter access, and shall not interfere with emergency services fire ground operations. If a physical barrier (fence, pond, steep slope, etc) prevents access, that portion of the building perimeter shall not be included in the calculation of Percent of Perimeter Access. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 5. Fire lanes shall cover 35% for the apartments of the proposed building. Fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and run along the front of the building as determined by the primary entrance(s). In cases where there is more than one primary entrance(s), each shall be served by a fire lane even if this exceeds the percentage as required.

The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the exterior wall and the closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 feet from the exterior wall if one or two stories in height; 40 feet if three or four stories in height, or 30 feet if over four stories in height. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5) 6. Where parking is located between the building and the fire lane, parking shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the exterior wall. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.4.1) 7. All Fire Lanes shall be marked as follows: both the inner and outer edges of the fire lane shall be marked, where curbs are present, the top and face of the curb shall be painted yellow, where no curbs are present, a four inch (4”) solid yellow demarcation line shall mark the edge(s) of the fire lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 8. The specific color yellow shall be the uniformly accepted yellow as utilized by State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Only vivid and durable paint shall be used and shall be suitable for street surfaces 9. Fire lane signs shall be located as follows: see Figure 5-16 – Approved Sign For Marking Fire Lanes, fire lane signs shall be spaced at 150 foot intervals maximum, all fire lane signs shall be located no less than six feet (6’) and no higher than eight feet (8’) above the pavement, signs shall be placed at each end of the fire lane, and signs shall face all oncoming traffic. Where parking is not restricted roadway markings shall utilize the words "FIRE" and "LANE" in lieu of fire lane signs and shall conform to the specifications of 7.6. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 10. Where overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building or site features must project over any fire lane, an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6” above the fire lane shall be provided and the portion of the building perimeter which contains overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building features shall not apply towards the fire lane accessibility requirements of Section 4.0, Table 5-1 in this chapter. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.8) 11. Emergency access to rear building areas compliant with City of Dover Code (Appendix B-Zoning, Article 5- Supplementary Regulations, Section 17); all four stories and greater buildings require 24ft fire lane at the rear. All two to three story apartment structures require an 18ft Secondary Fire Lane at the rear. All townhouses (3-8 units with no fire protection) require a 16ft alley or 18ft secondary fire lane at the rear. 12. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment. 13. Street width shall be in accordance with City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article VII, Section A. 13,

Residential areas 24 feet wide with no parking, 30 feet wide with parking on one side, or 36 feet wide with parking on both sides Commercial areas 26 feet wide with no parking, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides Alley 12 feet wide Any dead-end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turnaround or cul-de-sac as outlined in the 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, chapter 5, 2.3. 14. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 15. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the system. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6) 16. All fire hydrants shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All fire hydrants shall have minimum of four-inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, where fire hydrants are located along a curb line with permitted parking, the area between the fire hydrant and the street or fire lane shall be stenciled with four inch (4") demarcation lines and the words "NO PARKING", demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the fire hydrant and extend for a distance 15 feet on both sides. Where fire hydrants are located in parking lots or other areas susceptible to blockage by parked vehicles they shall be treated as follows: fire hydrants shall be protected in all directions for a distance of seven feet (7') with barriers or curbing, Minimum four-inch (4") diameter steel bollards filled with concrete and marked yellow shall be installed at the outermost corners of the fire hydrant demarcation area. The minimum height of the bollard shall be 36 inches above the finished grade of

the adjacent surface, and the steamer connection of all fire hydrants shall be positioned so as to be facing the edge of the street, or traffic lane. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 2) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 17. Hydrant barrels shall be provided with reflective material, such as paint, durable for highway/roadway markings or a reflective tape of a minimum of 2” in width around the barrel under the top flange, hydrant bonnets shall be color coded based on the following criteria: class AA 1500 GPM - painted light blue, class A 1,000 GPM -1499 GPM - painted green, class B 500 - 999 GPM - painted orange, class C 250 - 499 GPM - painted red, class D under 250 GPM - painted black. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 703, Chapter 3. 4) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 18. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements (apartments, clubhouses TBD). Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 19. Sprinkler system required (apartments, clubhouses TBD). System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. This chapter shall apply to all buildings, structures, marine vessels, premises, and conditions which are modified by more than 50% after the effective date of these Regulations. The 50% figure shall be calculated utilizing the gross square footage of the building, structure, marine vessel, premises and conditions as to arrive at the correct application. Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for review and approval for a building rehabilitation as defined in the 101 Life Safety Code, for less than 50% of the gross square footage of a non-sprinklered building, may not have another such project for the same building submitted for review and approval any sooner than three (3) years after the date of the final inspection unless sprinkler projection is provided throughout the entire building. In all buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of aggregate, gross floor area. In all buildings in excess of 40 feet in height or more than four (4) stories in height.

In all buildings or areas thereof used for the storage, fabricating, assembling, manufacturing, processing, display or sale of combustible goods, wares, merchandise, products, or materials when more than two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. In all basement areas exceeding 2,500 square feet floor area. In residential occupancies when of: Type V (0,0,0) or Type III (2,0,0) construction and exceeding two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. Type V (1,1,1) and Type III (2,1,1) or Type IV (2,H,H) construction exceeding three (3) stories or 3In all residential apartment buildings storage areas except individual unit closets that are located within individual residential living units. In all buildings used as health care occupancies as defined in the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. In all buildings or areas classified as "high hazard" under the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, or "extra hazard" under the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. All buildings used as dormitories, in whole or in part, to house students at a public or private school or public or private institution of higher education. (16 Del.C. Ch. 88) This applies to all such dormitories regardless if new or existing. (2015 State of Delaware fire Prevention Regulations, 702, Chapter 4) Places of assembly shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Any interior renovations of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 150 persons. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly that would create an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Places of assembly where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any interior renovation of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 100 persons and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly which would create an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. New educational occupancies of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162)

20. Fire Department Connection is to be a 5-inch stortz connection on a 30-degree elbow located within 50 feet of main entrance. Access to the Fire Department Connection must be clear unobstructed access as defined by the AHJ. 21. Parking and/or obstructions shall be prohibited in front of fire department connections for a distance measuring from the center line and extending four feet on both sides. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.4) 22. Fire Department Connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment. 23. All standpipe and sprinkler connections shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All standpipe and sprinkler connections shall have minimum of four inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, Solid yellow demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the connection and extend for a distance of four feet (4') on both sides, and where parking is allow between the building and the street or fire lane the solid yellow demarcation lines shall extend from the end of the sidewalk surface to the street or fire lane (Markings shall not be required on the sidewalk surface). All fire department connections (standpipe and sprinkler) shall have a minimum 12" x 18" sign that reads FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION, sign lettering shall be a minimum of 3 inches (3") in height with red scotchlite letters on white scotchlite background. The sign shall be clearly visible from the fire lane or roadway, and signs using NFPA international symbols shall be an acceptable alternative. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 3) 24. Standpipes shall be provided in all areas and buildings as required in the codes and standards listed in Regulation 701 as well as the following areas or buildings: In all Class A and Class B places of assembly and institutional occupancies two (2) stories or 25 feet in height or over, In any building over three (3) stories, In any building over 35 feet in height, In any building that has a floor above the first floor over 10,000 square feet gross floor area, In all buildings where the 1st floor exceeds 60,000 gross square feet, a Class I horizontal standpipe system installed in accordance with the applicable codes and standards listed in Regulation 701 of these Regulations shall be provided. All standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the applicable codes and standards listed in Regulation 701. The standpipe system shall be carried up with each floor and shall be installed and ready for use as each floor progresses. Standpipes shall not be more than one floor below the highest forms of staging, The 2½-inch of hose connections on Class I systems shall be provided in the following locations, At the highest intermediate landing between floor levels in every required exit stairway, Where intermediate landing is not provided, hose connections shall be permitted to be located at the main floor landings in exit stairways when approved by the authority having jurisdiction, Where the local fire department has the capability of providing the required pressure, hydraulically designed standpipe systems in fully sprinklered, non-high-rise buildings shall be designed to provide the required waterflow rate.

A sign shall be provided at each landing, in all interior stairways, designating the floor level. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 702, Chapter 4, 2) Fire department connections. Unless otherwise approved by the fire marshal, fire department connections shall be on the street side of the building and shall be located and arranged so that hose lines can be readily and conveniently attached to without interference from any nearby obstructions as defined by the fire marshal's office. Fire department connections shall be a five- inch Storz. Fire department connections shall be within 300 feet of an approved City of Dover Fire Hydrant and within 50 feet of the main entrance of the structure it serves. All fire department connections shall be not less than three feet nor more than five feet in height above finished grade. The fire marshal shall have the authority to require more stringent requirements when deemed necessary. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162) 25. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 26. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot,

property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) 27. A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection. Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings. Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level 28. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non-slip surface and leading to and terminating at a public way. 29. All new passenger elevators in a building shall be provided with a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches (609 mm) by 84 inches (2133 mm) in its horizontal open position. Where two or more new passenger elevators are located in a single hoist way and serve all or the same portion of the building, only one elevator car that provides a car sized to accommodate an ambulance

cot 24 inches by 84 inches in its horizontal position for each hoist way shall be required. Elevator cars required to comply with 15.1 or 15.2 shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist way door frame. Firefighter recall keys shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the local fire department. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 1, 15) 30. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done by Delaware State Communications prior to Final CO. This must be scheduled in advance with Delaware State Communications. 31. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 32. Full building and fire plan review is required. 33. Separate building permits/plans submission will be required for each building and/or tenant fit out. If the permit submission is for a “shell” a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Separate plans and permits submissions will be required for each “tenant fit out” at which time a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued upon compliance/completion of each “tenant fit out”. Each “shell” will require a fire permit for sprinkler and fire alarm if applicable. Those systems (for the “shell”) must be accepted into service prior to any “tenant fit out” fire permits being issued. 34. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 35. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, exhaust ducts, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire Marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved. 36. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Please clarify the phases correctly 2. All residential proposals are duplex units and apartments 3. Please confirm that perimeter access requirements are properly provided as outlined in item # 4 listed above 4. Please confirm that fire lane requirements are properly provided as outlined in item # 5 listed above 5. Please confirm that parking is at least 15’ from the exterior wall of the apartments as outlined in item # 6 listed above 6. Please confirm that there is an 18’ secondary fire lane at the rear of the apartments as outlined in item # 11 listed above 7. Fire hydrant locations need to be confirmed by this office 8. Additional information needed on clubhouses to determine if a sprinkler and fire alarm are required 9. Please confirm that the fire department connections are at the main entrances on the front side of the apartments as outlined in item # 20 listed above 10. Please confirm item # 21 listed above is in compliance 11. Please confirm that fire hydrants are located within 300; of the FDC’s as outlined in item # 22 listed above

12. Is parking proposed under the apartments? If so, is it under ground or above ground. If above ground this may now be a 4 story building with additional requirements. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2019 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Eden Hill Farm FILE#: S-19-25 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The parcel will be required to obtain a minimum of a Letter of No Objection for the Site/Record Plan from DelDOT for the proposed development. 2. The developer and the engineer shall submit a pre-submittal meeting request through the PDCA to begin the plan review process.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY November 2019 APPLICATION: Eden Hill Farm TND – Revised Implementation Plan FILE #: S-19-25 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jared C. Adkins, P.E. PHONE #: (302) 608-5370 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 5,000 square feet, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. The review fee and a completed Application for a Detailed Plan are due at the time of plan submittal to our office. Construction inspection fees based on developed area and stormwater facility maintenance inspection fees based on the number of stormwater facilities are due prior to the start of construction. 2. The following notes must appear on the record plan: • The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to enter private property for purposes of periodic site inspection. • The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to add, modify, of delete any erosion or sediment control measure, as it deems necessary. • A clear statement of defined maintenance responsibility for stormwater management facilities must be provided on the Record Plan. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The Kent Conservation District has no objection to revising the implementation plan, however the proposed changes will require the phasing and sequence of construction shown on the approved Sediment & Stormwater plan to be revised and updated prior to any further construction. 2. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the revised Sediment and Stormwater Management plan has been reviewed and approved by our agency.

SITE PLAN EDEN HILL FARM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CITY OF DOVER - KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE N. GREENBERRY LANE 75' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE (PLAT BOOK 96, PAGE 3) NICHOLAS WEMYSS ROAD RIDGELY CIRCLE 80' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE (PLAT BOOK 96, PAGE 3) DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE N/F WEST WATER STREET (PLAT BOOK 96, PAGE 3) 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE LOT 1 STATE OF DELAWARE (PLAT BOOK 96, PAGE 3) N/F ED-05-076.00-01-14.00-000 STATE OF DELAWARE D-4469-0204, D-4456-0023, ED-05-076.00-01-14.00-000 D-0666-0225 D-0666-0219, D-0666-225 ZONED: TND S. GREENBERRY LANE 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE CITY MAINTAINED 1A STORMWATER 60' PUBLIC ROW-CITY MAINTAINED DAIRY BARN WAY 8 60' PUBLIC ROW-CITY MAINTAINED 6 60' PUBLIC ROW-CITY MAINTAINED 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2F 2G 2H 2I 2J 2K 4A 4B 4C 4D 4G MANAGEMENT PHASE 1 AREA 4E PHASE 4 2E ALFORD WAY 4F AXTELL WAY N/F N/F STATE OF DELAWARE 1C ED-05-076.00-01-14.00-000 ALLEY D STATE OF DELAWARE D-4469-0204, D-4456-0023, ED-05-076.00-01-13.03-000 1D ALLEY B ALLEY C D-0666-0225 ALLEY E ALLEY F PHASE 1 D-2375-0327 ZONED: TND 3G 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 3A 5G 3B 3H 5A 5B 3C 3F 3I 3L 5C LOT 3B 5D 4.2A 3D 3J 5E BANNING STREET 10 3E 3K 7 9 5F 1.1A ANN MOORE STREET PHASE 1 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE PHASE 4 PHASE 4 CITY MAINTAINED ALLEY M CITY MAINTAINED ALLEY N PHASE 1 LIN 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 386 12 ES 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 WYNKOOP WAY 84B 79 64 59 LLOYD STREET 387 85 84A 81 80 78 76 65 63 61 60 58 56 13 RAI 83 82 77 76A 62 61A 57 56A BUR ACTIVE PHASE 1 LRO RECREATION 388 ALLEY I TON 14 AD ALLEY G ALLEY H ALLEY J ALLEY K CITY MAINTAINED CITY MAINTAINED 389 15 PHASE 2 390A NIA ROA ALLEY L D 94B 89 74 69 95 94A 91 90 88 86 75 73 71 70 68 66 16 93 92 87 86A 72 71A 67 66A 47 46 45 44 43 42 32 31 30 29 28 27 LVA 390B 17 PHASE 1 PEN NEW NSY PHASE 2 PHASE 4 PHASE 1 RIDGELY BOULEVARD PHASE 4 PHASE 2 80' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE PHASE 1 CITY MAINTAINED PHASE 4 EDEN HILL BOULEVARD PHASE 2 PHASE 5 80' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 136 140 147 172 391A 107A 153 160 161 162 163 164 165 110A 110B 148 149 150 151 152 101A 101B 102A 111A 111B 97 102B 100 106 109 115 112 96 98A 98B 99 103 105 107B 113 114 173 104 108 391B PHASE 6 PHASE 5 137 141 146 460 174 ALLEY Q 392A ALLEY O ALLEY R ALLEY S CITY MAINTAINED 175 459 392B 138 142 145 ALLEY T ALLEY P 117A 458 118B 126A 120A 120B 129A 129B 121B 121A 392A 176 116 124 125 128 131 135 132 117B 119 122 126B 130 133 154 155 156 157 158 159 118A 123 127 134 166 167 168 169 170 171 393B 139 143 144 457 177 45 LITTLE EDEN WAY 6 1.6A PHASE 2 PHASE 6 PHASE 5 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE CITY MAINTAINED PHASE 5 45 5 INGLIS STREET WEST DOVER CONNECTOR 241 45 394 289 288 265 264 228 PHASE 6 206 205 19 4 240 229 0 242 45 DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 290 287 266 263 227 3 CITY MAINTAINED 19 207 204 1 45 291 286 267 262 243 230 226 2 395 19 PHASE 2 PHASE 6 239 2 45 1 244 STATE MAINTAINED 268 261 225 19 EDEN HILL BOULEVARD 292 285 208 203 3 45 80' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 0 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 19 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 269 260 245 224 4 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 293 284 44 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE GORRELL WAY WYNKOOP WAY 396 238 9 231 19 BANK BARN WAY 209 202 5 259 246 223 44 ED STA ALLEY U 294 ALLEY V ALLEY Y 283 270 19 8 RUTH WAY -0 TE 6 5- 07 OF N/F 44 295 282 271 258 247 222 7 D 6.0 DE CITY MAINTAINED 210 CITY MAINTAINED 19 ZO -237 0-0 LA CITY MAINTAINED 397 237 232 7 44 N 5- 1-1 WA CITY MAINTAINED 201 6 LO ED: 032 3.0 RE CITY MAINTAINED 296 281 272 257 248 221 T TN 7 3-0 44 3B D 00 211 5 297 280 273 256 249 220 44 4 LANDS N/F 398 233 236 198 44 298 279 274 255 250 219 212 3 GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION 44 199 PH 2 299 278 275 254 251 218 AS 44 399 PH E 1 DEED: Z-22-437 235 234 213 217 200 5 300 277 276 253 252 A SE 44 0 ED-05076.00-01-12.00-000 BOND STREET 214 6 PHASE 2 439 400 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE PHASE 6 215 43 CITY MAINTAINED 8 FCM 43 7 327 321 326 331 332 216 401 43 6 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 328 322 325 329 AY USE 43 333 W BLIC 5 402 ALLEY Z N PU VEED TOAINED PHASE 2 PHASE 6 330 43 323 334 A H ICA AINT T 43 4 D ED M REOW D CITY 3 315 319 320 335 311 312 313 314 316 317 318 43 403 2 324 'R 1 60 43 336 43 0 PHASE 2 337 SKIPTON 42 HORSEY BOULEVARD 9 80' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE BOULEVARD 338 42 8 CITY MAINTAINED 80' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE 42 CITY MAINTAINED 7 42 6 42 404 5 346 345 42 356 355 354 353 352 351 350 349 348 347 340 4 423 341 2 LEGEND 42 405 ALLEY BB 342 42 1 359 343 406 357 358 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED 344 W ER AT NT RM GEM E (PHASE I) SITE PLAN FOR O A NICKERJACK WAY ST ANA RE 407 PHASE 2 60' ROW DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE M A CITY MAINTAINED EDEN HILL FARM - TND D 367 .6A ILR OA INCREASE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RA 381 1 408 US E 385 S D AY BL 36 E OA IC 384 LIN N R 8 W PU RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 36 383 IA H ED TOAINED 382 TO CLUBHOUSES 9 37 T U A INT AN UR T 380 0 R EDICY MA L V 1 Y B NS 37 D IT W 409 OW C NE SITUATE IN: CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 37 'R P EN 60 2 37 379 37 4 3 DECREASE DENSITY WITH CHANGE ns and Assoc Karins and Associates date OF LOT TYPES 5 Kar 410 37 420 i N iates ENGINEERS ● PLANNERS ● SURVEYORS 376 W E 41 9 S NEWARK, DE & GEORGETOWN, DE yo r s Eng i n e 378 377 41 www.karinsengineering.com 8 checked 411 ve 17 POLLY DRUMMOND CENTER * SUITE 201 41 7 ELIMINATE LOTS FOR NEW er s Pl a n e r s n ur S NEWARK, DELAWARE 19711 PHONE: (302) 369-2900 FAX: (302) 369-2975 412 CLUBHOUSE OWNER: EQUITABLE OWNER: 416 EDEN HILL RESIDENTIAL, LLC APENNINE DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC 413 415 234 NORTH JAMES STREET 300 DELAWARE AVE., SUITE 1370 414 WILMINGTON, DE 19804 WILMINGTON, DE 19801 N/F LOT 3B STATE OF DELAWARE ED-05-076.00-01-13.03-000 revisions D-2375-0327 ZONED: TND SURVEY BY: OTHERS SCALE: 1" = 150' DESIGNED BY: C.O.M., L.E. 0 150' 300' 3.2A DRAWN BY: B.F.K. DATE: 10-28-19 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CHECKED BY: L.E., C.O.M. DRAWING NO.: 2916 - W01 © KARINS ENGINEERING, INC. 2019

City of Dover January 3, 2020 Laura Enghofer and Clifford O. Mitchell Karins Engineering 17 Polly Drummond Center, Suite 201 Newark DE 19711 Via Email: lenghofer@karinsengineering.com cmitchell@karinsengineering.com Re: Notice of Planning Commission Action S-19-25: Eden Hill Farm TND Residential District: Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) Tax Parcel: Multiple Parcels on map ED-05-076.04 Dear Ms. Enghofer and Mr. Mitchell: At its meeting of December 16, 2019, the City of Dover Planning Commission began consideration and conducted a public hearing on Application S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design Residential District: Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types). The Revised Plan for the Residential District proposes to revise Phase 2 areas; to extinguish lots 339-346 to create a new clubhouse and active recreation space; to create two (2) clubhouses within the Active Open Space; to build five (5) apartment buildings to contain 180 dwelling units on lots 6-10, while using lot 11 as Open Space; and to change the unit types of lots along Alleys J, K, L, R, S and T (in vicinity of the eastern portions of Ann Moore Street, Ridgely Boulevard, and Little Eden Way) to achieve 665 total lots. The Revisions to the Implementation Plan are depicted in a Plan Set (Revision dated October 28, 2019). There are five key components of this 2019 Revised Implementation Plan: Residential District as follows: • Revise Phase 2 Area • Consolidation of Lots for South Clubhouse • Create Two Clubhouses • Revise Dwelling Unit Count • Change in Mix of Unit Types (Number and Location) A detailed description of the components of the Revised proposal for the Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District and the review of Application S-19-25 by Planning Staff, City Departments, and other agencies was outlined in the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) Report dated December 6, 2019. At their meeting of December 16, 2019, the Planning Commission deferred action on Application S-19-25 due to the need to clarify specific questions. The Planning Commission had questions about the Pattern Book and the parking for the multi-family (apartment) units. The P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Notice of Planning Commission Action S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District: Revised Implementation Plan (Phase 2 Area, Clubhouses, and Unit Types) January 3, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Applicant may submit the clarifying information for the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for January 21, 2019 at 7:00pm. This Application S-19-25 will be listed as an agenda item for continued consideration. Contact Planning Staff regarding procedures for submission of additional information for distribution to the Planning Commission. Should you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact me at (302) 736- 7196. Sincerely, Department of Planning & Inspections Dawn E. Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner Cc Via Email: David S. Hugg III, Director of Planning & Community Development Jason Lyon, P.E. Department of Public Works Eden Hill Residential, LLC Sean Allen, Apennine Development Co., LLC File S-19-25

17 18 S. GREENBERRY LANE 3 8 8 3 3 STORY APARTMENT BULDING AXTEL WAY ALFORD WAY 3 STORY MULTI-FAMILY BULDING 3 STORY MULTI-FAMILY BULDING 6 36 UNITS 8 36 UNITS 7 38 GARAGE PARKING SPACES 38 GARAGE PARKING SPACES 7 36 UNITS DAIRY BARN WAY 27 PASSIVE OPEN SPACE "MARY MIDDLETON PARK" 13,389 S.F.± 27 8 ALLEY M 38 GARAGE PARKING SPACES ALLEY E 8 8 ALLEY F 13 29 27 27 BANNING STREET 7 7 3 STORY MULTI-FAMILY BULDING 36 UNITS 3 STORY MULTI-FAMILY BULDING 36 UNITS 7 10 9 38 GARAGE PARKING SPACES 38 GARAGE PARKING SPACES 3 8 8 3 5 5 ANN MOORE STREET 5 10 6 3 ALLEY N 9 3 BIKE RACK 2 2 5 4 ACTIVE MULTI-FAMILY PARKING COUNT 5 RECREATION 16 4 4 TOTAL: 498 SPACES 4 3 ALLEY L S:\2981\ACAD\W - Renderings and Exhibits\W03 Exhibit.dwg, 1/9/20 5:47:43 PM 5 4 2 2 9 3 EXHIBIT MULTI-FAMILY LOTS FOR EDEN HILL FARM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SITUATE IN: CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE and Assoc ins Karins and Associates Kar es iat N ENGINEERS ● PLANNERS ● SURVEYORS "EXHIBIT A" W E S NEWARK, DE & GEORGETOWN, DE yo r s Engi n e www.karinsengineering.com ve 17 POLLY DRUMMOND CENTER * SUITE 201 er ur s S NEWARK, DELAWARE 19711 P l a n ne r s PHONE: (302) 369-2900 FAX: (302) 369-2975 SURVEY BY: N/A SCALE: 1" = 80' DESIGNED BY: 0 80 160 DRAWN BY: DATE: 10/7/2019 SHEET 1 OF 1 CHECKED BY: DRAWING NO. 2981-W03

C.5 MULTI-FAMILY LOTS - current proposed plan 72 Off-Street Spaces for 36 Units 2 Off-Street Spaces/Unit S:\2981\ACAD\W - Renderings and Exhibits\W02 Parking Exhibit.dwg, 1/9/20 5:28:36 PM 7 Spaces 27 Spaces "EXHIBIT A.1"

Approved Pattern Book Addendum II 1 Off-Street Space/Unit "EXHIBIT B"

Pattern Book Check Print 26 Off-Street Spaces for 24 Multi-Family Units 1.08 Off-Street Spaces/Unit 20 Spaces 6 Spaces "EXHIBIT C"

Pattern Book Check Print 22 Off-Street Spaces provided for 12 Multi-Family Units 1.83 Off-Street Spaces/Unit 12 Spaces 6 Spaces "EXHIBIT D"

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing Before the Planning Commission January 21, 2020 Owner: William E. Ardito Address: 4 Lakeview Drive, Dover Location: Southwest side of Lakeview Drive and southwest of Sunset Drive, immediately abutting Silver Lake Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.13-01-08.00-000 Size: 0.63 acres Present Use: One-family residence (detached) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density Present Zoning: R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone) Proposed Zoning: RG-1 (General Residence Zone) Reason for Request: To permit a Bed and Breakfast File Number: Z-20-01 Ordinance Number: 2019-22

Z-20-01 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 2 This rezoning application consists of one parcel of land totaling 0.63 +/- acres located on the southwest side of Lakeview Drive and southwest of Sunset Drive, immediately abutting Silver Lake. The property is zoned R-7 (One-family Residence Zone). The proposed zoning is RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The owners of record is William E. Ardito. Property Address: 4 Lakeview Drive. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.13-01-08.00-000. Existing Property: The property has frontage along Lakeview Drive to the east, contains an existing one-family detached dwelling structure. The property immediately abuts Silver Lake to the west. There is one access point to the site via a circular driveway. While there is a sidewalk on site from the circular driveway to the main entrance of the existing house, there are no pedestrian facilities along Lakeview Drive and subsequently no pedestrian access to the site. The applicant is seeking rezoning to RG-1 (General Residence Zone) to allow the opportunity to seek future utilization of the building as a Bed and Breakfast and potentially a wedding venue. The change of use of the site will be subject to a separate application/ permit submissions. This application only seeks rezoning of the application from R-7 to RG-1. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding parcels are all zoned residentially. Immediately to the north is is another lake- front property, also currently zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence zone) containing a one-family residence, as are the properties directly across the street to the east. These have a land use category designation of Medium Density Residential. The property immediately adjacent to the south is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and contains East Lake Gardens, a multiple- dwelling unit Garden Apartment style residential complex. This parcel has a land use category designation of Residential High Density. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated March 2016) recommends that this property be used for Residential Medium Density. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan references Residential Medium Density land use category on pages 146- 147. In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, currently pending adoption, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1, Final Draft dated December 1, 2019) again recommends that this property be used for Residential Medium Density. The following is an excerpt from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan regarding Residential Medium Density (page 12-4): Recommendation for Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density land uses involve a maximum gross density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This type of development may include single family houses on smaller lots, duplexes, townhouses, and some apartments. Some Manufactured Home Park developments would also be considered Residential Medium Density. Medium density residential uses are permitted in the following zoning districts: R-8 (One Family Residence), R-7 (One Family Residence), RM-1 (Medium Density Residence), RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) planned to reflect the historic patterns and mix of land uses common to Dover’s early development, RG-1 (General Residence),

Z-19-02 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 3 RG-2 (General Residence), RG-3 (Group Housing), RGO (General Residence and Office), and MH (Manufactured Housing). The Land Development Plan recommends that Residential Medium Density uses be permitted near existing and planned service and employment centers and in locations well supported by transportation infrastructure and mass transit services. Areas identified as Medium Density Residential can be looked at as potential receiving areas under a transfer of development rights program. Areas in the northern portion of the City are appropriate for Residential Medium Density development. The Rezoning Request is consistent with the Land Use Classification of Residential Medium Density. Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix (from the Final Draft of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan) specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification. R-8 (One Family Residence) R-7 (One Family Residence) RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) RG-1 (General Residence) Residential Medium Density RG-2 (General Residence) RG-3 (Group Housing) RGO (General Residence and Office) MH (Manufactured Housing) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Request for RG-1 (General Residence Zone) The types of permitted uses in the RG-1 Zone are given in Article 3 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permitted uses include the following: • Article 3, Section 2. – General Residence Zones (RG-1 and RG-2) 2.1 Uses permitted. In a General Residence Zone, no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: 2.11 Any use permitted in one-family residence zone 2.12 Garden Apartments limited to placement within the RG-2 district only 2.2 Performance Standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 2.3 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits forthe erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 2.4 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Townhouses subject to the following restrictions:

Z-19-02 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 4 i. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a lot. ii. No more than four dwelling units shall be permitted in a group of townhouses. iii. Each group of townhouses shall be physically separated from another by no less than two dwelling units of a different housing type from other groups of townhouses on the same side of the street. iv. Townhouse groups shall be designed to minimize points of access to the public street and to take access from an alley or other shared access where such access is available. (b) Duplex dwellings subject to the following restrictions: i. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a lot ii. Duplex dwellings shall be designed to minimize points of access to the public street and to take access from an alley or other shared access where such access is available. (c) Bed and breakfast inns in the RG-1 district only, subject to the following: i. A bed and breakfast inn may only be established within a primary residential structure or an associated accessory structure. ii. The owner of the property shall reside on the premises of the bed and breakfast inn or in an adjacent premises. However, if ownership of the property is in the name of a corporation, partnership, trust, etc., a full-time resident manager/operator/inn-keeper shall reside in the principal structure on the subject property or adjacent property. iii. The principal structure shall contain at least one full bathroom for the exclusive use of the owner or resident manager and other members of the immediate household. In addition, one full bathroom shall be provided for each two guestrooms. Each full bathroom shall contain a minimum of one water closet (toilet), one lavatory (sink) and one bathtub or shower stall and shall comply with all applicable building and plumbing codes. iv. The number of guestrooms requested shall be set forth in the application for conditional use. The planning commission shall expressly establish the maximum number of guestrooms permitted for any application for which approval is granted. In no case shall a bed and breakfast inn contain more than ten guestrooms. v. Off-street parking shall be provided at a minimum of two spaces, plus one space per guestroom. Off-street parking shall be prohibited in the front yard, except that such parking which may be customarily accommodated on a single width driveway may be permitted. Required parking may be provided on the premises or off the premises, provided that such off-premises parking is located within 150 feet walking distance of the bed and breakfast property. vi. Lot coverage for a bed and breakfast inn shall not exceed 60 percent of the lot.

Z-19-02 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 5 vii. Signage is limited to one sign not to exceed six square feet in area. Signs may be illuminated, provided that internally illuminated signs shall be prohibited. viii. Meals may be served to residents and overnight guests only. No cooking appliances or kitchenettes shall be permitted within the guestrooms, except small refrigerators and microwave ovens. ix. The stay of overnight guests shall be limited to 30 consecutive days. x. The owner/operator of a bed and breakfast inn shall maintain a current City of Dover business license, and the establishment shall be inspected by the City of Dover Fire Marshal and the City of Dover Health Inspector for compliance with all applicable life safety and health and sanitation codes. (d) Student homes subject to the following siting and bulk criteria: i. No student home shall be located closer than 500 feet from any other student home. ii. The maximum allowable occupancy shall be four persons or the occupancy limit as determined by the building and fire codes adopted by the City of Dover, whichever is less. iii. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit. iv. A student home shall not be permitted to be established within any semi- detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, group dwelling, or townhouse dwelling unit. v. Buildings or groups of buildings on the same lot with 15 or more units on the lot shall not be subject to the student home regulations. vi. Student homes shall be licensed under chapter 10, Housing Code [chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations], article V [X], Rental Dwellings, of the Code of Ordinances. vii. Student homes shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 10, Housing Code [chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations], article III [VIII], Leases, of the Code of Ordinances. (e) Multiple dwellings limited to placement in the RG-2 district only. (f) Professional offices may be permitted on Governors Avenue between Water Street and Mary Street, and on Route 8, subject to the following restrictions: i. The office operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to maintain the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood, and no changes or improvements shall be made to the premises which might preclude utilization of the premises for residential purposes in the future. ii. There shall be no other professional office located in the same zoning district within 250 feet of the premises. iii. No display of products or goods shall be visible from the street.

Z-19-02 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 6 iv. There shall be no exterior effects such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference. v. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be required. vi. No more than four off-street parking spaces shall be permitted. Furthermore, all off-street spaces shall be visually screened from adjacent residential uses, to the greatest extent possible, by employing a landscape screen no less than six and one-half feet high, which landscape screen shall be properly maintained throughout the duration of the professional office use on the subject premises. vii. Signage shall be limited to one sign, not to exceed six square feet in area. No sign may be illuminated. viii. The hours of operation shall not commence prior to 6:00 a.m. and shall cease no later than 8:00 p.m., with no more than four employees engaged in the operations upon the premises at any given time. ix. The planning commission shall have the authority to impose such additional conditions and restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of surrounding properties. (g) In order to stimulate limited commercial activity in the RG-1 and RG-2 zones within the city's historic district zone and/or where a historic district property or a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places exists, and to make this area of historic Dover more attractive to tourists and residents, antique shops, art galleries, gift and card shops, book stores, specialty hobby stores, and restaurants with no alcoholic beverages may be permitted as accessory uses incidental to the principal residence, subject to the conditional use approval of the planning commission in accordance with Article 10— Planning Commission, Section 1—Approval of conditional uses, and subject to the following: i. Total floor area of any nonresidential accessory use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. ii. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be required to serve the residence and the accessory use. iii. Signage for the accessory use is limited to one sign not to exceed six square feet in area. Signs may be illuminated, provided that internally illuminated signs shall be prohibited. (h) Off-street parking. 2.5 Reserved. 2.6 Administrative Waivers: (a) The city planner shall have the authority to waive the bulk standards and parking requirements of article 4, section 4.2 for all non-conforming lots that existed in the RG-1 zone prior to January 1, 2007,when deemed necessary for redevelopment. The applicant must request such waivers inwriting, stating the reasons that such waivers are necessary for development for redevelopment of the subject parcel.

Z-19-02 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 7 (b) The city planner shall have the authority to adjust the lot dimension requirements of article 4, section 4.2 in the approval minor lot line adjustment plans, where no additional lots are created and to waive the bulk standards of article 4, section 4.2 for the placement of a structure on associated lots when deemed necessary for redevelopment. The applicant must request such waivers in writing, stating the reasons that waivers are necessary for redevelopment of the subject property. (c) The city planner shall have the authority to allow alternative parking surface, otherthan those specified in article 6, section 3.6 provided that such off-street parking areas where alternative surfaceis used are located within a rear yard. The applicant must request such a waiver inwriting, stating the reasons that waivers are necessary. (Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 14; Ord. of 4-22-1996; Ord. of 2-12-2001 Ord. of 1-13-2003;Ord. of 9-11-2006; Ord. of 5-29-2007; Ord. No. 2011-29, 1-9-2012; Ord. No. 2014-05, 5-27-2014 ; Ord. No. 2015-13, 10-12-2015 ) Recommendation of the Planning Staff: Staff recommends that the Rezoning be granted to RG-1 as requested, as the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Residential Medium Density land use classification. The use as a Bed and Breakfast is a permitted conditional use in the RG-1 zone. Were the application for Rezoning to be recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant would still have to submit a Conditional Use application to the Planning Commission for review and approval to establish certain uses such as a Bed and Breakfast. During that review process it will be determined if any site improvements are required to meet conditions of approval. The existing use as a one family detached dwelling continues to be an allowed use in the RG-1 zone. Planning Staff also notes that the property is subject to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to its proximity to Silver Lake (water body) and regarding special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year flood plain) as found in Article 5, Section 11.21. This recommendation is being made without that benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A public hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Development Plan approval or the right to establish certain uses on the property. Following any decision made by City Council regarding this rezoning, certain applications must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to any construction activity or establishment of new uses on the site. The applicant should contact the City of Dover Planning Office at (302) 736-7196 with any questions. 2) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit, Sign Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 3) The applicant shall be aware that any future use of the existing structures may be subject to a

Z-19-02 Lands of William E. Ardito DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 8 separate permitting or licensing process through the City of Dover Licensing and Permitting Division. Certain types of uses also require a Public Occupancy Permit. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Office as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2019 APPLICATION: LANDS OF WILLIAM E. ARDITO AT 4 LAKEVIEW DRIVE FILE #: Z-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 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 ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-068.13-01-08.00-000 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service / main to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric, water and sewer services and meters will be assessed at that time. (Please note that each water meter registered with the City of Dover must have a separate service line.) Should the existing water and sanitary sewer services no longer be required based upon the proposed use, they must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with all City of Dover Department of Public Works standards and specifications. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook, the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for City of Dover Public Works requirements, and the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. 3. Please note that renovations and or change of use projects must ensure that the water and wastewater service is brought up to current requirements. This may include relocating the water meter outside or changing service line sizes. Please ensure you schedule a meeting with the Department of Public Works during the planning phase for this site. Additional impact fees may apply for future development. 4. Currently, the solid waste on this site is being serviced by the City of Dover, further review would be merited if the current sanitation condition changes. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 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 .

C F Z-20-01 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: 12/31/19 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of William E Ardito at 4 Lakeview Dr FILE #: Z-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Rezoning application, this office has no objections. 2. If the rezoning passes and the owner wants to seek a different use, the new use could require a separate application for a conditional use. 3. If there is change in occupancy classification, plans from an authorized/licensed design professional are required to be submitted to the Chief Building Inspector showing code compliance with the new occupancy. This submittal needs to be approved by the Chief Building Inspector. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: December 31, 2019 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of William E. Ardito (4 Lakeview Drive) FILE#: Z-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. DelDOT has No Objection to the rezoning.

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Report to the Dover Planning Commission January 21, 2020 Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District regulations o Section 9 – General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) Summary of Amendment: The proposed ordinance is to allow for barbershops to be included as a preferred use permitted subject to conditional use review within the City’s H zone (Historic District Zone) in the RG-O zone (General Residence and Office Zone). Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2019-19 File Number: MI-20-01 Proposed Ordinance This proposed Ordinance is by a constituent request and sponsored by two members of City Council. The proposal was presented to the Council Committee of the Whole: Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee at their meeting of November 26, 2019. See attached Excerpt of Committee Meeting Minutes. The Committee forwarded a recommendation of support for the Ordinance to City Council. A First Reading was held by City Council on December 9, 2019 and the Public Hearing dates were set for consideration of the Text Amendment by the Planning Commission and City Council. As text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission is required; this is scheduled for January 21, 2020. Then City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on the proposed Ordinance #2019-19 at their meeting of February 10, 2020. In preparation of the Proposed Ordinance #2019-19, a housekeeping (editing) correction was also proposed (by the City Clerk’s Office) to correct the zoning district name in the Section heading. Agency Review As part of the Ordinance review by Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members, the Planning Office received comments from the City’s Public Works and Electric Departments, the Office of the Fire Marshal, and DelDOT. These agencies had no objections to the proposed Text Amendment; however, some agencies noted that entities seeking to take advantage of the

MI-20-01 Text Amendment: General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) DAC Report Summary Page 2 of 3 changes in permitted uses would be subject to additional review processes for establishment of new uses. Planning Staff Review The Planning Staff reviewed the proposed Ordinance (as it was not initially developed by Staff). It is noted that this proposed Ordinance (Text Amendment to the RG-O zone) is not limited to one specific property nor does it grant approval to establish such use on a particular property. With this Text Amendment, any property zoned RG-O (General Residence and Office Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone) could seek Conditional Use approval to establish the barbershop use (and/or the other uses listed in Article 3 §9.14 (b)). In reviewing the proposed text for consistency with other Zoning Ordinance provisions related to barbershops as a use, it was found that most commercial zones utilize the more inclusive term “personal service establishments.” The Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 provides the following definition: Personal service establishment: Establishments primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a hair salon. Staff also evaluated the other conditions outlined for “limited commercial activity” in the Historic District zone areas in the RG-O zone. These items are listed as Article 3 §9.14 (b)i-vi and relate to floor area, Architectural Review Certification, parking, and new construction bulk standards. Items (b)iii-v specifically refer to the “retail” user; however, the listing of uses for limited commercial activity (subject to Conditional Use approval) contains more than just “retail” uses. Antique shops, art galleries, gift and card shops, book stores, specialty hobby stores would be considered “retail.” Bakeries and restaurants typically are not; nor would barbershops or personal service establishments. Staff recommends removal of the reference to limit these conditions to just “retail” uses and make all uses listed in Article 3 §9.14 (b)i subject to them. The conditions would consist of the following: a total floor area not to exceed 2,000 SF; requirements for issuance of an Architectural Review Certification; and with no requirement for parking. Staff Amendment #1 Following DAC Review, Planning Staff reviewed the current proposed Ordinance #2019-19 and developed a Staff Amendment to include additional clarifications and changes based on department/agency concerns. The proposed changes presented as Staff Amendment #1 are outlined below as a series of Staff Recommendations 1-4. Staff Amendment #1 is recommended for adoption. Staff Ordinance Proposed Revision Reason/Notes Recommendation Lines 1 29 Replace the words “barbershops” The term “personal service with “personal service establishments” is more establishments.” inclusive and is consistent with other references for this type of use in most commercial zones. A barbershop is a type of “personal service establishment.”

MI-20-01 Text Amendment: General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) DAC Report Summary Page 3 of 3 2 31 Remove reference to retail use. To establish the same general Revise Item 9.14(b)iii to read as: conditions for all types of uses iii. Total floor area of any one for “limited commercial use is not to exceed 2,000 activity.” square feet. 3 34 Remove refence to retail use. To establish the same general Revise Item 9.14(b)iv to read as: conditions for all types of uses iv. Such uses will be subject to for “limited commercial historic district requirements and activity.” will therefore require an architectural review certificate. Architectural review certificates for uses described above shall not be granted unless it has been demonstrated that the proposed use will result in either no material change to the exterior of the structure visible from State Street or will result in a restoration of the structure to an appearance which can be documented to more closely reflect the historical appearance of that structure. Material change would include modifications to doors, windows and masonry, other than routine maintenance. 4 41 Remove reference to retail use. To establish the same general Revise Item 9.14(b)v to read as: conditions for all types of uses v. No parking shall be required for “limited commercial for the use. activity.” This also clarifies the parking requirements as the RG-O zone specific to these uses. The RG-O has specific parking requirements for office uses, residential units, and other specific conditional uses.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2019 APPLICATION: Text Amendment: General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) FILE #: MI-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 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 ELECTRIC 1. No objections to the proposed amendments. WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 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 .

C F MI-20-01 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: 12/31/19 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Text Amendment General Residence and Office Zoning FILE #: MI-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. This office has no objections to the change. 2. If there is change in occupancy classification, plans from an authorized/licensed design professional are required to be submitted to the Chief Building Inspector showing code compliance with the new occupancy. This submittal needs to be approved by the Chief Building Inspector. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: December 31, 2019 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Text Amendment (General Residence & Office Zoning) FILE#: MI-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. DelDOT has No Objection to the Text Amendment.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on November 26, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Polce and Mr. Sudler were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation) and Mr. Contant and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda By unanimous consent, the agenda was adopted. Reconsideration - Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) projects During the Regular Council meeting of October 14, 2019 members approved the Committee's September 24, 2019 recommended priority ranking for the coming year, as amended. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that they have had another meeting with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) officials and they were advised that the Loockerman Street/Forest Street Intersection project, which was #4 on the City’s Transportation Prioritization List, has been placed on hold because there does not seem to be interest in the traffic circle. She recommended prioritizing the project as #11, the last one on the list. Mayor Christiansen advised that he met with Secretary of Transportation Cohen to review the entire project and they indicated that different options were being considered for that area other than a traffic circle. Mr. Neil, noting that this area is supposed to be a gateway into the City, suggested making it priority #11 and then revisiting the project in January when they know exactly what DelDOT is thinking. Agreeing with Mr. Neil, Mr. Lindell noted the various traffic choke holds around the City and stated that he thought this project still needed to be a priority. He thought that a conversation between Mayor Christiansen and Secretary Cohen might help shed some light on the situation. Mr. Neil moved to recommend reprioritizing item #4 - Loockerman Street/Forest Street Intersection as item #11 and discussing the project further in January 2020. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Quarterly Update - Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee This item was deferred due to the absence of a subcommittee representative. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 2019 PAGE 2 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Lindell presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Proposals - Weyandt Hall Elevator Modernization Mr. Michael Hamlett, Central Services Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Proposals for the Weyandt Hall Elevator Modernization. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Hamlett advised that the jack does not pose a safety concern and it is standard procedure in the modernization process to look for any issues that may arise in the near future. Mr. Anderson asked if the work that was purely cosmetic would be eliminated if the project ran over budget or if there was a planned strategy in the event of a cost overrun. Responding, Mr. Hamlett stated that there was not necessarily a strategy to deal with a catastrophic issue; however, they could postpone some of the recommendations based upon what is found when they pull the cylinder. He advised that he is recommending some substantial mechanical upgrades and he would probably defer the stainless steel cladding and things of that nature if necessary. Mr. Hamlett noted that other items, such as the hoistway patching, were necessary to bring the elevator into compliance. He advised that the elevator is severely outdated and items such as the void in the concrete wall may have been acceptable 20 or 30 years ago but they are not acceptable now. Mr. Hamlett stated that the contractor has advised him that they have a 90 to 95% success rate with the cylinders. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Hamlett stated that there are monthly elevator inspections and annual load and capacity testing for certification. He stated that he believed the elevator recall and fire alarm system tests were conducted as a part of the annual test. Mr. Hamlett also advised that the elevator would be out of service for approximately 28 weeks, depending upon the start date, and that a performance bond was not requested of the contractor. Staff recommended awarding the Elevator Modernization contract to Delaware Elevator as per the proposal submitted in response to RFP #20-0005FM. Mr. Neil moved to recommend awarding the Elevator Modernization contract to Delaware Elevator as per the proposal submitted in response to RFP #20-0005FM, with the provision that a performance bond be required in the contract. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Presentation - Diversity and Inclusion Study This item was deferred due to the unavailability of the consultant. Proposed Ordinance #2019-19 Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 9 - General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, advised that the proposed ordinance amendment was the result of a constituent request. She noted that the proposed ordinance would add barbershops as a potential conditional use in the General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) zone.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Slavin advised that he and Mr. Polce agreed to sponsor the ordinance, which seeks to modernize some of the zoning in the downtown area. He noted that the zoning on one side of South State Street allows barber shops and the zoning on the other side of the street does not. Mr. Slavin advised that Representative Sean Lynn, the constituent who requested the amendment, was in attendance and could answer any questions. Mr. Lynn, 282 Troon Road, advised that he was present only in his capacity as a constituent. He stated that he was approached by Mr. Joe Chilcote about opening a barber shop in his building at 315 South State Street, which is simply a storefront comprised of two rooms. Mr. Lynn noted that Mr. Chilcote has spoken to the neighbors and Council people and he has the support of the couple that live on the block. He advised that his law firm occupies the majority of the block. Mr. Neil asked if a barber shop would attract business downtown and, if so, if Mr. Chilcote was qualified to operate a barbershop. Responding, Mr. Joseph A. Chilcote, 315 South State Street, stated that he had been a fully licensed barber for two years and that he currently has a lot of military clientele. Mayor Christiansen asked if there would be an old fashioned barber pole. Responding, Mr. Chilcote stated that if he were permitted to have one, he was definitely not opposed to putting one up. Mr. Slavin noted that there was a time 20 plus years ago when there was a prohibition for any kind of personal care businesses up and down Loockerman Street as a revitalization strategy for downtown so that you would not see tattoo parlors and nail salons sweep into vacant buildings. He stated that in the 20 years that have intervened, you can walk down Loockerman Street and see where they have relaxed that standard. Mr. Slavin advised that it was done because they are good businesses and they want to bring people downtown to spend money and support those businesses. Mr. Lindell stated that he agreed with the fact that they want to be able to expand businesses and when there are glitches in the code like this, it is good to update them to make sure that they are not stifling business, especially in this case when the business could simply exist across the street. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Chilcote stated that there was free two hour parking on The Green, if there is space available. He also noted there was always opportunity to park in front of the courthouse and around a lot of the city buildings. Mr. Chilcote stated that he thought it would be a good opportunity for other people to see the other businesses walking to his barber shop. Mr. Lynn stated that this issue underscores a larger problem with the difficulty of opening businesses in downtown Dover. He noted that it was still going to be months before Mr. Chilcote can open his shop because of the process to adopt the ordinance and the need for a conditional use permit. Mr. Lynn guaranteed that the City’s code enforcement officers were going to say that the building, which is 300 square feet, will need to be sprinklered and then they will go to Construction Code Board of Appeals. He encouraged Council to think about how difficult it is to open a business in downtown Dover, which is an area that they are trying to revitalize. Mr. Lynn noted that before he moved into the block, it was almost completely uninhabited except for the Delaware Made Store, the Friends of Old Dover, and a few offices. He stated that he developed a significant amount of this block, three buildings, and the last renovation was incredibly difficult to get done. Mr. Lynn advised that he had to put in a $15,000 fully fabricated metal staircase fire escape.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 2019 PAGE 4 Mr. Lindell suggested that the issue could be considered at a future workshop. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the RG-O zone is primarily a residence and office zone and if the property is also in the historic district, it can be considered through a conditional use process. She noted that The House of Coffi, Delaware Made, and Park Green Galleries were recent examples of properties that have moved through that conditional use process to establish retail and restaurant uses, some being located on this same block. Mr. Hare asked if those buildings were sprinklered. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the requirements for sprinkling are based on the use and the type of construction of a building according to the provisions of the building and fire codes. She stated that it would be evaluated for any new tenant going into an existing building citywide, not just within this block. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that she would have to defer to the Fire Marshal’s Office for the individual requirements for a fire alarm or sprinkler system, which are related to occupancy, the size of the space, and what it is next to. She noted that Staff is always ready to answer questions and help guide applicants through the review processes that are established by the City’s codes and regulations. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that if the text amendment moves through the review process, there would be a first reading at the December Council meeting with a public hearing at the January Planning Commission meeting on the text amendment and a Council final action in early February. She noted that the only expediting they could do of a potential conditional use application would be to accept that application the first week in February, which would schedule it for a March meeting of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that these were the requirements of the zoning ordinance as they exist or could exist, depending on action on the text amendment. The motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance was unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2019-20 Amending Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article IV - Abatement of Real Estate Taxes, Section 102-113 - Qualifications Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, advised that the Dover Code currently directs applicants for the abatement of real estate taxes to submit their documentation to the City Clerk’s Office. Noting that the Clerk’s Office merely forwards the documents to the Tax Office, Mrs. McDowell advised that the amendment would direct the applicants to the proper receiving office, which is the Tax Office. Mr. Slavin to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2019-20, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Annual Review of Investment Policy Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, advised that the Investment Policy provides guidance on the investment of public funds that will provide the highest investment return consistent with the maximum safety of principle. She noted that it conforms to all state and local statutes governing public funds investment. Ms. Peddicord reviewed the Investment Policy, noting that only two changes were being recommended. Staff recommended approval of the submitted changes.

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2019-19 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 9 - General Residence and 4 Office Zoning (RG-O) of the Dover Code be amended by inserting the bold, blue text and deleting 5 the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 6 Section 9. - General residence and office zoning [zone] (RG-O). 7 9.1 Uses permitted. In a general residence and office zone, no building or premises shall be 8 used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or 9 designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: 10 9.11 Any use permitted in the general residence zone, except off-street parking accessory 11 to uses in the central commercial zone (C-2). 12 9.12 Any use permitted in the RM-2 zone. 13 9.13 Business, professional, or governmental office on suitably landscaped lots. 14 9.14 The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning 15 commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions 16 set forth in section 10.1 and to any specified requirements set forth below: 17 (a) After a building complex in this zone has reached a building space area of 18 100,000 square feet, then the following uses shall be permitted as conditional 19 uses, subject to the approval of the planning commission: cafeterias, restaurants, 20 barbershops, beauty shops, travel agencies, banks, copy centers, coffee supplies, 21 retail stores, newsstands and associated laboratory facilities. 22 (b) In order to stimulate limited commercial activity in this zone where the city's 23 historic district overlay zone exists and to make this portion of the city's historic 24 district a greater attraction to tourists and residents, the following list of 25 preferred uses may be permitted as conditional uses, subject to the approval of 26 the planning commission: 27 i. Antique shops, art galleries, gift and card shops, book stores, specialty 28 hobby stores (i.e., miniatures, models, needlecrafts), bakeries (including 29 baking on premises), barbershops, and restaurants. 30 ii. Limitation of entrances from State Street only. 31 iii. Total floor area of any one retail use is not to exceed 2,000 square feet.

Ordinance #2019-19-Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 9 - General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) Page 2 32 iv. Such uses will be subject to historic district requirements and will 33 therefore require an architectural review certificate. Architectural review 34 certificates for retail uses described above shall not be granted unless it 35 has been demonstrated that the proposed use will result in either no 36 material change to the exterior of the structure visible from State Street 37 or will result in a restoration of the structure to an appearance which can 38 be documented to more closely reflect the historical appearance of that 39 structure. Material change would include modifications to doors, 40 windows and masonry, other than routine maintenance. 41 v. No parking shall be required for the retail user. 42 vi. If new construction is proposed on State Street between Loockerman and 43 Water Streets, the proposal must not require demolition or extensive 44 modifications of any existing structure which presently contributes to the 45 historic district because of its age or architectural appearance. In addition, 46 the RG-O zone bulk and parking requirements would be waived in certain 47 respects. Lot width and depth will be as appropriate to the site, subject to 48 architectural review and site plan review. Setbacks will be discouraged. 49 Side yards will reflect the needs of adjacent structures by providing 50 adequate light and air to reach existing windows. The height limit of 35 51 feet or 2½ stories will be retained, as will the 85 percent lot coverage 52 limit. The floor area ratio limitation will be raised to 1.0. The parking 53 requirements will be waived. 54 (c) Bed and breakfast inns, subject to the following: 55 i. A bed and breakfast inn may only be established within a primary 56 residential structure or in an associated accessory structure. 57 ii. The owner of the property shall reside on the premises of the bed and 58 breakfast inn or in an adjacent premises. However, if ownership of the 59 property is in the name of a corporation, partnership, trust, etc., a 60 full-time resident manager/operator/innkeeper shall reside in the principal 61 structure on the subject property or adjacent property. 62 iii. The principal structure shall contain at least one full bathroom for the 63 exclusive use of the owner or resident manager and other members of the 64 immediate household. In addition, one full bathroom shall be provided 65 for each two guestrooms. Each full bathroom shall contain a minimum of 66 one water closet (toilet), one lavatory (sink) and one bathtub or shower 67 stall and shall comply with all applicable building and plumbing codes.

Ordinance #2019-19-Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 9 - General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) Page 3 68 iv. The number of guestrooms requested shall be set forth in the application 69 for conditional use. The planning commission shall expressly establish 70 the maximum number of guestrooms permitted for any application for 71 which approval is granted. In no case shall a bed and breakfast inn 72 contain more than ten guestrooms. 73 v. Off-street parking shall be provided at a minimum of two spaces, plus 74 one space per guestroom. Off-street parking shall be prohibited in the 75 front yard, except that such parking which may be customarily 76 accommodated on a single width driveway may be permitted. Required 77 parking may be provided on the premises or off the premises, provided 78 that such off-premises parking is located within 150 feet walking distance 79 of the bed and breakfast property. 80 vi. Lot coverage for a bed and breakfast inn shall not exceed 60 percent of 81 the lot. 82 vii. Signage is limited to one sign, not to exceed six square feet in area. Signs 83 may be illuminated, provided that internally illuminated signs shall be 84 prohibited. 85 viii. Meals may be served to residents and overnight guests only. No cooking 86 appliances or kitchenettes shall be permitted within the guestrooms, 87 except for small refrigerators and microwave ovens. 88 ix. The stay of overnight guests shall be limited to 30 consecutive days. 89 x. The owner/operator of a bed and breakfast inn shall maintain a current 90 City of Dover business license and the establishment shall be inspected 91 at least semi-annually by the City of Dover Fire Marshal and the City of 92 Dover Health Inspector for compliance with all applicable life safety and 93 health and sanitation codes. 94 9.15 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign 95 regulations. 96 9.2 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in 97 article 5, section 8.1. 98 9.3 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 99 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the 100 erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval 101 shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use.

Ordinance #2019-19-Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 9 - General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) Page 4 102 9.4 Off-street parking. No parking lot shall be located within the minimum required front yard, 103 nor between the street line and the principal building on the lot. Off-street parking shall be 104 provided in accordance with the provisions of article 4 and article 6 of this ordinance. 105 (Ord. of 2-14-1983; Ord. of 1-9-1989; Ord. of 6-26-1989; Ord. of 2-10-1992; Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 106 14; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. No. 2012-15, 8-13-2012) 107 ADOPTED: * 108 S:\ORDINANCES\2019\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2019-19-APDX B ART 3 SEC 9 - RG-O - BARBERSHOP\ORDINANCE #2019-19 APPD B ART 3 SEC 9 - RG-O - BARBERSHOP 1st 109 Reading.wpd 110 SYNOPSIS 111 The amendment would permit barbershops in the General Residence and Office (RG-O) zone. 112 (SPONSORS: POLCE AND SLAVIN) 113 Actions History 114 12/09/2019 - Scheduled for First Reading - City Council 115 11/26/2019 - Introduced - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF January 8, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF January 21, 2020 Plan Title: Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges, SB-20-01 Plan Type: Minor Subdivision Plan Applicant/Owner: Mr. Steven D. Heiges Project Engineer: Mr. Troy Adams, P. E.; Mountain Consulting Property Location: Southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road Property Addresses: 1504 and 1506 College Road, Dover DE Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000 ED-05-067.18-01-02.00-000 Existing Site Area: 1.79 acres +/- (prior to 0.10 acre +/- dedication to R.O.W.) Parcels to be Created: Lot 1: 37,443.4 S.F. (0.86 acre +/-) Lot 2: 9,891.0 S.F. (0.23 acre +/-) Lot 3: 8,404.5 S.F. (0.19 acre +/-) Lot 4: 8,826.9 S.F. (0.20 acre +/-) Lot 5: 9,249.3 S.F. (0.21 acre +/-) Zoning: R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Total of five (5) single-family dwelling lots. Sewer & Water: City of Dover Comprehensive Plan: Residential Medium Density Request for Consideration: Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: January 8, 2020 APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road FILE #: SB-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Samantha Bulkilvish, Planner I PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY: This application is the review of a Minor Subdivision Plan to permit subdivision of two existing parcels, a total of 1.79 +/- acres of land, into five (5) lots. The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The properties are located on the southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road. The owner of record is Steven D. Heiges. Property Addresses: 1504 & 1506 College Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000 and ED-05-067.18-01-02.00-000. Council District 4. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This subdivision of land and any further development on the parcels is subject to the requirements found in the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §1 and referenced sections. This outlines the permitted uses for the R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The zone permits one-family detached dwellings. The applicant provided a photographic example of a potential dwelling to be built on the proposed lots. This Minor Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide the Lands of Steven D. Heiges property (2 parcels) into five (5) separate lots all with frontage and access on College Road. See the following Table for summary of the lots. Site Building Area Proposed Acreage Lot 1 Single-Family Dwelling 0.86 acre Lot 2 Single-Family Dwelling 0.23 acre Lot 3 Single-Family Dwelling 0.19 acre Lot 4 Single-Family Dwelling 0.20 acre Lot 5 Single-Family Dwelling 0.21 acre Total 5 Single Dwelling Lots 1.69 acres

SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 2 III. ZONING REVIEW R-7 Zoning District The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) and is subject to the regulations of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §1 and Article 4 §4.1. The following table highlights some of the lot design standards for the R-7 Zone for one-family dwelling development: Minimum Required R-7 Minimum Requirements per Dwelling Unit: Lot area (sq. ft.) 7000 Lot width (ft.) 50 Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front Yard 20 Minimum side yard (ft.) 5 Total side yards (ft.) 10 Rear yard (ft.) 30 Off- street parking spaces 2 Maximum Permitted R-7 Building Height: Stories 2.5 Feet 35 Lot Coverage 40% The proposed subdivision appears to comply with the R-7 bulk standards of Article 4 §4.1 as outlined per dwelling unit. The calculation of lot coverage is not listed on the plan to determine compliance as the dwellings shown are just conceptual and will require review upon submittal of any Building Permits. Each of the five (5) lots meets the minimum requirements in the R-7 Zone and can accommodate a dwelling. V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Driveways and Access The submitted plan shows two shared driveways and one single access driveway that will all have access off of College Road. Lot 5 shows an existing driveway to be removed. Parking is available in the driveway for a minimum of one vehicle. The minimum required width of residential driveways is nine (9) feet. The concept dwellings shown on the Plan appear to include a garage that can accommodate another vehicle. Driveway location and access is subject to DelDOT review and entrance permitting. Sidewalk The submitted plan shows a proposed 5-foot-wide sidewalk along the College Road frontage contained within a 15.4-foot R.O.W. Dedication. There is an additional 15-foot Permanent DelDOT Easement within the 20-foot front yard building setback. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18 requires the installation of sidewalks along the public street frontage of a property whenever such property involves a development proposal which is subject to Planning Commission review and approval. The proposed sidewalk meets this requirement.

SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 3 Trees Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §16 requires tree planting at a rate of one (1) tree for every 3,000 S.F., or fraction thereof of land area. The tree planting requirement is based on the total lot area and may include existing trees. Mature trees are found on the existing site and are shown on a landscaping plan sheet submitted with the Minor Subdivision Plan. Lots 2 through 5 are required to have 3 trees on each lot, which are shown on the submitted plan. Lot 1 has a considerable amount of wooded area. These woodlands to be retained will affect the number of trees required for Lot 1. Subtract the area covered by woodlands from the total area of Lot 1, the remaining (non-woodland) area is to be used to calculate the number of trees required. Request for Consideration of Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10 requires the reservation of open space, recreation and other public facilities as a condition of approval for any one-family dwelling residential developments requiring land subdivision approval by the City of Dover Planning Commission. The applicant is required to provide 275 SF of Active Recreation Area per dwelling unit or one-half acre, whichever is greater. This subdivision would be required to have one-half acre of Active Recreation Area given the number of proposed dwelling units. Since the proposed subdivision is less than 5 acres and 10 dwelling units there is an exemption. The developer may instead make a cash donation in lieu of the requirements for providing dedicated land area for an Active Recreation Area. The amount of the donation shall be the equivalent of ten percent of the appraised value of gross land area. The donation will be deposited in a separate account (City’s Parkland Reserve Fund) to be used for parks, playgrounds or recreational purposes. VI. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with this agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) The concept plan presented is to be revised to create the formal Record Plan sheet including title block, data columns, notes, and owner/engineer certifications, etc. a. Remove ‘Part of ED-05-067.17-01-79.00-000’ from the Site Data Column on all pages as it appears this parcel is not involved. b. Include the maximum building height of 35 ft. under the Bulk Standards. c. Clarify if there will be any area dedicated as open space/active recreation area. 2) Check the projection or map scale. When measured at the 1” = 30’ scale the measurements fall a little short or is longer than what is written on the plan. For example, the southeast distance located at the easternmost boundary of the property is labeled at 200’ but measures approximately 202’ and the northeast boundary along College Road is labeled 290.95’ but measures 288’. 3) Update the zoning on parcel ED-05-067.18-01-85.00-00001 from RG-3 to RG-2 on all pages. 4) On page 2 the Preliminary Utility Plan, the label for ‘Engineer Certification’ should be moved down to right above the statement and signature line.

SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 4 5) Update the Landscape Plan sheet with the following: a. Remove Parcel 79.00 from Items #1 and #2 in the Site Data Column. b. Update the phone number for the Owner of Record. c. Verify that the trees planted at the front of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 4 are in fact 10-feet from all underground utilities measuring from the trunk to the utilities. d. Recalculate the number of trees required for Lot 1 by using the area of Lot 1 that is not covered in woodland to base your calculation from. e. Please add ‘and the City Planning Office.’ to the end of Note #11. f. Include a note that a one-year full price replacement guarantee on all new trees to be planted is held by the applicant. 6) If instead of providing the land for an Active Recreation Area to meet the required ½ acre, the applicant may seek approval of a Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area construction. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee and Planning Commission must review the Request for Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction. a. Please provide an appraisal of the land to assist in the determination of the amount of the cash-in-lieu donation. b. Following calculation of the Cash-in-lieu amount, the information will be scheduled at future meetings of the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee and the Planning Commission for final action/acceptance. 7) The Record Plan Sheet must document and identify any easements for cross access, utilities, drainage, etc. associated with the subdivision of these lots. 8) The Final Record Plat submitted must include requirements described in Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article IV, C. Plat. VII. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: The Land Subdivision Regulations, Article I. Purpose, indicates that the regulations are adopted in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare; ensure the orderly growth and development of the City, the conservation, protection and proper use of land, and adequate provision for housing, recreation, circulation, utilities and services; and safeguard the City from undue future expenditure for the maintenance of streets and public spaces. Similar safeguards are also in the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and in the Site Development Plan objectives listed in subsections Article 10 §2.21 to 2.28. 1) This Minor Subdivision Plan creates five parcels out of two parcels; the areas remain zoned R-7. Planning Staff finds that the Subdivision Plan complies with the Land Subdivision Regulations. 2) Consideration of Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area: The applicant seeks to pay a Cash- in-lieu of Active Recreation Area donation to the City’s Parkland Reserve Fund. The Commission should determine if this is appropriate for this Minor Subdivision application.

SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 5 Staff recommends approval for a Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction finding that there are only five lots proposed on an area of less than 10 acres making it eligible for the exemption from the required Active Recreation Area. If the area at the rear of Lot 1 were to be converted into one-half acre of Active Recreation Area a new plan would have to be submitted showing the type of active recreation proposed. Any type of shared area requiring maintenance also requires the creation of a Home Owner’s Association and mandatory membership of all home owners. The area also does not fit the first design guideline which is “Accessible.” Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §10.151 says “Recreation areas shall be accessible within the development and arranged in a manner which affords reasonable access to all residents within the development, provide that each remote location is accessible.” In this case the Recreation Area would only be accessible if the subdivision plan were to include extensive cross-access agreements as the potential area for Active Recreation is not centrally located. A reconfiguration of lots to make the Recreation Area more centrally located would be costly and may result in the reduction of the number of lots due to their ability to meet bulk standards. Therefore, Staff agrees with the Applicant that a Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction donation is a suitable request. The submission of an appraisal will be required to complete the calculation of the donation amount. The application will then be scheduled for Review with the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee and Planning Commission. Payment of the approved amount is required prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. Other agencies may recommend additional conditions and safeguards in accordance with their areas of expertise. The Recommended Additional Considerations to Meet Code Objectives are offered for consideration by the Planning Commission. VII. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Minor Subdivision Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies making recommendations in regard to the plan. 2) Following Planning Commission approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement prior to recordation at the Kent County Recorder of Deeds Office. 3) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 4) Any future property line alterations not recorded with the current application will also be subject to Planning Commission review.

SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road DAC Report of January 8, 2020 Page 6 5) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign may require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4. 6) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2019 APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road FILE #: SB-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 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 ELECTRIC 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department.

Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road File #: SB-20-01 December 31, 2019 Page 2 of 4 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 Public Works specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Works Construction Manager at (302) 736-7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Public Works 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. 4. Water service lines shall be shown for each residential lot meeting the following requirements: The water services shall be one-inch (1”) diameter Type K copper tubing, and installed five feet (5’) to the right of the sewer lateral as viewed from the center line of the street. Curb stops shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way for each lot. A water meter and meter pit must be installed on the domestic water service, in a non-traffic bearing location just downstream of the curb stop. 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. The Department of Public Works 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. Please depict the location of existing water services on the plan. 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 Public Works 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,

Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road File #: SB-20-01 December 31, 2019 Page 3 of 4 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 minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 4. 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, including cleanouts. 5. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be shown for each residential lot meeting the following requirements: The sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”) diameter schedule 35 PVC and, where practicable, installed to the center of each lot. Sewer laterals shall be connected directly to the main, not manholes, unless impracticable. Sewer laterals are to be installed one foot (1’) beyond the right-of-way line at a typical depth of three feet (3’), preferably not exceeding five feet (5’). Cleanouts shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way for each lot. The City of Dover has a sanitary sewer main located in Reed Street, the laterals shall connect to this infrastructure. 6. Please depict the location of existing wastewater laterals on the plan. 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. If Kent Conservation District does not require an approved plan, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted to our office for review and approval. This is required for the City of Dover to maintain compliance with our MS4 permit. 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 copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. SANITATION 1. Every residential property 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. 2. Trash collection site shall be oriented for side-loading pick-up if customer is utilizing City of Dover sanitation services. GROUNDS 1. None. 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. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2004 (.dwg format). b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/. WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / GROUNDS / GENERAL / STREETS / SANITATION 1. None.

Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road File #: SB-20-01 December 31, 2019 Page 4 of 4 ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None 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. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed three (3) times per year during system wide flushing operations. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 3. Impact fees may be required for this project. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation that there were existing dwellings on this site connected to the City’s sanitary sewer and water system. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. 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. Impact fees may be required for this project. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation that there were pervious dwellings existing on this site connected to the City’s sanitary sewer and water system. STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. 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 .

C F SB-20-01 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: 12/31/19 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Rd FILE #: SB-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is residential 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the

street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) 3. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 4. Full building and fire plan review is required. 5. Separate building permits/plans submission will be required for each building and/or tenant fit out. If the permit submission is for a “shell” a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Separate plans and permits submissions will be required for each “tenant fit out” at which time a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued upon compliance/completion of each “tenant fit out”. Each “shell” will require a fire permit for sprinkler and fire alarm if applicable. Those systems (for the “shell”) must be accepted into service prior to any “tenant fit out” fire permits being issued. 6. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 7. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, exhaust ducts, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire Marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved. 8. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: December 31, 2019 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Steven D. Heiges (1504 & 1506 College Road) FILE#: SB-20-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The minor subdivision is located on a road with a functional classification of a Minor Arterials. The required entrance spacing required is a minimum of 250’ O.C.