paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, July 20, 2020 – 7:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting The Planning Commission Meeting for July 20, 2020 at 7:00PM will be held only as a Virtual Meeting using WebEx. Representatives of each Project Application will receive a specific invitation to attend this meeting. Regular Planning Commission member participants will receive a specific invitation to attend meeting as a Panelist. Public Participation Information To Attend City of Dover Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 2020 Public Participation Information: Dial 1-408-418-9388 Event number/Access code: 129 145 9976 Event password: DoverPC Event Address: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php?MTID=e2bb8cc86e95caedab89d6 91cf0875f8c Written comments are accepted via mail to City of Dover – Planning Commission, P.O. Box 475 Dover DE 19903 and via email at CompPlan@dover.de.us. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. WELCOME to Virtual Meeting of Planning Commission PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING SESSION 1 of May 18, 2020 ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING SESSION 2 of May 18, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting date is Monday, August 17, 2020 at 7:00 PM. 2) Update on City Council Actions a. Reappointments/Appointments to the Planning Commission 3) Department of Planning & Inspections Updates SPECIAL RECOGNITION 1) Resolution honoring Frederick Tolbert for his service on the Planning Commission OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES for APPLICATIONS

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: July 20, 2020 Page 2 of 2 OLD BUSINESS 1) Request Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Development Application: Submission of Requested Information a. S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan – Receipt of Submission of Maintenance Plan for Wetland Mitigation Area associated with the Site Development Master Plan Application conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2020 to permit redevelopment of the school property in a series of Phases. Phase 1: construction of a new 238,500 SF middle schools building, parking, and other site improvements; Phase 2: Sports Fields and two associated 2,300 SF buildings; Phase 3: 19,500 SF future building addition; and Phase 4: two 33,800 SF future building additions. The proposal involves a series of land tracts totaling 44.71 acres +/- and are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The land tracts are located on the north side of Walker Road and east of Schoolhouse Lane. The property is adjacent to Silver Lake. The owner of record is Dover Special School District. Property Address (all parcels): 1 Pat Lynn Drive. Tax Parcel ID (all parcels): ED-05-067.11-01-68.00-000. Council District 4. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road: Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to revise the Phase 2 area of the site by replacing the multi-tenant retail building on the north with a 20,000 SF office building, by adding an 80-unit apartment building, and retaining the two restaurant sites. The proposed office building is a permitted use in the zoning district; however, the apartments require a Conditional Use. The area for Phase 1: Office Building of 62,900 SF is already under construction. The total site area is 12.9366 acres +/- and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The property is located on the southwest side of Bay Road and across from the intersection with Blue Hen Boulevard. The owner of record is Bayroadcap, LLC. Property Address: 600 Bay Road. Tax Parcel ID: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request to Reconfirm: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer. For Reconfirmation: Tree Mitigation Plan. For Consideration: Active Recreation Plan and Request for Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction. Application S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building – Update to Bay Road Commercial (Phase 1) was previously approved by the Planning Commission in September 2019 and received Final Plan Approval on March 6, 2020. NEW BUSINESS 1) Nomination and Election of Officers (Chairman and Vice-Chairman) due to Vacancy and Annual Meeting of Planning Commission 2) Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28) 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: July 10, 2020

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 SESSION #1 The Meeting Session 1 of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:30 PM as a Virtual Meeting using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19. This application was previously postponed due to the cancellations of the March 16, 2020 and April 20, 2020 meetings of the Planning Commission. The Meeting Session was conducted with Acting Chair (Vice Chair) Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hartman, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, and Mr. Baldwin (joined later). Mr. Tolbert was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Doug Liberman, Mr. Tolano Anderson, Mr. Steven Heiges, Ms. Holly Mayer, Mr. Mike Reimann, Mr. Jonathan Street, Mr. Bill Krapf and Mr. Mark Strickland. Speaking from the public were Mr. Derek Headley, Mr. Mark Reaves and Mr. Terry Whitfield. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Edwards moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Tolbert absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2020 Mr. Adams moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2020, second by Ms. Edwards and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Tolbert absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION QUARTERLY WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2020 Mr. Hartman moved to approve the Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop Meeting Minutes of February 19, 2020, second by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Tolbert absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 15, 2020. We are hoping to be back in the City Hall Council Chambers but we may be holding it virtually again. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on February 24, 2020, March 9, 2020, April 13, 2020, April 27, 2020 and May 11, 2020 Mr. Hugg stated that they have been doing their best to keep the functions of the City open and operating but with very limited public contact and with somewhat of a skeleton crew. Staff across the Department is working some partial days a week. Many of us are working remotely from home. We have instituted a variety of safety and health requirements including masks and 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 temperature taking for people who do come in the office. This week, we expanded the Code operations, not quite to full force yet but beyond what they had been because we were starting to get a number of Code violations. The permit numbers and building activity seems to be progressing fairly steadily. Most of it is being done electronically and remotely so we have minimized our direct public contact. The Planning Staff has been coming in on random schedules on various days doing permits, answering zoning requests, and other planning related functions. Mr. Hugg stated that they received a letter from Dr. Jones stating her desire to resign as the Chairman of the Planning Commission but retaining her membership. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the item related to Dr. Jones’ letter and her resignation as Chair is the reason why Ms. Maucher is serving as Acting Chair. We have placed the election of officer on our second session this evening as an agenda item at the end of that meeting. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the Virtual meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Revisions to Applications: a. S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road - Update on Revisions to Site Development Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan Application associated with plan to demolish the existing structures and then construct a one-story 4,504 SF Car Wash (Service Establishment) with associated site improvements. The subject properties total 2.07 +/- acres and are located east side of Saulsbury Road north of Forest Street and west of Carver Road. The properties are zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owner of record for all properties is Faithwork LLC. Property Addresses: 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road; 20 (and 26), 30 and 34 Carver Road; 971, 975 and 983 Forest Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05- 076.07-01-38.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-39.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-61.00-000, ED-05- 076.07-01-60.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-59.00-000, ED-05-076.07-01-62.00-000, ED-05- 076.07-01-36.00-000, and ED-05-076.07-01-37.00-000. Council District 4. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of Site Plan S-19-22 on October 21, 2019. Representatives: Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering; Mr. Tolano Anderson, Faithwork, LLC Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an update to application S-19-22 for the Tommy Car Wash at Carver Road. This was heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 2019. The plan is currently in what they call the Check Print review process and as such, the applicant is working with the various agencies to finalize the Site Plan. In doing so, the applicant has identified some revisions that Staff felt warranted at least informational items to the Planning 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 Commission so that the Commission may be aware of them. Those include in reference to what is displayed on the screen as a Lot Consolidation Plan. This project consists of eight parcels of land. With their new proposal for consolidation, they are looking to consolidate the eight lots into three lots. Lot 1 being the main area where the Car Wash and its parking will be located. Lot 2 would be several parcels that front on Saulsbury Road and include an entrance access point. Lot 3 is the parcel at 34 Carver Road. It is currently residential in nature and is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and will remain as a single parcel and not included in this development. There have been some changes to the Site Plan, in refining their proposal. The property at 34 Carver Road, with it being excluded, has now relocated the opaque barrier and associated landscaping along the entrance drive. That necessitated the dumpster being relocated to a different spot. Then the stormwater management area has been enlarged to satisfy for over- management in this watershed area. It is still located towards the Forest Street side of the project area; it is just much larger than originally proposed. It still includes significant landscaping around it and within it with other plantings. With these revisions, they thought it was appropriate to at least introduce them to the Planning Commission as more of an update. There is no public hearing necessary. They felt that these are things that Staff can review and confirm Zoning Ordinance compliance as part of a Check Print review but did want to bring them to the attention of the Planning Commission this evening. Mr. Liberman stated that basically what they went through for this project was that the top portion was a different zoning district and given the size of it, the developers decided that they didn’t really need that parcel to continue with the remainder of the development of the Car Wash and the parcel along Saulsbury Road. They removed it from the application and then in doing so, showed it to Mrs. Melson-Williams as to what they wanted to do. She wanted us to show that we could meet the landscaping requirement for the entire site on the remaining land because we did have some trees up in that area. What you are looking at right now is a Revised Landscape Plan showing a white vinyl fence along the property line of Parcel 59 on the north side which has been removed from the development. Then the remaining landscaping has been added throughout the site to meet the design criteria that we were trying to meet within the Corridor Overlay Zone with extensive planting along Forest Street and also Carver Road. The stormwater pond has been oversized due to the over-management necessary but it still has the same kind of grass space that we saw before. They were just thinking that they would be able to do something with that for future development when we came the first time. Aside from that, the Site Plan itself is the same as what you have seen before with the Car Wash. It is the same size and in the same location. The access and circulation throughout the site is the same. Mr. Hartman stated that during the original Planning Commission meeting, there were a number of concerns about traffic at certain times of the day and the school that is to the east. As he reads it, the revisions will not impact traffic, is that correct? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Liberman stated that it will not. Mr. Hartman questioned if the applicant still intends on initiating the precautions that they spoke of during the initial meeting to have spotters out there at certain times of the day to help with traffic? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Liberman stated yes, that is the plan. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the updates to S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road in accordance with any DAC comments and reports and as far as that it is a Revision to the plan that was approved previously, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; based on the reasons cited in her motion. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she thanks the applicant for the update and Planning Staff’s efforts. Mr. Hartman voting yes; for the reasons cited by Mrs. Welsh and also the assurances reiterated by Mr. Liberman during this meeting. Dr. Jones voting yes; based on Mrs. Welsh’s comments and the fact that applicant has addressed the necessary concerns. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on reasons previously stated. NEW BUSINESS 1) SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road - Review of the payment amount for Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction as associated with a Minor Subdivision Plan application to permit the subdivision of two existing parcels a total of 1.79 +/- acres of land into five (5) lots. The properties are located on the southeast side of College Road and east of Kenton Road. The property is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Steven D. Heiges. Property Addresses: 1504 & 1506 College Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.18-01- 02.00-000 and ED-05-067.18-01-01.00-000. Council District 4. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan SB-20-01 and its Request for Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction on January 21, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Steven Heiges, Owner Ms. Bulkilvish stated that this is for a Cash-in-lieu donation amount. The subdivision was previously approved by Planning Commission January 21, 2020 when they also approved the donation option for Active Recreation Area. Since then the applicant has provided an appraisal for the property. From that appraisal, we calculated a cash-in-lieu donation amount of $4,250. That was then presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee at their meeting March 10, 2020 at which they recommended acceptance of that donation amount. This evening, Planning Commission will discuss and make a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Heiges stated that he has no other information to share other than what’s been provided by Staff. Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve SB-20-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Steven D. Heiges at 1504 and 1506 College Road for the Cash-in-lieu payment for the Active Recreation Area in the amount of $4,250 based on the fact the amount complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; due to the fact that the amount complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Adams voting yes; given the support of the City and Council. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 based on the updated appraisal and meeting the 10% requirement. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the updated appraisal and compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Dr. Jones voting yes; in view of the previous comments by other Commissioners. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on compliance with the City Ordinance in calculating the amount due. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) AX-20-01 Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 0.21 acres +/- (9,435 SF) located at 1448 N. Little Creek Road, Dover. The property is currently zoned RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is located on the south side of N. Little Creek Road and east of Acacia Place. The annexation category according to Dover's 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. The owner is Holly L. Mayer. Property Address: 1448 N. Little Creek Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.00-01-02.00-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2020-02. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was completed on February 10, 2020. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 18, 2020, and Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled before City Council on June 8, 2020. Representative: Ms. Holly Mayer, Owner Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that Ms. Mayer is seeking to annex her property at 1448 North Little Creek Road in order to hook into the City’s utilities. The property is currently zoned RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) in Kent County and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). According to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the area is designated as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area. The land use designation is Residential Medium Density which will accommodate the proposed R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). First Reading of this Annexation Request took place at the City Council meeting of February 10, 2020. Mr. Lyon stated that he has an update for this application in regards to the water and wastewater connection. The water connection for this property has been discussed with the City Manager and we have provided a waiver for her (the Applicant) to start the process to get connected to water as her current well is inoperable. As far as the wastewater connection to this property, in the Report you may notice that the connection to City infrastructure is over 300 linear feet away and must be done through a grinder pump or a pressure lateral to the manhole in question. The City will be working with DNREC to discuss the options and their requirements of hooking into centralized sewer as the financial cost of this could result in a hardship. Ms. Maucher opened the hearing to the public and after hearing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh stated that Mr. Lyon made a comment about the financial hardship. She wants to visit that with the Applicant as far as any issues there will be. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Ms. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 Mayer stated that they discussed it because she is going through the DNREC program to get a loan for assistance. Based on estimates, they are looking at over $50,000 to tie in according to two contractors because of the distance and the requirements versus the cost of a private septic system. And also because the loan itself is capped at a certain amount based on appraisal value and the criteria that DNREC goes by for the loan program. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for AX-20-01 Lands of Holly L. Mayer at 1448 N. Little Creek Road and its rezoning to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) as it is part of the City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan in a High Priority Annexation Area, seconded by Ms. Edwards and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for the reasons stated in her motion and for the fact that the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) is appropriate with the current use of the property. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; it’s in the High Priority Annexation Area and he hopes that she gets all of the financial help that she needs in regards to the financial stress that it’s going to cause to tie in. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the fact that the property is in the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area according to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) is appropriate for that property. Mr. Hartman voting yes; on the basis that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it’s consistent with the requirements of zoning. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon previous comments. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations and previous comments from the Commissioners. 1) AX-20-02 Lands of MEB Properties, LLC at 1385-1389 McKee Road - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 78.60 acres +/- located at 1385-1389 McKee Road, Dover. The property is currently zoned RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is RG-2 (General Residence Zone) for 73.34 acres and C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) for 5.26 acres with the property frontage along McKee Road subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The property is located on the east side of Scarborough Road at the intersection of Scarborough Road and McKee Road. The annexation category according to Dover's 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Mixed Use. The owner is MEB Properties, LLC and Christopher Custis. The equitable owner is Louis J. Capano, III. Property Address: 1385-1389 McKee Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00- 067.00-01-01.00-000. Proposed Council District 4. Ordinance #2020-03. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was completed on February 10, 2020. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 18, 2020, and Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled before City Council on June 8, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Mike Riemann, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group; and Mr. Bill Krapf, Representative of the Potential Buyer Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that this is a proposed Annexation which incorporates 78.60 acres of land along McKee Road. The property is zoned RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent County and the proposed zoning includes 73.34 acres of RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and 5.26 acres of C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone). The property is also subject to the COZ-1 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1) along the frontage along McKee Road. In accordance with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the property is categorized as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area. The land use designation given to this area is Mixed Use. Both the RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) Zoning Districts are compliant with this Mixed Use land use designation. The First Reading of this Annexation Request occurred on February 10, 2020 at the City Council Meeting. Mr. Street (using a PowerPoint Presentation) stated that the request before the Commission tonight is approximately 78 acres of land that is currently in Kent County, located on McKee Road between McKee Road and Scarborough Road. Emerald Pointe is the subdivision around the intersection of College Road and McKee Road. Upon Annexation, they are requesting that the City zone the property in C-2A and RG-2 to allow for mixed use development. In doing so, these properties will be in compliance with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The property is a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use that has been proposed in the current Comprehensive Plan is Mixed Use. The parcel is outlined in yellow on the presentation and shows that Emerald Pointe is to the west. It’s bounded by McKee Road, Scarborough Road, and the railroad that runs through town. You can see from this view that the area is kind of a mixed use; there is Emerald Pointe, The Meadows, Hirsch Industries which is a heavy industrial plant that manufactures filing cabinets. You also have the school to the south and a commercial property to the southeast of this property. They are proposing a residential portion and a commercial portion creating a mixed use development which is in compliance with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also shows a large area of green space and conserved green space. What you see here are two different overlays. The dark green overlay is actually existing forest areas and the light green is existing wetland areas. These existing wetland areas in turn, preserve a majority of these woods because they can’t touch the wetlands themselves. For the most part, they are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. They don’t have any questions or any problems. They didn’t see any issue with Staff’s Report. It’s a targeted parcel within the County for the City. The land use proposed is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and the City essentially surrounds this entire parcel which makes it a good target for annexation into the City. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Derek Headley – 3 Gemstone Boulevard Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Headley stated that this parcel is directly two hundred feet across from his property. What is going to be built directly across from Emerald Pointe? Is that going to be residential or is that part of the commercial plan? Responding to Mr. Headley, Mr. Street stated that as they are in the beginning stages of the planning; this is the Annexation to bring the parcels in. They have thought of commercial pieces on that front part and a residential piece would be closer to the back as shown on one of the slides. As for what would go in there right now, there is no formal plan. That would have to follow the Planning process through the City. Mr. Headley stated that his concern is that he doesn’t know if any of the Commission members have tried to get out of Emerald Pointe during the peak hours of the day. To make a left hand turn, it is almost impossible. There is so much traffic coming off of Route 1 from Scarborough Road into McKee Road and they are going to be negatively impacted if a substantial amount of 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 building is done across that road. On the June 8, 2020 meeting, we will have a significant amount of residents from Emerald Pointe joining the call. They nominated him since he received a letter to do the initial searching on what’s going to be built there. He thinks that they need to look at the planning as far as the traffic is concerned on this particular road, especially impacting this development. Responding to Mr. Headley, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in order for development to occur, there is a whole other Site Plan Review process. This step here is to annex the property into the City of Dover and set a zoning classification. Traffic is certainly one of the things that any Site Plan development will have to address. Depending on their scale of development, the requirements from DelDOT will certainly try to alleviate some of the traffic and transportation concerns. There likely are improvements that will be necessary in order for this property, should it be annexed into the City to take access from McKee Road. There is a limited frontage area where that can occur because of previous agreements regarding the parcel. Mr. Headley stated that he appreciates them taking that into consideration. Two years ago, this same parcel was trying to build quite a bit of commercial property on that parcel. With the help of the Mayor, they were able to taper some of that down. The Mayor actually put a light right before the intersection going into Route 8 that has helped somewhat but if we are now talking about seventy-eight acres being rezoned for general commercial, he thinks that they are going to be right back behind the 8-ball again. Mr. Mark Reaves – 10 Tanzanite Court Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Reaves stated that his request is to have the parcel remain RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) and not convert over to the RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone). They are requesting that this stay as a residential area and not commercial because the impact would be tremendous to our development. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) is a County zoning classification. Once a property is annexed into the City of Dover, we have to set a City of Dover zoning classification. The RG-2 (General Residence Zone) zoning classification is a residential zone. They are also seeking a portion of the property to be the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) which allows for commercial; yet it also allows for some residential uses as well. Mr. Reaves stated that where they want to have the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone), that is the portion that is going to negatively impact McKee Road. There are a couple of issues with that. That road has a high speed of traffic so in order to put some commercial property right there, it is only a two lane road and that is going to have a big negative impact. He recommends that they remain with RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and not put a commercial zone at the property. Have those things been addressed or looked at during consideration for that zoning change? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that tonight is when the Planning Commission considers a recommendation on zoning for the property. The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies this property for a land use designation of Mixed Use; so, that means a mixture of residential and commercial would be something that would be viable at that location. How it is formatted on the property is what is under consideration with their proposal. Mr. Reaves questioned if the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) portion is going to have residential in that area? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) allows for some residential uses. Their design of what will be built 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 is yet to come should it be annexed into the City. The C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) allows for one family residences; single family detached houses as well as apartments and multi-family dwellings. Mr. Reaves stated the proposed zoning for RG-2 (General Residence Zone) is acceptable. The proposed zoning for the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) is unacceptable. Ms. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Adams moved to recommend approval to City Council for AX-20-02 Lands of MEB Properties, LLC at 1385-1389 McKee Road and its rezoning to RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) as submitted with the property frontage area being subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1), seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 8- 0 by roll call vote with Mr. Tolbert absent. Mr. Adams voting yes; the subject property is in the City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and has a land use designation of Mixed Use. He believes that the RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and the C-2A (Limited Commercial Zone) are consistent with development in the area and is consistent with the land use designation of Mixed Use. He further asks that the applicant as a matter of process to continue to work with the residents of Emerald Pointe to make sure that their input is weighed and considered as progress moves forward on this site. Mr. Roach voting yes; he asks that the applicants continue to work with the community and try to keep in consideration the things that they have concerns about. He also asks the community to make sure that they continue to follow up on different meetings so that they can continue to express their concerns. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on the fact that it’s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and for other reasons previously stated. Mr. Hartman voting yes; because of the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan but he does encourage the applicant to continue to work with the homeowners adjacent to come up with a solution to their concerns. He thinks that the Commissioners should remember this when this comes before us in the future. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the comments stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion and also taking into consideration the comments of the neighborhood in regards to C- 2A (Limited Commercial Zone). The area proposed there is five acres out of the seventy-eight and that commercial portion does allow for residential and commercial activities that are in accordance with a residential area as opposed to what she sees is strictly commercial. She does encourage the neighbors to continue to monitor the request as they come before the Commission and we will all work to make sure that it is the comprehensive area in accordance with what is deemed compatible with the neighborhood there. Dr. Jones voting yes; she is in total agreement with comments made by Mr. Roach and Mr. Hartman. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. 2) C-20-01 Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park: Lot 4) - Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to permit the construction of four 1-story warehouse buildings totaling 30,955 +/- SF and associated site improvements at 131 Rosemary Road. The subject property is 2.88 acres +/- and is located on the north end of Rosemary Road north of Lafferty Lane. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zone A and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II). The owner of 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 record is Blue Collar Guild, LLC. Property Address: 131 Rosemary Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.16-02-12.03-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing, Elimination of Sidewalk along Rosemary Road frontage, and Woodland Mitigation Plan. Consideration of Performance Standards Review Application. Representatives: Mr. Cameron Llewelynn, Owner; Mr. Mark Strickland, Century Engineering Mr. Swierczek stated this is an application to permit construction of four one-story warehouse buildings. The stated uses of the buildings were for wholesale storage, manufacturing and building contractors’ yards. There are several previous applications for this site to note. Particularly, SB-95-04 Simpson Industrial Park which received final approval in August 1997. This was the initial overall subdivision for the sites. This application did not show sidewalks to be provided along Rosemary Road. It did note that Rosemary Road was to in the future, be completed to City standards and sub-sequentially dedicated to the City which is something that the City has had a question about. This plan also identified specific areas for reforestation areas, some of which are located on the site subject to this application. With this submission, are two waiver requests. The first of which is for the elimination of sidewalks required along the Rosemary Road frontage. Generally, sidewalks are required along all street frontages; however, there are currently no sidewalks provided along any other frontage on Rosemary Road. There is also a recent Conditional Use application for 122 Rosemary Road which was C-19-08 reviewed by the Planning Office is October 2019; and it was granted a waiver from the requirement of the sidewalks along the Rosemary Road frontage. Staff is similarly recommending approval for the same waiver request here. There was also a waiver request submitted for the partial elimination of curbing. Generally, there is a six-inch curbing requirement for all parking and drive aisle areas. The applicant has submitted the waiver request stating that it is to help facilitate stormwater run-off. Planning Staff has granted that waiver request. There is a further Tree Mitigation Plan. The original development of the Simpson Industrial Park required that 28,695 SF of reforestation occur on this subject parcel. Additionally, there are 11,346 SF of existing woodlands on the site. The applicant has submitted a request for a Tree Mitigation Plan in which they propose to accommodate 100% of the tree plantings required for that woodland mitigation at the property of 151 Garrison Oak Drive. That is located on the east side of Dover and that will reforest previous agricultural land area creating natural woodland areas. Staff again notes that the square footage of trees to be provided in that Mitigation Plan are to be 1.25 times the square footage over the maximum 50% woodland allowed to be removed. The Mitigation Plan must also account for the previous reforestation woodland area being removed from that previous application. Staff is further recommending the approval of that proposed Tree Mitigation Plan. Finally, this development is also required to go through the Performance Standards Review. A letter for the Performance Standards Review application was submitted for consideration to the Planning Commission. Just as a reminder to the Planning Commission, they should act upon the request for the waiver from the requirement of the sidewalk along the Rosemary Road frontage, the Performance Standards Review Application, and the Tree Mitigation Plan as part of any motion regarding this project application. Mr. Strickland stated that they are proposing four warehouse type storage buildings that will be used for a variety of tenants. They are looking to lease each building to three to four tenants so there will be a total of up to thirteen tenants on the property. They have requested two waivers and then the Tree Mitigation waiver. The owner of the site, Blue Collar Guild, LLC and 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 Advantech are in verbal agreement for the off-site plantings and they will formalize that agreement upon hearing Planning Commission’s approval for this. Otherwise, the stormwater has been approval by Kent Conservation District. There is no DelDOT approval needed and they have received approvals from Public Works and are waiting on final confirmation from the Fire Marshal’s Office and Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and Fire Marshal both have our final sets of plans. Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Terry Whitfield – Ms. Bulkilvish stated that Mr. Whitfield has been communicating through the (WebEx) chat option. He stated that he is the potential owner of 110 Lafferty Lane and is interested in what is being proposed. She’s sure after seeing the proposal, he has additional questions but she doesn’t know what they are currently. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that his question is in regards to the sidewalk that will run along his potential property. She doesn’t know that his property is adjacent to this application. She does not believe that his property is adjacent to this property. They are other properties between it and Lafferty Lane. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mr. Whitfield messaged her as the host. He says that he is all for development. He just wanted to know because he is in the corner of the entrance for the public and they have to pass through the property. Responding to Mr. Whitfield, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that maybe he is one of the parcels that is adjacent to Rosemary Road and Lafferty Lane. If he wished to do any development on his property, then it would be subject to its own development review process and consideration of sidewalk requirements for it. This application this evening has one waiver and it is specific to its frontage on Rosemary Road to eliminate sidewalk. Ms. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that it probably doesn’t relate to what’s before us tonight but he read that in the 1995 application, Rosemary Road was supposed to have been up to Dover standards and turned over to the City but that’s never happened. Does the City have any concerns with that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in order for the road to be inspected for maintenance by the City, it has to be built to certain standards. If it is not built to those standards, then we could not accept it for dedication. It would remain a private road and those properties would be responsible for long term maintenance. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve C-20-01 Rosemary Road Warehouses at 131 Rosemary Road (Simpson Industrial Park: Lot 4) in accordance with any DAC comments and also for the compliance with the request for the elimination of sidewalk, partial elimination of curbing, the Tree Mitigation Plan as noted in the DAC comments and the Performance Standards Review application associated with this Conditional Use Plan, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin not able to speak and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; it looks like it will be a nice addition to that property. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on DAC recommendations. Dr. Jones voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations and comments previously made. Meeting adjourned at 7:13 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2020 SESSION #2 The Meeting Session 2 of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:00 PM as a Virtual Meeting using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19. Applications were previously postponed due to the cancellations of the April 20, 2020 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Meeting Session was conducted with Acting Chair (Vice Chair) Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Welsh, and Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Tolbert and Dr. Jones were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Gregg Moore, Mr. Jim McLaughlin, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. Jonathon Falkowski, and Dr. Dan Shelton. Speaking from the public were Mr. Chris Tollinger, Ms. Connie Holland, Mr. John Parker, Ms. Linda Goodnight, Ms. Lorili Semple, Mr. Doug Halverson, Ms. Marie Biggs, Mr. Anthony DePrima, and Mrs. Kari Tollinger. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2020 (there will be no June meeting). OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the virtual meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Request Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: a. SB-19-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street – Request for Extension of Minor Subdivision Plan approval granted by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2019 to permit the subdivision of 105.6689 +/- acres of land into: the new Lot 1 of 16.3949 acres and the Residual of 89.2740 acres. The property is located on the south side of West North Street and west of POW-MIA Parkway. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The owner of record is General Foods Corp. (Kraft Foods Group, Inc.) Property Address: 1250 West North Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.00-01-12.00-000 and ED-05-076.00-01-10.00-000. Council District 2. Note: On April 17, 2020 as part of the City’s Continuity of Government operations, the Planning Office administratively extended the expiration date of the Plan approval for 30 days after the termination of the Delaware State of Emergency. 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 Representatives: Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Melson-Williams gave a brief overview of the application’s request for a one-year extension. Began recording the meeting. Mr. Moore stated that this application is going ahead, and they have been going back and forth with DelDOT related to road access and they do plan to complete the project. Mr. Adams moved to approve SB-19-01 Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Kraft Foods Group Inc. at 1250 W. North Street and their request for an extension of the Planning Commission approval, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion as carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; the extension request is for the final step to obtain approval. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff’s recommendations. NEW APPLICATIONS 1) AX-20-03 Lands of JACJIM, LLC at 679 Horsepond Road – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 2.00 acres +/- located at 679 Horsepond Road, Dover. The property is currently zoned BG (General Business District) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The property is located on the east side of Horsepond Road and south of but not adjacent to S. Little Creek Road. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Industrial. The owner is JACJIM, LLC. Property Address: 679 Horsepond Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-078.00-01- 02.02-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2020-07. Representatives: Mr. Jim McLaughlin, JACJIM, LLC; Mr. Stephen Davies, Apex Engineering Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that the applicant wishes to annex the two-acre property located at 679 Horsepond Road to anticipate the growth of his business and the need for expansion of the property. The parcel is zoned BG (General Business District) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). The property is also located in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) because a special concern is given to the permitted uses in this area and also noise reducing building materials and practices. The continued use as a warehouse/wholesaler operation is permitted in both the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). According to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan, this parcel is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area. The land use designation is Industrial and the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) within this land use classification. On April 13, 2020 City Council did the First Reading of this Annexation request and it is now Planning Commission’s turn to make a recommendation. Mr. McLaughlin stated that they are looking to expand in Dover. Obviously, they have been part 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 of Kent County for a while and they are looking to use this as a distribution facility. They bought the building about five years ago and he thinks that they have been open for almost three years. They also recently purchased a place in Laurel, DE so that is why they want Dover to be their center hub for the State of Delaware. They are intending to have four to five people work out of that office and possibly one warehouse individual. But due to the growth of the company, they didn’t know that they would grow this quickly. Mr. Davies stated that they have worked with Mr. McLaughlin in the past. Union Wholesales is a very good company and he thinks that they will be a great addition to the City of Dover and hopefully you will feel the same way. Obviously, the City surrounds this property entirely and it makes sense to include this parcel in as well. Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing and after hearing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for AX-20-03 Lands of JACJIM, LLC at 679 Horsepond Road with a zoning of C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone), seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; as the subject property is in the City’s Annexation Plan for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area. Mr. Adams voting yes; for the previously stated reasons. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the aforementioned statements. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons stated in the motion. 2) S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Master Plan Application to permit redevelopment of the school property in a series of Phases. Phase 1: construction of a new 238,500 SF middle schools building, parking, and other site improvements; Phase 2: Sports Fields and two associated 2,300 SF buildings; Phase 3: 19,500 SF future building addition; and Phase 4: two 33,800 SF future building additions. The proposal involves a series of land tracts totaling 44.71 acres +/- and are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The land tracts are located on the north side of Walker Road and east of Schoolhouse Lane. The property is adjacent to Silver Lake. The owner of record is Dover Special School District. Property Address (all parcels): 1 Pat Lynn Drive. Tax Parcel ID (all parcels): ED-05-067.11-01-68.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Curbing. Representatives: Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Jonathon Falkowski, Becker Morgan Group; Dr. Dan Shelton, Capital School District Mr. Roach recused himself due to his contact work with the State placing him in the District’s buildings on a regular basis. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is an application for a Site Development Master Plan for the Dover Middle Schools to be located at 1 Pat Lynn Drive. This application is subject to public 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 hearing tonight and there has been significant correspondence regarding this application as well. It is a plan proposal that consists of four phases. The main initial Phase 1 is the construction of the middle schools building. If you are watching us on the computer, it is the central shaded red area of the plan. It’s approximately in the same footprint area of the old Dover High School that was on the site at one time. The project also includes its parking for the project. Pat Lynn Drive is slightly reconfigured with this new project and leads to what is the bus parking area on the east side of the building, closer to the Senators Lake neighborhood. On the west side of the building, the parking there is for staff. At the front of the building is a drop-off loop with additional parking. To the rear of the building or north of the building, as you move towards Silver Lake is the series of athletic fields. The existing stadium and track remain; however; with the project the softball field is relocated, the baseball field stays where it is and then there are additional practice fields developed where the previous softball field had been located. Those practice fields are also where they are looking to do geo-thermal efforts for this site. The project is adjacent to Silver Lake. It shares a boundary with that water body and as such, there are setbacks from the lake of one hundred feet and they are maintaining that. There are also small portions of floodplain areas in that same location. There is no impact to the floodplain for that site. The project itself, because it is adjacent to Silver Lake, was reviewed by the Silver Lake Commission earlier this month; and they voted in favor to support the application, finding limited impact to the lake as they are maintaining the required setback distance to it. They do encourage stormwater management practices that would be favorable to the lake. There are a number of sidewalk systems that cross this property that ultimately lead to the building. The plan is subject to significant landscaping requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. There are requirements for tree planting. There is a requirement for what is known as an opaque barrier. When a facility such as this is adjacent to residential areas, means that they need an evergreen screen and in this case, they have chosen to do a fence component. This will have to be implemented along the shared property boundary with Senators Lake and also the shared property boundary with the Woodcrest neighborhood. There is an extensive fence component to be implemented. Currently, some of those areas do include a chain link fence. The proposed fence is required to be opaque meaning you can’t see through it, in addition to the tree plantings. There are tree plantings around other existing wooded and wetland areas on the site to meet the tree planting requirements for the project. Also of note, the existing tennis courts are to be removed with this project. Those tennis courts were placed with what we believe was some grant funding that assisted with the project. The applicants will have to work to develop a location for additional outdoor public recreation space in order to compensate for the removal of the tennis courts. Additionally, there is closer to the entrance of this facility at the intersection of Pat Lynn Drive and Woodcrest Drive, a wetland area. This is a federally regulated wetland area. It is part of an overall stormwater management system for the neighborhood area, part of which is piped and part of which is exposed in this wetland facility. There has been significant question about this pond. It is subject to Army Corps of Engineers regulations so making changes to it is not an easy task. There is a very specific process that would need to be approached in order to make any changes to that wetland area. In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance prescribes that wetland areas are to remain as natural open spaces and only through proper authorizations could they even be attempted to be filled or changed in their nature. The City’s DAC Report was provided to the Planning Commission members. That includes to 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 comments from various City Departments, including the Electric Department, the Department of Water and Wastewater, the Office of the Fire Marshal, and the Public Works Department which deals with City streets, sanitation and stormwater management for the City. We also have comments from DelDOT. There are no improvements at the intersection of Pat Lynn Drive and Walker Road. This is a signalized intersection that exists. We also have comments from the Dover/Kent County MPO which looks at the abilities for multimodal transportation. There is a sidewalk network that exists along Walker Road and there is a connecting sidewalk that leads from Walker Road into the site. Additionally, there is a neighborhood pathway connection from the Woodcrest neighborhood leading to the old Dover High School’s property. With this Middle Schools project, that pathway connection continues to exist and sidewalk connections are made to the internal site network. With this project, the stormwater management review falls to DNREC and they have been working with DNREC’s Division of Watershed Stewardship regarding what will be the stormwater management for the property. This project did go through the State PLUS Review Process. In the packet are the PLUS letter and the applicant’s response to the PLUS letter. The only waiver request that this application has made was one for the partial elimination of curbing and that is a waiver that the City Planner can grant approval to and we have recommended to do so. The other aspects of recommendations from the Planning Staff note that the loading spaces are sufficiently served by the loading dock area that is part of the rear of the building. The Silver Lake Commission did provide their comments which were given to you verbally and the other items relate to pedestrian connections and we are recognizing the existing sidewalks. We recommend that they make sure that the pathway from the Woodcrest neighborhood is in good repair and that they look at bicycle parking opportunities. She does want to show the architecture briefly for the project. It is a two story building, masonry in nature. There is a lot of glass so there are windows and this building will definitely have light. The building really has two wings with the central core being a very light filled area at the main entrance and then the gym, cafeteria and auditorium spaces are towards the rear of the building. The building has access to/from both parking and bus areas as well as the main entrance. Staff will provide the correspondence received as part of the public hearing. Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Jon Falkowski and Dr. Dan Shelton are here with him. Mr. Brad Hastings, the lead architect is also here in case there are any questions architecturally. Mr. Falkowski is actually going to give the presentation and then he is going to close and Dr. Shelton also has a statement to make as well. (A Powerpoint presentation was utilized to present the project by the design team and School District representatives.) Mr. Falkowski stated that he wanted to point out that this has been a very public project. It has been even before the referendum went out. This has been a very public project with a lot of public outreach meetings. This slide shows that there were 37 meetings held dating back to 2017. This does not include all of the Board meetings as well that are also public. They have had a lot of meetings and a lot of input from local communities and local neighborhoods. In fact, they have had several meetings with just the adjacent neighborhoods themselves, Woodcrest and Senators Lake. We have taken their input, we’ve received their public comment and these plans 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 do address a lot of their feedback that we have received over the past couple years. As Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned, there is an opaque fence requirement for the project. Several of the meetings that we have had with Woodcrest and Senators Lake were specific meetings to address the fencing requirements and the wetland area in the front. The result of those public meetings, they presented different fence options to the neighbors and we ended up with them wanting a six-foot tall PVC fence. There were updates at more recent Board meetings although they weren’t in person, they were virtual but they were available to the public. Since then, we have put plans together that were bid publicly. They had to be bid on the State website and the bids were just received last week. The update now is that we will be awarding the contract to a contractor and we will begin construction here shortly by submitting a Fence Permit to the office. The thought was that this fence goes in early before construction of the Middle Schools that way it shields the view from the construction. The landscaping would be part of this application and would follow towards the end of the project and those landscape requirements of those twenty foot buffers to be installed at a later date. The fencing is a solid six-foot tall PVC fence that is almond in color. It should be easy to maintain but that will shield the view from construction and hopefully some of the other concerns that the neighbors had. The next slide shows the old Dover High School site prior to 2015. You can see the massive footprint that was the old Dover High School’s as a single story building with lots of pavement and lots of parking along the rear of the Woodcrest development. With these new Middle Schools, the thought was going two stories, reducing the footprint, and eliminating a lot of the pavement and unnecessary parking and providing a greener space for the site. In fact, we will be reducing pavement and hard surfaces on this site by over two acres by removing the paving and doing a smaller footprint. The High School was demolished in 2015 leaving way for the new Middle Schools. In this slide, you can see the grass area where the school was. All of the pavement and drive aisles are still in place and they will be removed as part of this new project. The tennis courts shown will be demolished as well. This slide shows the new Site Plan which takes out the parking. They are in receipt of the numerous correspondences related to the wetland area near the intersection of Pat Lynn Drive and Woodcrest. They are in receipt of the letters and they have received the complaints of the nuisance that the pond is causing as a result of it being there. The District has been pursuing this this for years and has directed them to meet with the Army Corps of Engineers. It is a federally regulated wetland as Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned. They have had numerous meetings at the District’s direction, with the Army Corps, both in the field and in the office as late as last year and as early as this year. He can tell you three things that they know. One, it definitely is a federally protected wetlands site. It is also regulated by State Wetland Regulations and City Code prohibits the filling of that area. When they met with the Army Corps of Engineers several times, they stated that a Federal Wetland Permit would be required if we needed to fill. They approached the Army Corps trying to fill as a request from the neighbors. The District to do everything that we can to try to fill that area that has been a nuisance to those neighbors. In our last meeting, we presented the project and tried to make application to fill the wetland. He wants to draw attention to the letter that was provided that should be in the packet. It was a two page 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 letter from the US Army Corps Philadelphia District that was signed by the Army Corps Wetland Biologist dated April 28, 2020. Essentially what came out of these meetings was basically that they do not meet the criteria for filling those wetlands. Quoted in the letter on the second page, “Based on the current information presented for the former Dover High School wetland site, a need to fill the site other than that of a nuisance has not been established. As such, there is no purpose to scope.” What they told them in the meeting and they understand the nuisance that this area caused but that nuisance does not give purpose and scope for filling the wetland; therefore, their application would be denied if submitted to fill those wetlands. It was just last month that they received that letter from Mr. Michael Yost, a biologist from the District Branch. Other than the wetlands, Mrs. Melson-Williams gave a good synopsis of the site. In the colored Site Plan, you can see all of the landscaping that they are providing. Pat Lynn Drive swoops around a City 100-foot wetland buffer requirement so they are pulling that away from the wetlands, providing more landscaping there. Mrs. Melson-Williams went over the parking but they actually did a Parking Justification Study to get the required amount of parking that will be needed day-to-day so that it is not too much or not enough. You have the bus parking towards the center lakeside and the drop-off in the front. As you can see the dash line with the blue text, that is actually space left for future additions. He thinks that it is called Phase 3 on the plans. Essentially, they want to design the site so that the building can be expanded in the future and they don’t have to look for a new site in order to do the expansion. The mechanical lanes are in the back. The fire lanes are fully around the building and as Mrs. Melson-Williams alluded to, the geo-thermal fields will be constructed where the softball field was and that is it’s need for relocation. All of the other fields are remaining in place. There was some public comment that they received about an update on the field’s orientation and replacement. They did give that update at a more recent (School) Board meeting that was virtual that might not have been attended. The only field changing is the softball field out of necessity for the geo-thermal fields. The first floor plan layout shows the two wings flanking as the instructional units. The right side of the layout shows the drop-off area with a canopy. That will be the central administration area that you will see coming in and there is a media center above that on the second story. The back half of the building shown in yellow and green is a shared facility. That is where they are saving on the footprint as well, being two middle schools, they are able to share the large facilities such as the gymnasium on the bottom. There are several gymnasiums. We have a shared kitchen with split cafeteria seating for the schools and then they have a shared auditorium and band maintenance and drop-off loading areas are all shared on the back half. The second story of the building is the instructional units shown on the plan in purple. Those are all classrooms and then the media center is shown in yellow that is on the second story above the administration area. You can see that there is a courtyard that is in the center of all of this and they will show a rendering of that later. The next slide shows some interior renderings of the school stairs and the shared cafeteria. As mentioned, the kitchen is shared but the two cafeterias, since it is two Middle Schools, are separated by a wall. On the bottom left of the screen shows the auditorium and the bottom right shows the media center which is the second story above the main entrance. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 The next slide shows a close up of the brick. There is glass where there are classrooms; obviously to get the natural light in but there is a tremendous amount of brick on this building and they wanted to highlight that because it does have that classic Downtown Dover red brick around the entire building. The external views show as you are entering the site on Pat Lynn Drive. You see the one instructional wing on the left and you can see the other one on the right. If you look at the bottom left of the slide, it shows the main entry looking straight on the front of the building with the drop-off loop and the two wings of classrooms on either side. The top right of the slide shows the media center. The bottom right of the slide shows the main canopy and front drop-off that provides safe drop-off and a shielded canopy for the kids to get into the building. The next slide shows a view of the courtyard looking towards the front of that main entry and media center. There will be some raised planter beds and some hardscape. This is a place where the kids are going to be able to break out for classroom spaces and also some outdoor seating area on the back side of the classrooms. The inside is glass and brick and lets a lot of natural light into the classrooms and it will be a great space for the kids. They do agree with all of the Staff DAC comments and they don’t have any issues with those comments and they agree with all of the recommendations and requirements. Mr. Moore stated that the wetland that is very close to the entrance of Pat Lynn Drive that was referred to earlier is clearly a federally protected wetland. As a good steward of our community and as somebody who went to Dover High School at this site, he has been working on Site Plans in the City of Dover for 36 years, he has done wetland delineation and wetland permitting for his entire career and he can assure you that this wetland is federally protected, cannot be filled. The criteria that the Army Corp of Engineers provided us in person with Dr. Dan Shelton present, is unable to be granted because of the way the Site Plan is and the standing of this wetland. He wants to point out that right now, next to that wetland is parking and that parking runs up along the edges of homes of the neighbors and all of that parking is being removed because we do not have the extent of parking that Dover High School once had; they do not have driving students. All of that land will be natural and he is here to assure you that Becker Morgan Group and the District did everything possible to attempt to fill that wetland. The Army Corps of Engineers and its letter dating April 28, 2020 has clearly told us that we cannot. Dr. Dan Shelton stated that he thinks that it’s really important to state that the thirty-seven (37) meetings that they have had so far have been just on this property itself. This all began five years ago with a strategic plan and from that plan, they said we need a long range facility master plan. They spent over a year developing a long range facility master plan. All of those had public meetings and we reported at the Board meeting every month. After the decision was made to build two new middle schools on Pat Lynn Drive, is when the public meetings started. So the number of meetings that we’ve discussed this building and the idea behind what might become of Pat Lynn Drive has gone on for almost five years. He thinks that he would also be remiss if he didn’t point out that unlike probably almost any project that the Planning Commission sees on a regular basis, this isn’t just a private project that they are bringing on. The residents of the City of Dover voted more than 2 to 1 to fund this out of their own money; they raised property taxes in order to fund this project. It was one of the most overwhelming supported referendums that 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 the State has seen in many years. It’s something that the people in Dover want. With that said, he thinks that Becker Morgan Group has done a great job. They have tried their best to be listening to our residents and listening to our community. They actually just had yesterday, two live samples that the residents chose and there was a meeting where the Army Corps actually came out to the wetland area and met with the residents and then they went over to Fairview. They knew at that point that it was a slim chance of them being able to move this which is why we said hey what can we do? They have also hired a group that maintains it and while last summer they didn’t get the results that they wanted, he doesn’t think anybody would argue with the fact that if you look at this site from three years ago when it was brought to their attention that they wanted them to maintain it as opposed to the City of Dover or the Army Corps maintaining it. They (the School District) took on that responsibility. The difference in what it looks like now as opposed to what it looked like 2 or 3 years ago, no one would argue the improvements that have been made and that they will continue to make. They are trying to be really good neighbors. As he said, the bids were open last week so the fence will be able to be installed. There was one public comment that stated “they promised us a fence and they haven’t done it.” Unfortunately with the State’s system, things don’t happen instantly. They had to go through the bid marketplace; they had to publicly publish that they wanted to do the fence. Multiple people were able to come in and there was a question period. They did open them last week and they will be awarding that job very soon. This is a really complex project. Schools are large; they are public. He just can’t state enough to the Commissioners that they have already fell a little behind due to COVID-19 and they are on a really tight timeframe to get this building open. They hope that this evening, the Commission allows them to continue moving forward so that they can get this school open. Our kids deserve this building. As you saw from the renderings, it is going to be an amazing place for our middle school kids. They need a modern facility and this is it. He believes that they have come as close as they possibly can to meeting what our community asked them to do. Ms. Edwards stated that when she first moved to Dover many years ago, about the retention pond that’s in question here at the entrance of Pat Lynn Drive and Woodcrest Drive, she had relatives that lived at the house located at that corner. She seems to remember playing in that as a ditch and she is wondering when it became a pond. Is there any history on that? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there was historically a ditch there that was part of a larger system. The transition from that ditch segment to what you see there today began in a time frame of basically 2002-2005. The ditch used to be a lot bigger; it extended much further to the north. If you look at aerial maps, it’s certainly there parallel to Pat Lynn Drive prior to 2002 and then we see this transition to this wetland area on its west side. Mr. Moore stated that there was a natural wetland that ran along Pat Lynn Drive. It was quite wide and deep and was classified as a wetland. The City of Dover filled that ditch in and when they did that, it required the City of Dover to actually install a mitigation site for the wetlands that were being taken out by the removal of that ditch. The pond that you see there is not primarily a stormwater retention pond; it is a mitigation for the removal of the natural ditch that ran along Pat Lynn Drive. That gives it a special standing, even stronger than a normal federal wetland area. They learned that from their meetings with the Army Corps of Engineers and that is demonstrated in the letter that they have provided them. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 Mr. Hartman stated that his only concern is the wetland area. Dr. Shelton mentioned that they have been having public meetings for five years. It is regrettable in his mind that now with this juncture when everything is getting tight, we don’t have a fence up yet and there still has not been a satisfactory answer for the residents on resolving this issue for the wetlands and that is the most regrettable thing that he sees with this submittal. The school district site does discharge to the wetlands, correct? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Falkowski stated correct, not the wetlands at the intersection of Pat Lynn Drive. Mr. Moore stated that the school does not discharge to the wetland that the neighbors are concerned about by Pat Lynn Drive. Mr. Hartman questioned if all of the discharge comes from the neighborhood? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Moore stated that the discharge comes from pipes that are on that other side. Our new design will not introduce water to that system. Mr. Hartman questioned if anything has been considered to reduce the amount of water going into that area? Is that possible in any way? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Moore stated that without a permit from the Federal Army Corps of Engineers, no. Their design is to seclude that and not to add any water from our new design. Our entire new design will be handled by virtue of new facilities that will not augment that current pond. There won’t be water draining to it and it’s not there as a stormwater pond for this project. Mr. Adams stated that with the upheaval from the neighborhood as it relates to that stormwater, what sway or opportunity exists to have the federal delegation intervene with the Army Corps of Engineers as it relates to finding some potential middle ground or opportunity? Or does that just not happen in those types of instances? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Moore stated that in this case, knowing that this is a mitigation site that replaced a former wetland, this wetland has a higher standing and because this Army Corps of Engineers does not want to see these things continually move location after location. That obviates the reason that the Corps of Engineers believed that they did it to start with. He can assure them that he met with the Corp of Engineers’ representatives on-site and in his office with Dr. Shelton; and we do not meet the criteria to issue a permit the way that the regulations are written. There would need to be a modification to the regulations or some overrule by the Trump Administration for us to be able to fill this. He assures them that that has to happen; it is not procedural here. Mr. Adams stated that his other question relates more towards construction and the timeline. He thought that they did a fantastic job in their design and in the presentation. He is curious as to the timeline with respect to the construction of the different phases. He sees Phase One and Phase Two and understandably that Phase Three and Four are going to be necessitated in the future by future growth but help him understand the timeline. Are Phase One and Phase Two happening simultaneously or in delayed phases? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Moore stated that they submitted this as a Construction Master Plan because they knew that they wanted to build the fence first and they knew thus they would have sequential steps but the main building itself and the fields will be one big construction process that will be phased. In terms of the public, it will be one process. The disconnected component of that are the future additions shown in blue on the rendering. They will not be started at all and will likely be more than five years out or 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 perhaps even ten years out depending upon the growth of the actual district and of the middle schools. Mr. Adams stated that the same would go for Phase three, correct? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Moore stated yes. As it relates to the pond, if the federal delegation would give them the right to fill that pond, it is something that they can do as part of their construction and they do not object to it. They hear the neighbors but the resistance to fill it is not resistance to money or that they aren’t hearing the concerns. They assure you that they cannot legally fill that without somebody going to jail under the current terms. Mr. Hartman stated that it was mentioned that they have been maintaining the pond for the last three years and there has been a remarkable improvement in the appearance. He would like to know if there are procedures going forward, assuming that the pond remains, that will be in place showing what maintenance will be done to the pond. Was that something that will be in the stormwater management plan or will that be a separate document for the benefit of the residents? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Dr. Shelton stated that it is not a stormwater management site; it’s a wetland mitigation site. They have hired a company called Envirotech who specializes in these types of systems and actually the biologist from Envirotech has met with the residents at least twice. They have helped the School District and the residents pick out some plants to add to that wetland area and unfortunately last year they did not take very well. They are hoping that in the spring of the second year they will take better. It’s just like a garden; it takes a few years to get those annuals to take hold. There was a lot of invasive species in that system and that has all been removed. As well as their monitoring of the fish in that wetland mitigation site to make sure that they are healthy because the Department of Natural Resources has gone out a number of times. One of the complaints is mosquito larvae. Both DNREC and Envirotech have said that the wetland itself is very healthy. There are fish in that wetland and there aren’t mosquito larvae because the fish are doing what they are supposed to do by eating it. While they understand that some of their neighbors aren’t happy with that particular area, when they went to the Silver Lake Commission, they (Silver Lake Commission) were actually really happy that they were not going to be disturbing those wetland areas and that they were not going to be bringing anything into Silver Lake. There are also differences in opinion on what should and shouldn’t be done. Mr. Hartman stated that he would just like to understand if there is going to be something in written form that they can go before the residents and show them that the School District is going to continue to maintain this area where the wetland is. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Dr. Shelton stated that at the point in time when they found out and started researching, it was around 2017, they hired someone immediately and got them on it and they will continue to do that. They have been pretty clear that it is their commitment to do that in public meetings and also Board meetings. They are on record saying that they are going to continue to maintain that area to continue to be good neighbors. Ms. Edwards stated that she thanks everyone for updating the wetlands information. It seems like everyone is trying to do the right thing and she really does appreciate that. The nearby neighbors and residents are concerned about the amount of snakes and the amount of snapping turtles that come out of that area. Is that going to be addressed as well? She rode by there today and the chain-link fence that is around that existing area is really an eye sore. Going into this beautiful 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 new facility and the appearance and the upkeep of the adjacent neighborhood, is there something that is going to be put in place there outside of that chain link fence to replace it or to at least give it a better appearance? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Moore stated that the fence that they showed earlier in the package is the fence that they have bid and will be going up. The chain link fence along the neighbors will actually be removed and they will be putting the new PVC fence that has color along that border. There will be a much more pleasing view and a block because the chain-link fence doesn’t block the school construction. This will be a complete opaque block. Ms. Edwards further questioned about around the wetlands areas. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Moore stated it would come up by the wetlands and separate the backs of the houses. Ms. Edwards questioned if the chain-link fence as you are riding by on Pat Lynn Drive will remain? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Moore stated that they are going to fence every back lot of the neighboring location. Ms. Edwards stated that she understands that, but from Pat Lynn Drive looking at the wetlands, that chain-link fence that goes around that area that surrounds the entire wetlands. There is a chain-link fence that surrounds the whole thing right now that is an eye sore. Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Moore stated that they are not going to surround it but they are going to separate the neighbors. Ms. Edwards questioned about the snapping turtles and the snakes that the neighbors and residents are concerned about? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Moore stated that what we also have to remember is that snapping turtles, snakes and wildlife do come from Silver Lake. Some of this comes from the back of Silver Lake and some of this does come from the ditch. There is a wetland that is near Silver Lake that they are also not able to touch and wildlife does crawl up that section and we can’t stop that so he believes that it is probably not fair to say that that one mitigation wetland is the root of all of this. He thinks that it is a combination of the entire ecosystem. Mr. Adams questioned if there was a reason that the fencing could not be extended around the current wetland area? Just to Ms. Edwards’ point, he spends a lot of time in that area and he knows exactly what she is talking about. He is just trying to understand when there is going to be the investment of tens of millions of dollars to construct this beautiful, brand new school, if there is some measure in place to replace that existing eyesore of a chain-link fence with something that perhaps would be more pleasing to those people who are going in to the new school but also maybe making that left onto Woodcrest Drive and driving past that as well. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mr. Moore stated that along the back, which they are doing and then alongside which would be entering the neighborhood, makes sense but he does have concern that if you completely fence that wetland with an opaque barrier, if some child ever did get in it you would never see what was happening inside. He would be very concerned that it would be a safety issue because of the loss of view from Pat Lynn Drive. They would be agreeable to going three sides and leaving the Pay Lynn Drive side open for safety reasons. Mr. Adams questioned if they would be agreeable to perhaps a lower fence than the six foot 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 fence? Responding to Mr. Adams, Dr. Shelton stated that not only would there be the dangerous issue but it is their hope that based on what they talked about last year that this area is not going to be an eyesore. That area is going to be a natural wetland. They are actually hoping that it is something that their kids will be able to see and understand how the ecosystem works. It’s an appropriate thing for our middle schoolers so it is not something that they would even want to fully enclose. It’s their goal to have it be something that’s pleasing that when people come in, they see. They are looking at plant life that would not flower all year long but would look nice as the year goes on. Mr. Adams stated that he understands that and perhaps there is a way to do that by removing the chain-link fence that is in disrepair and perhaps replacing it with a split rail vinyl fence or something to provide the sight lines into the area to take advantage of the natural beauty that you are intending for and also to mitigate the safety risk as well. To Ms. Edwards’ point earlier, that chain-link fence is definitely in a state of disrepair where it doesn’t present as nicely as he would think that we would want to for a new Middle School of this size and scope. Ms. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would be reading a number of public comments that they have received and have already distributed to the Planning Commission. In Exhibit Set 1: Item #7, was an email received from Councilman Anderson and attached to that was a Petition from Woodcrest neighborhood from 2018. It includes names that are listed as well as their addresses and they redacted their phone numbers. That list included what appears to be sixty-three lots. It has a total of sixty-nine signatures. The statement that they were attesting to reads, “We the constituents of Woodcrest community respectfully and insistently request that the retention pond located on the property of the Capital School District existing near the front entrance of Woodcrest community to be filled in with top soil and seeded instantly.” This is a Petition that was signed in 2018. This afternoon, Staff provided the Planning Commission what is known as Exhibit Set 2. It was public comments that had been received by the Planning Office as of noon today (5/18/2020). She will reference those by title. A number of these individuals are listening or may be ready to participate this evening. The first is an email dated May 13, 2020 from Connie Holland who resides at 438 Wilson Drive. She expresses her concerns as a resident of Woodcrest and some of the issues with the wetland area and the opportunities for improvements that should be considered at this point. The second email that entered by reference is the email of May 15, 2020 with a memo attachment that is titled Woodcrest Community’s Position on the Matter. It was an email received from Chris and Kari Tollinger of 813 Schoolhouse Lane. It is addressed specifically to the Planning Commission and again, it references the concerns of the Woodcrest residents and their opposition to the Planning Commission granting approval to construct the middle school. They request that the Commission denies their application or delay their plans until mutually agreed upon promises and responsibilities made between the Woodcrest community and the Capital School District have been achieved and agreed upon by both parties. It goes on to reference information about the retention pond and drainage system and the concerns there and 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 the various conversations about that pond over time. They also request the school board to be good neighbors and then try to address this issue. This is a letter that is referenced to the mosquitoes, animals and other pests as well that are specifically related to that retention pond. The next email is dated May 16, 2020. It is a letter with an attachment from Marie and Nelson Biggs of 837 Schoolhouse Lane. They have concerns regarding the development of Pat Lynn Drive. Likewise, it is a letter that makes reference to concerns with the vacant property that is the school site like issues with long grass, overgrowth and garbage. They have concerns with potential illegal activity that may have been happening there. There is also discussion of their concerns with the retention pond. They note their attendance at several School Board meetings. They also express concerns about the positioning of the baseball and softball fields at the site and some mentions of budget implications in their letter. They are very concerned that the residents at Woodcrest are being given the run-around and constantly being sent back and forth as their try to make their homes and neighborhood livable. The next email is dated May 17, 2020. It is an email with a letter attachment responding to the Biggs’ letter. It is an annotated copy of the Biggs’ letter with red line responses from Sean Christiansen, Capital School District Board of Education member. He responds to a number of their items regarding the wetlands site. He does make note as mentioned at this meeting, the proof that Envirotech has been working related to that wetland area and a number of the public meetings related to the Dover High as they develop the Dover High School site or the baseball and softball fields which is a shared situation with some of the fields throughout the District and the cost of the Dover High School project that was funded to support it. The next email is several questions and is also dated May 17, 2020. These questions come from Linda Shock. The first question is related to cutting of the grass specifically in the median strip area at the entrance to the school. She wants to know who is responsible for this. The second question that she asked is related to the gate that is through the neighborhood. Would that be reopened and maintained? Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she believes that is the connecting pathway from the Woodcrest neighborhood onto the school site. The third question is related to traffic concerns. She has concerns that getting out of their neighborhood is a nightmare when the school traffic blocks their ability to access onto Woodcrest Drive and how is that going to be resolved. The next email included in this packet is an email series from today that is a response series that includes email correspondence from Mr. Gregg Moore of the Becker Morgan Group, Dr. Dan Shelton of the School District, and Representative Sean Lynn again as a follow up to the Biggs’ letter. This conversation relates to the wetland area and the involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers in that regard. These emails were received before noon today. She can tell them that additional emails continued to come in to the Planning Office throughout the afternoon. She will give highlights of those emails as they have not been provided to the Planning Commissioners. There was response from Sean Christiansen again with the Capital School District Board that was replying to Representative Lynn about continuing the discussion about any kind of coordination necessary for the wetland mitigation site. There is an email from Ms. Lorili Semple who resides with other 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 family members at 891 Schoolhouse Lane. Her concerns are expressed in regards to the retention pond. Again, the concerns with mosquitoes in the area and the general eyesore of the property. She expressed concerns about the ability to use their back yard and sit outside. There are some concerns in the current situation, which means people will likely be home more, the ability of them to enjoy their back yard is low because of pests related to the retention pond. She expresses that they are fed up with the problem and want to be able to move forward to some type of resolution for it. The next email was received at 2:43PM from Representative Lynn. Again, discussing options for the pond and if the involvement of our Federal delegation could assist at working with the Army Corps of Engineers. The next email is from 3:41PM from John and Cindy Parker which reside at 909 Wilson Drive. Again, they ask the Planning Commission to deny the application thinking that these plans on the site near Woodcrest development, that they continue to have concerns with the retention pond and concerns with the drain pipe and whether that is the appropriate size. They ask if they can install a drain pipe in this area and then be rated like the area between Woodcrest and Walker Road. The last email to reference was received at 3:49PM from Representative Sean Lynn and it is addressed to Mrs. Mitchell who is the City Manager, Mr. Dave Hugg who is the City Planner and members of the Planning Commission. Again, it relates the concerns with the wetlands area and the nuisance that it appears to be creating for the Woodcrest neighborhood. He emphasizes the opportunity with the construction of the school site, that there may be an opportunity to address the nuisance of this wetlands area and he is disappointed in the years of meetings and the ongoing complaints from Woodcrest with not an opportunity to make changes here. There are a number of people on the line that she thinks will want to speak. Mr. & Mrs. Chris and Kari Tollinger – 813 Schoolhouse Lane Dover, DE 19904 They asked Mrs. Melson-Williams to read the bullet points in their submission into the record. They stated that “specific school board members along with the Superintendent pledged to secure an application from Army Corps to fill the blighted retention pond; however, in a recent community meeting between the Woodcrest community and the school board at Fairview Elementary School, it was discovered that they never retrieved the application nor did they provide us the courtesy to give them an update on the matter or an explanation.” The second bullet point says “additionally, the school board was tasked and in agreement with providing a monetary assessment of what it would cost to fill the whole to the 31st House of Representative, Mr. Sean Lynn. Once again it was discovered during the same community meeting mentioned above, that they failed to achieve that task as well as a justifiable reason in doing so to our community members.” Mr. Tollinger stated he can appreciate everything that they are talking about. They have had several meetings on this over the last couple of years and from a maintenance aspect, it hasn’t been maintained. Yes, it looks better today than it did three years ago but again it is not maintained on a regular basis. Everything grows back. We don’t get any kind of maintenance or grass cutting or clipping unless they call. It has been very inconsistent over the last three years and he doesn’t see it getting any better moving forward because it has been since May 11, 2020 that they have been trying to get somebody over here to cut the grass and they can’t get an answer. He understands that there are things going on with COVID-19 but if they leave messages, they should get a return call. He lives at 813 Schoolhouse Lane and this pond is directly behind his property. When he moved here in 2003 it was just a field with a little ditch 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 like everyone is saying. His kids used to play ball back there and he used to hit golf balls back there and now it has become what he calls a marsh. It’s interesting to him that through all of our meetings and initially when we first started, it was really hard pressed for them to determine what it actually was and who owned it and who was actually responsible for it. It just became meeting after meeting and now it’s become a federally protected wetland. It’s been called several names and now it’s a federally protected wetland. He is interested to know how that actually came about. It wasn’t there in 2003. It was installed between 2004 and 2005. That can all be seen via Google Earth if you go back in time. He doesn’t know what area was filled in that said this area has to compensate for it when there was another wetlands area already across the street. Their understanding was that it was going to be difficult for the Army Corps of Engineers to approve anything to do with this but it could be done provided that they had a space large enough to accommodate the same kind of area. There is equal space on the other side of the road and if it was on the other side of the road, nobody would probably have anything to say. It is directly behind his property and he has two trees that are falling into it as we speak because the ground is not supporting it. He understands that the trees are probably going to come out because of the fence but they are just very inconsistent to this point. At meetings they have been nice and we have talked but that doesn’t really solve the problem. He doesn’t know exactly what the answer is but there are people out there who are smarter than him that can come up with an answer. Ms. Connie Holland – 834 Wilson Drive Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Holland stated that she is the Director for the Office of State Planning. She knows that she signed the PLUS Letter that went in for this application but she is speaking as a resident and a homeowner for 30-35 years. This is a huge concern; she has worked with a lot of people that she has heard from this evening and she has a few things that she would like to say. For anyone on the Planning Commission that thinks the stormwater drainage is just for Woodcrest that we have in this pond and that it’s not a stormwater pond, she has been told that it’s a wetland and she has her issues with that too but it is not. Water is coming from another area that wouldn’t take a pond like that. There is a lot of history to this as to why that pond is there. We don’t have time tonight to get into that but someone should. This is the only chance that the residents of Woodcrest will have to get anything straight. If in fact it was presented to the Army Corps of Engineers that this is just a nuisance, no wonder they said no. She called the Army Corps of Engineers a year ago for a meeting because they had several our representatives there, the School Board there and a representative from the Corps of Engineers. She was pretty disgusted. He didn’t even look at the pond; he just said no. She’s worked in the planning profession for almost fifty years. You can get waivers, you can get variances and if anybody looks at this and thinks that it’s pretty wetland, they are crazy. She doesn’t know if you would want to live in the development where you are afraid when you get up in the morning that you are going to have a snake on your roof, in your basement, or underneath your dining room table. That’s what we live with. We are not living in the country. She knows that they will have animals and critters and she actually loves them but this is totally different. She thinks that if you walk a half a mile in their shoes you would see what the difference is. It’s a health, safety and welfare issue; it is not just a nuisance. This is why we have zoning and go through this and she is absolutely offended the way the Capital School District has treated us. If all of this stuff happened, we had no idea that it was happening. She does hope that a delegation can go and have somebody maybe higher than the powers that they talked to and look at this because it is devaluing their homes. She moved here because of Dover High School. She had two children that graduated from Dover High School and she loves to see 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 this land reused for schools. She doesn’t really approve of schools being out in the outer lands and not being within our neighborhoods. Take some of that money that you say is going to be a beautiful brick building and give us some peace in our development. She thinks that a lot more research could be done and she hopes that something can be done to alleviate their living experiences that they are having here. Mr. John Parker – 909 Wilson Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Parker stated that he would like to call the attention to the second paragraph of his email. It sounds like it’s going to be a lot of work to close this pond. His first reaction to that is let’s get started and do the work; it doesn’t need to be there because it serves no useful purpose. If they can’t do that then he would suggest that they relocate that pond to the other side of Pat Lynn Drive between the tennis courts and the Pension Office where the stream empties into Silver Lake. That will put it away from the neighborhood and get it out of the area and then Capital School District can deal with it over there. Ms. Linda Goodnight – 805 Schoolhouse Lane Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Goodnight stated that the retention pond is her back yard. She agrees with Mr. Chris Tollinger that the trees there have nowhere else to go so they are coming over into our yards. One of her beloved bushes got ruined because of the trees. She and her husband have to make sure that the trees are trimmed because they are coming through the fence. The groundhogs that like to visit us frequently have dug a 3x6 hole under their shed. They spend the weekend filling it up and trying to blockade it’s so that their property doesn’t continue to get destroyed. Their garden last year got destroyed. Did they complain to the City to do anything about it? No, because their representatives acted like they wanted to hear what we have to say about the retention pond, our properties and our safety here. They then want to become argumentative with us and not listen to us where it almost makes it feel like why say anything at all. The fear of even going out in the backyard to your shed or to check on your flowers, you watch where you walk to make sure that you don’t step on a snake. When are the trees going to come down? They were promised some many different things and nothing ever happens until the School Board or the City wants to do something. That’s the only time that they hear any communication. Everybody that has spoken tonight from the neighborhood, she agrees with 150% and she hopes that someone listens to them. Ms. Lauralie Simple – 891 Schoolhouse Lane Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Simple stated that she has lived here since 1982 and along with the others, the wetlands were not there and they did not have the mosquito problem. She fortunately does not live right behind it like the other people have mentioned who have the critter problems but the mosquitoes problem became a huge nuisance ever since that has been created there. At least with taking care of the mosquitoes, how about the City or Capital School District pays for companies to come out and spray their yards with mosquito treatment since you don’t want to cover it up or make a ruckus in trying to get it filled. They have been trying for years and nothing gets done. Mr. Doug Halverson_- 805 Schoolhouse Lane Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Halverson stated that his concern is that it sounds like everyone is set in their ways concerning this retention pond as far as the City of Dover and the Corps of Engineers goes. His concern is his back yard is the back wall of that wetland. The trees are starting to fall down and 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 with those trees falling down, it concerns him that they are going to lose the back part of his yard. Maybe they can look at doing some hardscaping to re-enforce that wall so that he doesn’t lose his property and maybe do some hardscaping on the outside where it was brought up before about the fence. If they are going to try to make it look nice, let’s do a good job with it and hardscape is the way to go about it. He is also concerned about the groundhogs digging through there and weakening that wall also. Ms. Marie Biggs – 837 Schoolhouse Lane Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Biggs stated that pretty much everything that she wanted to say has been said, especially by Ms. Holland. Her statements were phenomenal. The biggest thing besides the eyesore is the mosquitoes. Everyone has stated that you cannot even enjoy their properties or have people over because of the mosquitoes. She gardened last summer for ten minutes pulling weeds and she had twenty-four mosquito bites on her legs. Who wants to go outside and enjoy their property with this happening? How is this good for our health? Besides the eyesore, there are critters and mosquitoes. It used to be a ditch and then it went to a retention pond and now it’s a federally regulated wetland. She needs to see the history on this and when it became this because all that they want is it gone so that they can enjoy their properties and not have to fear infections. Mr. Anthony DePrima – 575 Westwood Drive Dover DE 19901 Mr. DePrima stated he is a current member of the Capital School Board for the past year. He has also been a member of the Construction Committee and has been attending these meetings for the past year. There has been a very strong effort to include all kinds of stakeholders in this meeting and try to listen to what they have to say. It seems like tonight we are focused on the pond issue. He has had the unenviable position of being the City Manager at the time that this was constructed so he could go into the history of it and he will try to do so very briefly. The City of Dover actually constructed the pipe in the pond at the request of the School District. At the time, the School District was trying to do one of two things, one is what people are referring to as the ditch that was there before. It was fairly deep and it was seen as a safety hazard being next to the parking lot that was there. The other motivation is that the School District wanted to expand the parking lot and to do that they had to fill in the ditch with a pipe. One of the reasons for expanding the parking lot was to try to relieve the concerns that the neighborhood has about parking in the neighborhood. The money of the project was actually funded through State funds through the City of Dover. We actually started the construction project by starting to pipe it and we were stopped because that’s when we learned that it was a protected wetland and we were starting to fill it in. They were put under a Stop Work Order; they had to submit permits and as a result of the desire to fill in the ditch that pond had to be constructed. There actually was wetlands there before; it was considered wetlands before we unfortunately went in there and started construction work without the permits. They were stopped; they had to get the permits and part of the permitting was to create the pond. The intent back then was to again create some more parking. It was not an easy project for us; it was a very, very difficult time. Now twenty years later and he is still reliving this project. He really wants to focus on a couple things. You have heard from tonight, both from the administration and from the representatives 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 and the architects. The School District stands ready to fix this problem as soon as we can see a way through it. If we can get our Federal delegation to step in and work with the Engineers, they are ready to do that. He thinks that you have heard that and they are committed to that. He can only speak for himself; he can’t speak for the whole Board. He as a School Board member, and as long as he is a School Board member, he will commit to diligently trying to find a solution to this problem but he asks that we not hold up this very important construction project to do that. He would also commit as a Board member, again he can’t commit the whole Board, but he can commit himself as long as he is on the School Board, to see that this pond is properly maintained and is improved. When there is a school there, he wants to go beyond something that the children can observe. He would love to see this pond, if it’s there, become part of a laboratory for environmental education. He thinks that what you are hearing tonight from him and from the administration is that they are committed. This is not about the dollars. This is not about the desire to not see this pond filled in. They feel like that are at a dead end. They think that the law is pretty clear. If somebody can help them find a way through it in the future, he thinks the District is committed to solving the problem. In the meantime, we solve the problem by some of the things that we had heard tonight which is maintenance; clean it up, make it look good and let’s get the stuff out of there that is an eyesore. Let’s maintain mosquito control if we have to in the whole community. There are ways to control mosquitos; so, let’s do as much as we can in the interim to go forward to approve this project and for the Planning Commission to move it forward. We can all kind of work together towards a solution. He can’t commit anything but his own desire to solve this problem, but he doesn’t think that we solve it by holding up this very important construction project. He agrees with a lot of the Commissioners and the things that they are saying things that we need to do; and he thinks that they can get it done. Mr. Gregg Moore stated that one answer to the question that has been asked a couple of times about when was this considered a federally protected wetland. The answer goes back to Mr. DePrima’s statement which dates back to 2000’s. This was built as a federally protected wetland as part of mitigation to the closure of what was then a wetland which was the ditch located alongside the road. That was then re-assessed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Delaware when Becker Morgan Group and the District started this project. They actually had it re-evaluated by the Army Corps of Engineers through a professional wetland delineator so there is no question that that is the intent and use of this land as a federally protected wetland. Mrs. Kari Tollinger – 813 Schoolhouse Lane Dover, DE 19904 Mrs. Tollinger stated that she just wanted to add to statements from Mr. DePrima and other members of the School Board regarding the maintenance. Chris did touch on the fact that she texted Mr. Elliot Harding, the Grounds Manager, on May 11, 2020 to get the high grass cut back here because that is where the mosquitoes lay. It’s been a constant battle to get this stuff back here mowed. Every time that it’s done, she or her neighbor next door has to call. She thinks that it is ridiculous that they have to call to have this grass cut. Not only the grass, but then there is the ivy that is growing up onto their properties. Dr. Shelton said last year that he was going to have someone come in the fall and have someone cut all of the vines and growth back here down after it was dead. Nobody ever showed up and the growth is still there. She has poison on the fence, her neighbor has poison on her fence, they have groundhogs, there are trees falling down 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 and like Doug said, there is a good possibility that their properties are going to end up in that thing. She wants to know who wants to buy her property. As far as she is concerned, it has devalued their properties. They cannot even sit on their brick patio out back. She has a hot tub that she can’t even use. Does she sound bitter because she is? She has been dealing with this since 2006 with Mr. Sean Lynn and nobody wants to listen. She pleads that somebody listen and takes care of what has to be done back there so that they can live their lives normal. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there were a couple of questions submitted through the chat option that she is going to try to address. One of the questions was whether the Woodcrest community members still have environmental and nuisance complaints. She believes that from the testimony tonight that the answer is yes. There is a question about whether the City’s Zoning Ordinance prohibits the filling of wetlands. In Article 5, Section 11.22 deals with wetlands in the City of Dover. There are provisions that suggest that they should be maintained as open and natural space; however, there is the ability for conversion if it is approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and DNREC. There is a setback for wetlands that are at least a quarter acre in size that are part of the City’s provisions as well. The property where the wetlands mitigation area is located is on Capital School District property; it is not City of Dover property. She thinks that they have heard testimony that there have been ongoing and multiple meetings over the years with Capital School District and the Army Corps of Engineers related to the wetland mitigation. Mr. John Parker – 909 Wilson Drive Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Parker questioned if the pond cannot be closed and filled in, can it be relocated? Responding to Mr. Parker, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she thinks it would be all part of any kind of changes. They would be subject to permit review and design processes. It is in line with an existing system so that may have other impacts beyond just where the pond is located that limits relocation of the pond. Mr. Moore stated that they asked that question to the Army Corps of Engineers and they considered relocation the filling of this wetland and as a result, requires a permit to do that. The answer to that is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers and they are telling us no. Mr. Parker stated that he thought that Mr. Moore just said that a permit was needed. Responding to Parker, Mr. Moore stated that what they have told us in meetings is that it does not meet the criteria that the Corps of Engineers has set forth to allow it to be relocated. Because it is actually a filling of a wetland to allow for the relocation and because it is a mitigation site, it has a different standing. They do not want it moved unless it is an actual facility that is water dependent that needs to go there, and we cannot meet that criteria. He has committed here tonight from Becker Morgan and the Capital School District that if the federal delegation can intervene and allow us to fill that, they can do that as part of the construction project, and they do not object to that. They do not object to filling in the pond; they just cannot get the permit under the normal course of this action and the regulations that stand. Mr. Parker questioned who we get started? Responding to Mr. Parker, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that certainly with the testimony of this meeting, there has been a lot of information relating the concerns of the neighborhood. It has been heard at various levels that there are potentially other avenues for pursuing options for the wetland mitigation area and it’s future 20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 should be explored. She thinks that you have heard the commitment of the School District and their engineer to continue to pursue that. Certainly, there is interest by at least one State Representative who has also mentioned the potential interaction with our federal delegation on this matter. She thinks that is certainly put out there in a variety of ways tonight as a comment. Ms. Connie Holland – 834 Wilson Drive Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Holland stated that she wanted to add one more thing that she was remiss in saying. She was really involved in the Route 1 Project when they had to do a lot with wetland mitigation. In fact, she does know that they had difficulty in one area where we had built a road and had wetland mitigation and then they did have to change it. They did have to change one pond; retro fit it and then go back to another one; so, it’s not unprecedented. She thinks that if it’s presented that it is a nuisance, that what they should work on it because she thinks that it’s health, safety and welfare. She just thinks that this is the only chance that they will ever have as residents in this development to do something different. She is for the school; she thinks that it is a good site and it was a good site when it was Dover High but she really hopes that they investigate every avenue. Dr. Shelton stated that there was a lot of comment about maintenance of the area and he has to admit that that’s been a struggle for them. This site doesn’t have a building so it earns no maintenance staff. So, it’s been a struggle not just here because of this site. Throughout our entire District, it’s been hard to keep up with grass cutting for example. The comment was made that when they call they come out. It’s actually a rotation and they move around the District and when it gets tall, it gets tall here a couple days before it was tall somewhere else and that is where they were. They are just about two days behind where they should probably be to cut. Once we put a school on this site, the will earn more maintenance because they will have a school there again and they will be able to do a much better job district wide, not just on this site, with things like grass cutting. As far as the trees go, that is part of our bid. They are going to remove those trees as part of putting in the new fence. He thinks that two or three people mentioned the trees on the back side of that pond and those will be removed as part of the new fence. As far as the mosquitoes go, he has heard over and over that this pond as a part to play in the mosquito issue. The biologist from DNREC and the biologist from the company that they hired, both say that pond is really healthy. He lives in Dover on the other side of town and they have a lot of mosquitoes there too. He thinks Dover just has a lot of mosquitoes. The last thing, and he thinks this is the commitment that people are really looking for, they have done all of our due diligence to try to get something done with the Army Corps of Engineers. He thinks what has been heard from Becker Morgan Group, what you have heard from Dr. DePrima and now from him is, if there is someone out there that knows how to get this done and wants to go do it and get the permit, that is fantastic and they will take care of it. They have just hit a dead end with all of the paths that they have. Ms. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that there has been some talk about having the Congressional delegation involved with this. In order to get this off of the ground, shouldn’t the permit be applied for to fill in this area to get the work started like Mr. Parker has been asking to actually get something done? So they can put something before the Congressional delegation to say that we are trying to 21

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 do this, we have people’s yards falling in and it is more than just a nuisance. He is a little dismayed here at the Performance Standard that an IO has to make in Article 5, Section 8. You could read that as “an other condition or element objectionable” making people’s yard inhabitable and it could make this whole project unsuitable. So it is more than just a nuisance. If it causes this project to fail to meet the Performance Standard in Article 5, Section 8, then it’s more than a nuisance. He believes Mr. Parker’s suggestion about getting something started is a reasonable suggestion and if not, then he doesn’t know what to suggest. He still suggests that if it can’t be filled, we should at least have something in formal writing showing what the maintenance is going to be on this area to give some assurance to the residents. He is on the line of voting nay. Ms. Edwards stated that if we are talking about involving the Congressional delegation in this, waiting until the new school is built years from now to get regular maintenance for the health, safety and welfare, then these people aren’t getting to use their back yards. If we vote to move ahead with this application this evening, what assurances do the residents have that the Capital School District is going to continue to provide regular maintenance and improve that site? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she has to remind the Commission that this is a Site Development Master Plan so the use is a permitted use. The school is a first permitted use; however, she thinks that certainly in any motion that you craft this evening, you could express your concerns about documentation of long term maintenance as well as pursing options to deal with this wetland mitigation area to put some notice back on them to continue to explore options and opportunities for that which would strive to address those health, safety and welfare issues that the neighbors have expressed this evening. You could, as part of a motion, ask for the applicant to report back to you at a certain time, but from a Site Plan perspective, their project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance provisions for site development. They are not proposing any changes to the wetland mitigation area but she offers those as potential options to keep this moving forward while also striving to address concerns that have been expressed through the extensive public testimony this evening. Ms. Maucher questioned if there is a dedicated line to fund maintenance of this structure by the School District? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Dr. Shelton stated that there is not a dedicated fund for this specific school. They do have a contract for this wetland mitigation site as well as a couple of other similar and dissimilar ponds that are owned and/or on our properties. He doesn’t know that it is a specific line for this but they do have a contract that is global and takes care of each of them. Ms. Maucher further questioned the length of that contract? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Dr. Shelton stated that he doesn’t know that answer. Ms. Maucher questioned if it is operated on its own or does the District have to direct the contactor to go to the property? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Dr. Shelton stated both. There is an annual plan to remove any invasive species. For example in our area, its phragmites and there are a lot of ponds in areas like this that grow those and they are not healthy so they remove those and other similar invasive species. There are also the one times. For example, when they asked them to come in last year and plant some specific flowers. They are going to do that again this year but they had to wait until it got a little warmer. He is not sure that it happened this week or if it will 22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 be next week. There were some trees that needed to come down two or three years ago and that was a separate contract. So, it’s a combination of the two. Ms. Maucher stated that she was trying to see if there was a way to have the School District fund maintenance of the pond without having to direct it because it seems that there has been some lack of responsiveness on behalf of the School District to the complaints of the residents and if the School District can fund it but be divorced from the actual direction of work to be taken. That’s why she asked about a separate fund. She is not sure if the City has ordinances regarding Homeowners Associations and maintenance of retention ponds. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover Code of Ordinances has prohibitions on letting your grass grow too tall. It becomes a Code Enforcement matter when it reaches eight inch height. There is also some other provisions related to leaving natural areas as natural areas and that being recognized as well. So there are some homeowners associations and other maintenance organizations that are typically related to residential development but certainly a similar approach could be taken with commercial or institutional type facilities to ensure long term maintenance. Mr. Hartman moved to approve S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan with conditions and including the recommendation for the waiver request for the partial elimination of curbing. The condition would be that in the next thirty days, the applicant submits plans for maintenance of the wetland area which will include erosion control specifically along the boundary of the neighborhood, seconded by Mr. Adams; he agrees that there is a need to continue the dialogue between the District and the residents of Woodcrest. He wants to note that he does feel as though that there have been well-intended, strong efforts made through transparency and other means to find some good balance here and to try to work with the residents of Woodcrest. He thinks that there is some opportunity to continue that dialogue to make sure that we continue to move in a positive direction. But he does see that this is a tremendous asset for the City of Dover for this site and for the residents so he does second this motion and would like to see us move forward with giving the green light to get this project moving forward. The motion was carried 6-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach recused and Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he thanks Mr. Adams for putting it so well. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he hopes that they get that maintenance contract in place. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she commends Becker Morgan Group and Dr. Shelton and members of the School Board as well for providing so much information to us. It was quite enlightening and she thinks that it’s a good project. She thinks that they all agree that they want the site to be an improvement overall, which she thinks the construction of the school will do for the entire site and move everything along in a positive fashion for the schools of Dover. She hopes that everything can be address satisfactorily as far as the wetlands area. The comments from Ms. Holland and Mr. DePrima shed some light on how people can proceed to work out these issues. Ms. Edwards voting yes; based on all of the reasons previously stated. She does want to thank the Becker Morgan Group and Capital School District for all of the information given by them. She also wants to thank the residents of the neighborhood for just showing up and participating and really expressing their concerns. She does believe that with the addition to require documentation for the long term maintenance that everyone can work together here to better the entire area. Ms. Maucher voting yes; she does have some reservations. She is a little bit dismayed at the commitment of the Capital School District but she thinks that it is a good project 23

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2020 and with this condition that they come forward with a long term maintenance plan of that area on their property and should be responsible for maintaining it Staff recommendations and DAC comments are also part of her overall approval. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Commission approval tonight allows them to move forward on a Site Plan to finalize that with all agencies. They have a reporting requirement back to the Planning Commission on the long term maintenance of the wetland area so that will be brought forward to the Commission at a future meeting. Giving them thirty days likely would be a July meeting of the Planning Commission. She also believes that there are significant efforts presented here this evening regarding how to explore options for that wetland area. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff included the Bylaws for the Commission which allows for a special election to fill any office vacancies. At the present time, there is the vacancy of the Chair. Ms. Maucher is currently the Vice-Chair of the Commission. We are coming up on the end of what is a term for Planning Commissioners. There are four members whose terms expire within the next month which then potentially could mean turnover in people on the Commission. The Commission may want to defer filling this Chair position until what is normally the annual meeting after any new or returning Planning Commissioners are reseated. Typically, that happens in the July or August timeframe. It may depend on how quickly the term re- appointments or new appointments take place at City Council. She does offer that as a potential option but you can take the step to fill the vacancy tonight. Mr. Adams asked what terms are expiring. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the At-Large position that is Dr. Jones. The First District position of Ms. Edwards and the Third District position of Mr. Tolbert are also expiring in June. Mr. Adams move to defer action of the appointment for the Chair position unless there is a member who expresses a burning desire to serve in the position, until we have confirmation on who our members are going to be at the July or August meeting, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 7-0 by voice vote with Dr. Jones and Mr. Tolbert absent. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 24

City of Dover Summer Cleanup Program Due to COVID-19, the City’s Spring Cleanup Program was postponed. See information below regarding the next scheduled cleanup program supported by the City. The City of Dover has designated August 10 - 21, 2020 as SUMMER CLEANUP. It is intend- ed to replace the traditional Spring Cleanup Program. The City encourages all residents in the City of Dover to cleanup and beautify their premises during this time. SUMMER CLEANUP is designated for residential trash customers of the City of Dover and does not apply to commercial accounts. SUMMER CLEANUP items should be put out the same day as your regular trash day for pick up. Bulk yard waste and bulk household items should be put out following the schedule provided on the opposite side of this page. We ask residents to set out trash by 7:00 a.m. on the day of collection. Trash and bulk items can be put out after 7:00 p.m. on the day before your scheduled trash collection day. There will be NO CHARGE during SUMMER CLEANUP for bulk items. Loose leaves along the curb or in the alley will be collected during SUMMER CLEANUP, weather permitting. Leaves cannot be in bags or contain litter or yard waste which in- cludes sticks (no foreign objects or debris permitted). Such items will not be collected. The schedule for leaf collection will be the day after your regular trash pickup day. (Leaf collection for Friday’s trash route will be on Monday, August 10 & 17, 2020.) The City of Dover WILL NOT pick up items such as cement, tires, bricks, sand and con- crete blocks. If you have questions regarding particular items for pick up please call the Department of Public Works at 736-7025. FOLLOWING SUMMER CLEANUP, all waste collection will follow standard operational guide- lines (see opposite side of page). Any waste put out before 7:00 p.m. the evening before scheduled trash collection will be subject to fines. Any bulk piles larger than 4’x4’x8’ will be subject to additional charges in order to be collected.

City of Dover Residential Trash Collection Guidelines Trash should be placed out for pickup on collection day by 7:00 a.m. or the prior evening after 7:00 p.m. To find your specific QUESTIONS? To find your specific trash collection recycling collection PLEASE CALL dates please use: dates please use: 302-736-7025 To find your specific trash or recycling collection dates on the web go to: cityofdover.com/sanitation For areas serviced via an automated trash truck: ALL household trash MUST be bagged and placed in the 90-gallon container provided by the City (NO trash on top of cans). Please place container at least 3-feet away from cars, fences, mailboxes, etc., facing the correct direction (as seen in the photo below). For areas designated as hand trash only (not possessing a 90-gallon City of Dover trash can), please contact the Public Works office at 302-736- 7025 for specific guidelines applicable to you. Too close together, too close to Correct spacing and facing correct vehicle, and too close to mailbox. direction. YARD WASTE BULK WASTE ALL loose yard waste material, Bulk waste shall be neatly stacked at the including grass clippings, MUST be curb. Do NOT place bulk piles directly placed in a privately owned 35- under power lines or against buildings or gallon or less plastic container fences. The maximum size shall be a 4’ (limit 5 containers). Yard waste wide, 4’ tall, 8’ long area. containers are picked up on the Bulk yard waste consists of yard waste regular weekly schedule. Do not that will not fit within the 35-gallon con- place yard waste in a plastic or tainer. Bulk yard waste is collected on paper bag. Do no mix yard waste the same day as your recycling collec- with household trash; if mixed tion. the City will not collect. Filled yard waste containers are not to Bulk household waste (furniture, large exceed 75-pounds in weight. appliances, rugs, etc.) is collected on the week opposite your recycling collection. SORRY, WE CANNOT COLLECT TIRES, CONCRETE, BRICKS, CHEMICALS OR OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE.

Resolution Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. became a member of the City of Dover, Delaware Planning Commission in May 2004 and served until his passing on June 11, 2020 with diligence and distinction in this capacity as an advocate for sound land use planning in the public interest; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. has played a key role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the planning and development of the Capital City through his service on the Planning Commission and also on the Board of Adjustment; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. has provided leadership on the Planning Commission through his role as Vice Chairman of the Commission from April 2012 to July 2015 and then as Chairman of the Commission from July 2015 to August 2019; and was known for his advocacy for cooperation between applicants and Planning Staff; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. has influenced the pattern and appearance of development in Dover through his contributions to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan; his efforts to ensure compliance with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended); his participation in the development of amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance regarding various zoning districts, development design requirements, and manufactured home communities; and, Whereas, Frederick Tolbert Sr. was an active Commission member expanding his knowledge by attending local planning and land use training activities including preparations for the Commission’s first Virtual Meeting in May 2020; and Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Planning Commission extends their deepest sympathy and condolences to his family and friends as Frederick Tolbert Sr. will be greatly missed for his faithful and exemplary service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as an active member of the City of Dover Planning Commission. __________________________ _________________________ Andrea Maucher David S. Hugg, III Planning Commission Vice-Chair City Planner

S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan – Receipt of Submission of Maintenance Plan for Wetland Mitigation Area associated with the Site Development Master Plan Application conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2020 to permit redevelopment of the school property in a series of Phases. Phase 1: construction of a new 238,500 SF middle schools building, parking, and other site improvements; Phase 2: Sports Fields and two associated 2,300 SF buildings; Phase 3: 19,500 SF future building addition; and Phase 4: two 33,800 SF future building additions. The proposal involves a series of land tracts totaling 44.71 acres +/- and are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The land tracts are located on the north side of Walker Road and east of Schoolhouse Lane. The property is adjacent to Silver Lake. The owner of record is Dover Special School District. Property Address (all parcels): 1 Pat Lynn Drive. Tax Parcel ID (all parcels): ED-05- 067.11-01-68.00-000. Council District 4. • The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the Site Development Master Plan S-20-02 at Meeting Session 2 on May 18, 2020. The Commission required submission of a Wetland Area Maintenance Plan within 30 days to outline the maintenance of the Wetland Area and for erosion control along the boundary of the neighborhood. • The following items are provided as reference: o Site Master Plan – Cover Sheet C-001 o Notice of Decision Letter dated June 4, 2020 for S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan as issued for Planning Commission action taken at May 18, 2020 Meeting. • The following item was submitted as the Wetland Area Maintenance Plan by the Capital School District. It was received via email of June 5, 2020 from Elliot Hardin, Building and Grounds Supervisor then revised June 9, 2020. An Updated Memo was received July 6, 2020 to reflect additional funding allotted to help with maintaining the area which allows for additional regular grass cutting and mosquito control activities. o Memo titled “Comprehensive Environmental Service and Scope of Service for the Stormwater Conveyance System” (As updated July 6, 2020) • Planning Staff also notes that a Fence Permit Application #20-522 was filed June 6, 2020 for removal of the existing chain-link fencing along segments of the east and west property lines to be replaced with the six-foot tan vinyl/PVC privacy (solid) fencing as required for the Opaque Barrier. The Permit has been reviewed & approved and is ready to be issued for construction.

24x36 24x36 WWW.beckermorgan.com Parcel Line Table BUILDING DATA 2019-180-Building-Data-001 GENERAL NOTES: 2019-180-General-Note-001 SITE DATA 2019-180-Site-Data-001 24x36 24x36 FOOTPRINT NUMBER GROSS FLR. BLDG. 1. THE BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN HEREON WAS COMPILED FROM A FIELD SURVEY 1. OWNER OF RECORD: DOVER SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LINE LENGTH CHD. BEARING AREA OF FLOORS AREA HEIGHT N HkB N PERFORMED BY BECKER MORGAN GROUP, INC. , DOVER, DE. IN OCTOBER 2019. PROJECT VERTICAL DATUM C/O DAN SHELTON, Ed.D., SUPERINTENDENT PHASE 1 IS BASED ON NAVD 88 AND PROJECT HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON DELAWARE STATE PLANE (NAD83), 198 COMMERCE WAY L1 45.93' S74° 07' 16"W 24x36 NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL 157,200 S.F. 2 238,500 S.F. 40' SIB GPS DERIVED FROM N.G.S. CONTROL MONUMENTS. DOVER, DE 19904 24x36 L2 32.35' S17° 02' 12"W 2. THE BOUNDARY LINES PORTRAYED HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED SOLELY ON PHYSICAL 2. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1 PATRICK LYNN DR EVIDENCE DISCOVERED IN THE FIELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETERMINATIONS DERIVED FROM SOURCE OF DOVER, DE 19904 L3 75.81' N74° 07' 16"E SILVER LAKE TITLE AND ADJACENT DEED RECORD INFORMATION. PHASE 2 SIA SILVER 3. ENGINEER / SURVEYOR: BECKER MORGAN GROUP INC. 24x36 L4 177.34' S15° 52' 44"E SITE HkB LAKE 3. ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS AND SIZES SHOWN HEREON ARE EITHER MARKED LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD, 309 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVE. 24x36 OUT BUILDING - CONCESSION 2,300 S.F. 1 2,300 S.F. 15' 44.71 AC. VISIBLE AND FIELD LOCATED STRUCTURES OR TAKEN FROM UTILITY MAPS PROVIDED BY UTILITY OUT BUILDING - MAINTENANCE 2,300 S.F. 1 2,300 S.F. 15' W DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 L5 181.90' S74° 10' 36"W DocB PROVIDERS. HOWEVER, LACKING EXCAVATION, THE EXACT LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FEATURES 302-734-7950 PHASE 2 TOTAL: 4,600 S.F. 4,600 S.F. SITE CANNOT BE ACCURATELY, COMPLETELY AND RELIABLY DEPICTED. ARCH I T E C TURE B ECKER M ORGAN G ROUP ARCHITECTURE - ENGINEERING DOVER, DE SALISBURY, MD WILMINGTON, NC 24x36 L6 49.42' N49° 37' 04"E 4. PROPERTY LOCATION: LAT: N 39° 10' 35.98" WRS80 - NAD83 (2011) 24x36 4. PORTION OF PARCEL IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ZONE, BASED ON FIRM LO L7 53.09' N35° 31' 17"E PHASE 3 FUTURE EXPANSION 9,750 S.F. 2 19,500 S.F. 40' Up SIA MAP 10001C0166H, EFFECTIVE DATE 5/5/2003. AE ZONE FLOOD ELEVATION 20.0 FEET LONG.: W 075° 32' 23.88" WRS80 - NAD83 (2011) ENG I NE E R I NG SSD 5. WETLANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE FIELD LOCATED BY BECKER MORGAN GROUP, AS DELINEATED BY 5. PROPERTY MAP NUMBER: 2-05-067.11-01-68.00-00001 19,500 S.F. 39,000 S.F. 24x36 L8 32.13' N15° 53' 52"W PHASE 4 BY WATERSHED ECO, LLC IN AUGUST 2019. Dover, DE 6. DEED REF. SUMMARY: B-23-303 24x36 K K FUTURE EXPANSION 33,800 S.F. 2 67,600 S.F. 40' 6. ALL ROADS, PARKING AND OTHER PAVED AREAS WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED AND ARE 309 S. Governors Ave. RIC RIC L9 25.70' N54° 30' 11"W NOT INTENDED FOR DEDICATION. 7. SITE AREA: 44.71 AC± PAT PAT 17,600 S.F. 35,200 S.F. HkB Dover, DE 19904 L10 37.52' N17° 55' 41"E TOTAL BUILDING AREA 198,900 S.F. 317,300S.F. 7. DELAWARE REGULATIONS PROHIBIT THE BURIAL OF CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION DEBRIS, INCLUDING 8. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: IO - INSTITUTIONAL OFFICE Ph. 302.734.7950 24x36 TREES AND STUMPS ON CONSTRUCTION SITES. ANY SOLID WASTE FOUND DURING EXCAVATION MUST BE Fax 302.734.7965 24x36 R. R. L11 37.61' N6° 08' 23"E REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISCARDED. 9. BULK STANDARDS: BUILDING: N D N D D D FRONT YARD: 10 FT. ROA ROA 8. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING DEMARCATION, STALLS, AND BUILDING ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL COMPLY Salisbury, MD LYN LYN L12 56.31' N76° 39' 33"E KER HkB HkB KER SIDE YARD: 10 FT. WAL WAL WITH THE "AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT". 24x36 L13 44.05' N58° 07' 02"E REAR YARD: 15 FT. 312 West Main St. Suite 300 24x36 9. THIS DRAWING DOES NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENT FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF SIDE OR REAR ADJOINING RESIDENCE ZONE: 30 FT. Salisbury, MD 21801 L14 21.45' S79° 13' 33"E MAX HEIGHT: 150 FT. OR 10 STORIES Ph. 410.546.9100 CITY OF DOVER - KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE CITY OF DOVER - KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 1970 AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS THERETO APPURTENANT. MAX GROSS / NET FLOOR AREA RATIO: 6.0 Fax 410.546.5824 L15 48.15' N70° 49' 58"E 10. BEFORE THE CONTRACTOR CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION HE MUST OBTAIN THE PROPER PERMITS AND/OR 24x36 LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 1000' SOIL SURVEY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1000' APPROVALS FROM THE CITY OF DOVER (C.O.D.), DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MAX LOT COVERAGE: 85% Wilmington, NC 24x36 L16 27.22' N22° 24' 06"E 10. PRESENT USE: SCHOOL - VACANT (D.N.R.E.C.), DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DELDOT), CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF SOIL MAP TAKEN FROM "USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY" PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPROPRIATE STATE AND 11. PROPOSED USE: TWO (2) NEW INTER-CONNECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS 3205 Randall Parkway, Suite 211 L17 30.63' N41° 20' 33"E 24x36 FP WEBSOILSURVEY.NRCS.USDA.GOV COUNTY AGENCIES. 12. LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE: PHASE 1 = 20.3318 ± ACRES Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 24x36 L18 91.62' S55° 41' 14"E HkB: HAMBROOK-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 11. ALL CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE ACCORDANACE WITH THE CITY OF DOVER PHASE 2 = + 5.3254 ± ACRES Ph. 910.341.7600 LO: LONGMARSH AND INDIANTOWN SOILS, FREQUENTLY FLOODED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE STATE OF Fax 910.341.7506 TOTAL = 25.6572 ± ACRES L19 74.87' S24° 43' 08"E DocB: DOWNER SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, MID ATLANTIC DELAWARE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 24x36 COASTAL PLAIN 12. ALL FIRE LANE DEMARCATION AND FIRE LANE SIGNS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE STATE FIRE 13. ROAD CLASSIFICATION: WALKER ROAD - MAJOR COLLECTOR www.beckermorgan.com L20 115.14' S62° 48' 06"E SIA: SASSAFRAS LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES PREVENTION REGULATIONS. PATRICK LYNN DRIVE - LOCAL ROAD 24x36 FP SIB: SASSAFRAS LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES WOODCREST DRIVE - LOCAL ROAD L22 53.45' N86° 13' 15"E 14. SURVEY BENCHMARK: NGS MONUMENTS 24x36 L23 96.30' S66° 04' 38"E VERTICAL: NAVD 88 24x36 V HORIZONTAL: NAD 83 (2011) - CORS L24 59.69' S61° 52' 36"E L25 30.12' N80° 51' 24"E FP V SILVER LAKE 15. MONUMENTATION: 8 FOUND 24x36 2 SET 24x36 V V L26 22.05' N74° 27' 19"E 16. SURVEY CLASSIFICATION: SUBURBAN SURVEY L27 234.64' N74° 07' 18"E V V V 17. SURVEY UNIT: LINEAR: US SURVEY FOOT FP ANGULAR: DEGREES MINUTES SECONDS (DMS) 24x36 24x36 V V COORDINATE TYPE: GROUND Curve Table 18. UTILITIES: SEWER - CITY OF DOVER FPK WATER - CITY OF DOVER CURVE LENGTH RADIUS CHD. BEARING CHD. LENGTH TANGENT V 24x36 SE S ELECTRIC - CITY OF DOVER 24x36 FP OU C1 25.97' 161.10' S12° 25' 04"W 25.95' 13.02' FIP LA GAS - CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES P. KE T B. 19 OW 19. IMPERVIOUS COVER: 16.58 ± ACRES /92 NH SI V 24x36 LV ER FIP FIR 20. LOT COVERAGE: IO ZONING - 85% PERMITTED 24x36 PROPOSED: 16.58 AC. / 44.71 AC. = 37.0 % FP 21. PARKING REQUIRED: 1 SPACE PER 8 SEATS IN AUDITORIUM V 1600 SEATS / 8 = 200 SPACES FCM FCM 22. PARKING PROVIDED: 294 (PASSENGER VEHICLE); 28 (BUS); 15 (BIKE) FCM 24x36 24x36 FCM V 118 (EVENT OVERFLOW PARKING) FP FIR . N FCM FPK OWNERS CERTIFICATION 24x36 24x36 2019-180-Owners-Cert SILVER LAKE WE, CAPITAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FP BOULEVARD V DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT OUR DIRECTION, AND THAT WE 24x36 ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO BE OUR ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN FCM FCM 24x36 V ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. V 24x36 FP 24x36 V FCM DAN SHELTON Ed. D. - SUPERINTENDENT DATE V 24x36 FP V ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION 2019-180-Engineers-Cert 24x36 T.P. /F I, GREGORY V. MOORE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF DS N REPRESENTATIVE LANE ER 2-05 V EXISTING DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION LAN F DOV -12.00 24x36 V WOODED AND TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS REQUIRED 24x36 LANDS N/F AREA BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. PROJECT TITLE SILVER LAKE FP DOVER HEALTH CARE SENATORS LAKE LANDS N/F O -03 ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATBOOK 106 PAGE 49 SENATORS LAKE SIL THE NEW CITY -067.16 V 24x36 T.P. 2-05-067.12-02-02.00 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION T.P. 2-05-067.12-04-55.00 V ER 24x36 DEED REF. R-37-114 DEED REF. 8637-0087 LAK GREGORY V. MOORE P.E. NO. 9311 DATE ZONING - IO DOVER MIDDLE FCM PROPOSED OPAQUE ZONING - RM1 V E B FCM FP BARRIER FENCE OU 24x36 FCM S 19° 04' 27" E 1872.75' LEV FCM SCHOOLS 24x36 L26 V SIRC LANDS N/F A RD 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LINE L25 DOVER SILVER LAKES LLC PHASE 2 275 30' B.R.L. V T.P. 2-05-067.16-03-08.04 24x36 V FP V V DEED REF. 703-206 SITE DEVELOPMENT 24x36 S 55 4 STORMWATER AREA V ZONING - CPO EXISTING EDGE L2 MASTER PLAN V PROPOSED PRACTICE PHASE 1 OF WETLANDS ° 09' 24x36 SOCCER FIELD 16 V V V 24x36 FP V L2 3 V EXISTING EXISTING 360' x 180' 28 40" 1 PATRICK LYNN DRIVE W WOODED BASEBALL 100' V V AREA FIELD V W 24x36 L22 V CITY OF DOVER 24x36 100' WETLAND BUFFER AND AF-PRACTICE-FIELD-HOCKEY V BIKE RACKS KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ETL FP V V 300 V EXISTING EDGE V OF WOODS PHASE 4 24x36 V THE NEW DOVER 24x36 BUF L2 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF FUTURE V 1 GEO-THERMAL WELL FIELD MIDDLE SCHOOLS EXPANSION V V FER FP V V GROSS FLOOR AREA: 238,500 SQ. FT. 33,800 SQ. FT. SHEET TITLE 10' WIDE PROPOSED PRACTICE 24x36 FOOTBALL FIELD V EXISTING EDGE 24x36 PAVED PATH COVER SHEET V V T COURTYARD V V OF WETLANDS 360' x 180' GEN. L2 0 V FP 33 LANDS N/F LANDS N/F 24x36 PHASE 3 V V SILVER LAKE REALTY LLC SILVER LAKE REALTY LLC 24x36 V FUTURE F.D.C. V EXISTING T.P. 2-05-067.16-03-08.09 T.P. 2-05-067.16-03-08.06 L19 LOADING AREA X AF-PRACTICE-FOOTBALL 275 EXPANSION BIKE RACKS DEED REF. 7183-1 V WOODED DEED REF. 7182-341 8 FP 19,500 SQ. FT. AREA ZONING - CPO ZONING - CPO L1 V V OPEN V 24x36 SPACE N/F OPEN V 24x36 577. V EXISTING DOVER SPECIAL SPACE 7 L1 FP BLEACHERS SCHOOL DISTRICT V V 62' L1 6 V V T.P. 2-05-067.11-01-68.00 V 24x36 DEED BOOK: B23 PAGE: 303 PHASE 4 LANDS N/F 24x36 L15 44.71 ACRES± FUTURE V FCM CITY OF DOVER V EXPANSION V S 15° 52' 44" E T.P. 2-05-067.16-03-11.00 ZONING: IO WALKER ROAD L FP PROPOSED PROPOSED 33,800 SQ. FT. DEED REF. L23-26 L13 14 24x36 PROPOSED BUILDING BUILDING SIRC 10' B.R.L. 724.25' ZONING - IO 24x36 2,300 SQ.FT. 2,300 SQ.FT. SIRC FCM SOFTBALL L4 FCM VARYING WIDTH RIG V EXISTING BIKE RACKS PHASE 2 WOODED FIELD EXISTING L27 PATRICK LYNN L1 10' B.R.L. 0 60 120 240 DRIVE 10' B.R.L. FOOTBALL FIELD AREA SIRC L12 AND TRACK HT OF WAY 24x36 V SIRC L3 24x36 PHASE 1 V OPEN OPEN SPACE L2 SIRC SCALE : 1" = 120' KCR 70, MAJOR CO L1 L1 FP SPACE 1 0 V 245 EXISTING C1 L8 IVE L9 L5 24x36 24x36 FEDERAL WETLANDS LLECTOR L7 PROPOSED OPAQUE ISSUE BLOCK 0.57 ACRES± BARRIER FENCE FP L V 30' B.R.L. FP WOODCREST DR 24x36 6 X X X 2257.88' X 952.87' 24x36 X FP VFCM 3210.76' N 19° 03' 05" W SCM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X WOODCREST SUBDIVISION X PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 104 24x36 X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LANDS N/F 24x36 CHILDREN'S CHOICE PROPERTY TWO T.P. 2-05-06715-04-7601-00001 24x36 DEED REF. 3723-63 24x36 ZONING - C1A SCHOOL HOUSE LANE 2. 05/06/20 REVISED & RESUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE C.O.D. PLANNING COMMISSION LANDS N/F LANDS N/F 1. 03/06/20 SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY 24x36 TE DAVID JOHN VILLABONA 726 WOODCREST LLC OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION 24x36 RR T.P. 2-05-06715-04-7500-00001 T.P. 2-05-06715-04-7600-00001 DEED REF. 6634-228 MARK DATE LAYER STATE: C-001 DESCRIPTION Y DEED REF. 464-184 ZONING - C1A PROJECT NO.: 2019180.00 CIR ZONING - C1A . 24x36 24x36 DATE: 03-06-2020 SHEET INDEX 2018-180-Sheet-Index SCALE: 1" = 120' C-001 COVER SHEET DRAWN BY: D.S.G. PROJ. MGR.: J.S.F. 24x36 24x36 C-101 - C-103 EXISTING CONDITION SHEET C-201 - C-203 SITE PLAN L-001 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN 24x36 L-101 - L-103 LANDSCAPE PLAN C-001 COPYRIGHT 2020 24x36 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2019\2019180\DWG\Misc\MAR Updates\2019180-C3d18-DAC-Sheets-Plot.dwg, May 05, 2020 - 4:37pm C-001 - 2019180 CMS-Site Plan - 2020-05-05 24x36 24x36 2020-05-05

City of Dover June 4, 2020 Mr. Jonathan Falkowski, P.E. Mr. Gregg Moore, P.E. Becker Morgan Group, Inc. 309 South Governors Avenue Dover, DE 19904 Via Email: jfalkowski@beckermorgan.com and gvmoore@beckermorgan.com Dr. Daniel Shelton, Superintendent Capital School District 198 Commerce Way Dover, DE 19904 Via Email: Dan.Shelton@capital.k12.de.us Re: Notice of Decision from Planning Commission S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan, Dover, DE Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.11-01-68.00-000 Dear Mr. Falkowski and Mr. Moore: Dear Dr. Shelton: At Meeting Session 2 on May 18, 2020, the City of Dover Planning Commission moved to grant conditional approval to Site Development Master Plan S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive, Dover. The conditions of approval are outlined in this Letter. This Site Development Master Plan Application is to permit redevelopment of the old Dover High School property for the New Dover Middle Schools project. The proposal involves a series of land tracts totaling 44.71 acres +/- and are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The land tracts owned by the Dover Special School District are located on the north side of Walker Road and east of Schoolhouse Lane; the property is also adjacent to Silver Lake. The plan for this project was submitted for review under the Site Development Master Plan process found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.44. This process allows for a series of construction phases to be outlined in a Master Plan for Planning Commission review and approval. Prior to each Phase of construction, a Site Plan specific to that phase is submitted for Administrative Site Plan review. The Site Development Master Plan proposes four (4) phases of the project for the New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive. Overall, the project involves the following: • Phase 1: Construction of a new 238,500 SF middle schools building, parking, and other site improvements. • Phase 2: Sports Fields and two associated 2,300 SF buildings (Outbuilding – Concession and Outbuilding – Maintenance). • Phase 3: A future 19,500 SF future building addition to schools building. • Phase 4: Two 33,800 SF future building additions to schools building. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Notice of Decision Letter: S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan June 4, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Following a Public Hearing with public testimony and discussions with the Applicant, the Planning Commission granted conditional approval to S-20-02. The testimony and discussion on this Application included the topics of the proposed fence (Opaque Barrier) construction, the Wetlands Area (its construction history, Army Corps permitting, area maintenance, a request to fill or relocate the pond, etc.), drainage, tree and grass maintenance issues, and wildlife nuisances. As adopted by the Planning Commission, the conditions of plan approval for Site Development Plan S-20-02 from all reviewing agencies, including the Planning Staff Recommendations (as adopted), are outlined in the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) Report dated May 6, 2020. A copy of the D.A.C. Report for S-20-02 is enclosed for your reference. As part of their motion, the Planning Commission established the following Condition of Approval: 1) Wetland Area Maintenance Plan: Requirement for the Applicant to submit a Plan within thirty (30) days to the Planning Commission review and approval. The Plan is to outline the maintenance of the Wetland Area and for erosion control along the boundary of the neighborhood (to the west of the Wetland Area). a. This item should be submitted to the Planning Office and Staff will schedule it for review at the next available Planning Commission Meeting. Contact Planning Staff to discuss submission format. Also, the Planning Commission as part of their action on Application S-20-02 recognized these Conditions of Approval (from the Development Advisory Committee Report): 1) Acceptance of Staff Approval of Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Curbing – The Planning Commission recognized and accepted the City Planner (Staff) approval of the waiver request to relax upright curbing requirements in select areas related to stormwater management facilities where sheet flow of water into areas such as swales may be necessary. 2) Loading Spaces: The Planning Commission accepted the Staff’s recommendation of approval regarding loading space design. The three loading spaces required of this building project is sufficiently serviced by the loading dock area located on the north elevation of the building based on the uses and functions of the school building. 3) Adjacent to Silver Lake: This site is adjacent to Silver Lake along its northern property line and as proposed appears to maintain the existing conditions (a wooded area) along the Lake’s edge and respects the required 100 feet buffer from the water body. There is a stormwater system outfall pipe into the Silver Lake. As required by Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.251, the Silver Lake Commission reviewed this Application at a Virtual Meeting on May 7, 2020 making a recommendation for approval of the project design. This information was provided to the Planning Commission verbally by Staff, but Meeting Minutes are expected to be issued. 4) Entrance Drive/Site Access: The Planning Commission recognizes the recommendation

Notice of Decision Letter: S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan June 4, 2020 Page 3 of 4 to evaluate with the City’s Department of Public Works, the intersection of Woodcrest Drive and Pat Lynn Drive for any street improvements to better define the intersection, traffic control measures (signage and striping), the turning movements, and pedestrian amenities of sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. 5) Pedestrian Connections: The Planning Commission recognized the Planning Staff’s Recommendations related to pedestrian access in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 subsection 2.21 related to safety and convenience of vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. • Staff recommends acceptance of the existing sidewalks (without the grass strip) found in the general vicinity of Pat Lynn Drive at Walker Road. However, the project should ensure the site entrance drive includes the required accessibility ramps and pedestrian crosswalk markings to maintain a viable pedestrian connectivity. This includes the intersection at Walker Road and the intersection with Woodcrest Drive. • Ensure pathway from Woodcrest neighborhood is in good repair as associated with any agreements related to its maintenance. • Provide several locations for bicycle parking as the new building and site improvements has multiple approaches. The design of the site improvements may also provide opportunities for covered bicycle parking as well. The Plan must be revised to document all conditions of approval from the Planning Commission, Development Advisory Committee, or as otherwise noted. This process involves submission of Check Prints in order to achieve Final Plan approval; the finalization of the Master Plan and the Site Plan for Phase 1 can be achieved together. Then the Site Plan of each construction phase/project area (Phases 2-4) must be submitted for Administrative Site Plan Review by the Planning Office and other agencies. Check Print submittals to other Development Advisory Committee member agencies are required for their approval of the Plans as well. Coordinate with the other agencies as necessary and forward approval letters to the Planning Office as they are obtained. The Planning Commission approval of the Master Plan is valid for five (5) years from the date of approval, provided that a construction phase commences within two (2) years of such approval and is proceeding toward completion. In addition, the time between the completion of one phase and the next phase shall not exceed a period of two (2) years. See Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.44 (D). In order to commence construction of a project phase, a Plan must be submitted (as described above) and receive Final Plan approval and the appropriate Building Permits obtained. For Site Development Master Plan S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools, the approval expiration date is May 31, 2022 to start authorized construction and continue to proceed. Also, the timeframe between the completion of one phase and the initiation of the next phase shall not exceed two (2) years. To apply for an extension of time from the Planning Commission, this office shall be in receipt of a letter from the owner/applicant requesting such extension at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the original approval. The letter requesting the extension shall state the reasons why an extension is necessary. If in the future major changes and revisions are proposed to the site design as presented to the

Notice of Decision Letter: S-20-02 New Dover Middle Schools at 1 Pat Lynn Drive: Master Plan June 4, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission, you are required to contact the Planning Office to discuss. These changes may require resubmittal of the plan/drawings for review by the Development Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission or other agencies making recommendations or taking action regarding the application. As a reminder the Public Notice Physical Posting signage should have been removed from the property by May 25, 2020. Physical Posting signage not removed in a timely manner will be treated as an abandoned sign per the Zoning Ordinance. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact the plan reviewer Dawn Melson-Williams at (302) 736-7196 or dmelson@dover.de.us. Sincerely, Department of Planning & Inspections Dawn E. Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner Enclosures: Final D.A.C. Report w/Comments Cc: David S. Hugg III, Planning Director via email Jason Lyon, P.E. Department of Water & Wastewater via email Sharon Duca, P.E. Department of Public Works via email Brad Hastings, AIA, Becker Morgan Group, Inc. via email Ade Kuforiji, Capital School District via email Elliot Hardin, Capital School District via email File S-20-02

Board of Education John C. Martin Jr., President Dr. Chanda Jackson-Short, Vice-President Supervisor of Buildings and Sean P. M. Christiansen Grounds Joan L. Engel Elliot Hardin Dr. Anthony J. DePrima Voice: (302) 857-4210 Fax: (302) 672-1714 Superintendent of Schools Email: elliot.hardin@capital.k12.de.us Daniel C. Shelton, Ed. D. Voice: (302) 857-4200 198 Commerce Way Fax: (302) 672-1715 Dover, DE 19904 Email: dan.shelton@capital.k12.de.us To: City of Dover Reference: Comprehensive Environmental Service and Scope of Service for the Stormwater Conveyance System Location: Former Dover High School 1 Pat Lynn Drive Dover, Delaware 19904 Date Submitted: June 9, 2020 Capital School District (CSD) has entered into an agreement with Envirotech Environmental Consulting, Inc. (EECI) to provide a long-term comprehensive Environmental Management Service at the above referenced location. In addition to services provided by EECI, CSD’s commitment to cut and trim the grass during the cutting season will continue. Both commitments are outlined as follows: Envirotech Environmental Consulting, Inc. Commitment BACKGROUND: In 2017 EECI performed restoration activities (tree removal, vegetation treatment and cutting) to the stormwater management system located at the Former Dover High School. A systemic herbicide application to all exotic invasive and native nuisance vegetation in contracted area including, but not limited to, Phragmites australis, Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), woody stems and vines was performed. Subsequent to restoration activities, EECI performed stormwater maintenance and management services during the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT: EECI provides monthly services under our Compliance Service Plan (CSP) for the 2020 Growing Season. • March-November (once per month service). • December-February (No Service). The Capital School District is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions), national origin, citizenship or ancestry, age, disability, marital status, veteran status, genetic information, sexual orientation, or gender identity, against victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, or stalking, or upon any other categories protected by federal, state, or local law. Inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies should be directed to the Title IX, District 504 and ADA Coordinators: Capital School District, 198 Commerce Way, Dover DE 19904. Phone (302) 672-1500

MOSQUITO CONTROL: EECI will stock the on-site stormwater system with Eastern Mosquito Fish (Gambusia holbrooki). Additionally, EECI will monitor the stormwater system for mosquito larva and treat as necessary. **In addition to mosquito control, CSD will also contract service through a professional licensed company AQUATIC PLANTING: EECI will install vegetative plantings as needed (duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora), blue flag (Iris versicolor) iris, etc.). WILDFLOWER PLANTING: EECI will install a showy native northeast wildflower mix along the top perimeter (North and West) of the stormwater system. This will enhance the aesthetic view, provide low maintenance (no mowing) and stabilization to the pond boarder. FLOODPLAIN/TERRACE: As per the approved wetland mitigation design, the floodplain/terrace (upper platform of the stormwater conveyance system) will be drained to prevent a permanent pool. EECI will install two (2) stormwater drains to drain excess stormwater from the floodplain/terrace. Each drain will be connected to a 4” PVC piping that will ultimately drain into the channel (as designed). The floodplain/terrace is designed to act as an overflow for the forebay and channel during storm events. The overflow will submerge the mitigation area. When the stormwater recedes, the site is designed to impound a portion of the stormwater within the wetlands to be absorbed by wetland plantings and soils. Capital School District Commitment GRASS CUTTING UNTIL NEW SCHOOLS ARE CONSTRUCTED CSD will continue to make sure the grass cutting is maintained on the inside and outside of the fenced area. We will also make sure the grass and weeds are trimmed along the bottom perimeter of the chain link fence line. This service will be conducted during the grass cutting season of each year. Currently CSD does not have the required amount of in-house staff to fully commit to a weekly schedule. Because of this reason, CSD will seek assistance from an outside contractor to maintain the area on a weekly basis. Weather conditions may alter the schedule but the district along with the contractor will make every effort to ensure the area is maintained in a timely manner. The Capital School District is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions), national origin, citizenship or ancestry, age, disability, marital status, veteran status, genetic information, sexual orientation, or gender identity, against victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, or stalking, or upon any other categories protected by federal, state, or local law. Inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies should be directed to the Title IX, District 504 and ADA Coordinators: Capital School District, 198 Commerce Way, Dover DE 19904. Phone (302) 672-1500

GRASS CUTTING ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND STAFFING ASSIGNED Once the construction of the schools are completed, CSD will continue to cut and maintain the wetland area with the use of district staff or the continual use of a contractor. Again, weather conditions may alter the regular schedule but the area will be mowed and trimmed in a timely manner. MOSQUITO CONTROL – Additional In addition to mosquito control provided by Environtech Environmental Consulting, CSD will also seek professional service through a licensed mosquito control company to provide an ongoing annual treatment plan. This plan will include spraying the bushes, tress, and shrubs surrounding the water area to eradicate any future larvae of the mosquito. Sincerely, Elliot Hardin Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds The Capital School District is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions), national origin, citizenship or ancestry, age, disability, marital status, veteran status, genetic information, sexual orientation, or gender identity, against victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, or stalking, or upon any other categories protected by federal, state, or local law. Inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies should be directed to the Title IX, District 504 and ADA Coordinators: Capital School District, 198 Commerce Way, Dover DE 19904. Phone (302) 672-1500

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF July 8, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF July 20, 2020 Plan Title: Landing Square Apartments, Bay Road Commercial Revision at 600 Bay Road Plan Type: Conditional Use Site Plan Location: Southwest side of Bay Road Tax Map #: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000 Owner/Applicant: Bayroadcap, LLC Site Area: 12.9366 acres +/- Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Prior Use: Vacant Land Proposed Use: Phase 1: Office Building (under construction) Phase 2: 80 Unit Apartment Building, Office Building and Two (2) Restaurants Building Area (Phase 2): Proposed Office Building: 19,186 SF Proposed Apartment Building: 31,215 SF x 4 floors = 124,860 SF Proposed Restaurants: 6,400 SF and 4,200 SF Off Street Parking: Required – 561 spaces Proposed – 681 spaces Sewer & Water: City of Dover Waiver Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer Requests to Reconfirm: Tree Mitigation Plan For Consideration: Active Recreation Area Plan Request for Cash-in-Lieu of 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: July 8, 2020 APPLICATION: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road FILE #: C-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Samantha Bulkilvish, Planner I PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner I. PLAN SUMMARY This application is for review of a Conditional Use Site Plan Application to revise Phase 2 of a Site Plan for Bay Road Commercial to permit the construction of an 80-unit apartment building, replace a multi-tenant retail building with a 20,000 +/- SF office building, and retain two restaurant sites at 600 Bay Road. The area for Phase 1: Office Building of 62,900 SF is already under construction. The subject property is 12.9366 acres +/- and is located on the southwest side of Bay Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Bayroadcap, LLC. Property Address: 600 Bay Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000. Previous Applications: The overall project was originally approved under Site Plan Application S-17-20 Bay Road Commercial with Planning Commission approval granted at their July 17, 2017 meeting, and receiving Final Plan approval in July of 2019. A one-year extension of Planning Commission approval was granted on July 15, 2019. This application included two restaurants of 4,200 SF and 6,400 SF, a 70,646 SF grocery store, a 18,000 SF multi-tenant building segment and a 20,800 SF multi-tenant building segment. As part of this approval the Planning Commission granted a waiver for the reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet along the street frontage of Bay Road. The project site was also the subject of S-14-08 Woodland Tree Clearing Plan of 560 Bay Road which included an off-site Tree Mitigation Plan that has been implemented. On September 16, 2019 the City of Dover Planning Commission granted conditional approval to Site Plan S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building Update to Bay Road Commercial which replaced the originally proposed 70,646 SF grocery store and 18,000 SF multi-tenant retail building with a 62,900 SF Administration Building for the State Police. The other components of the original site plan retained include the 20,800 SF multi-tenant retail building and the 6,400 and 4,200 SF restaurants. Final Plan approval for Site Plan S-19-20 was given March 6, 2020. Phase 1 to develop the western portion of the property with the State Police Administration Building is under construction.

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 2 Preliminary Land Use Services Review (PLUS) Associated with Site Plan S-17-20, the Bay Road Commercial Plan application (PLUS Review #2017-05-08) was reviewed on May 24, 2017 by the Preliminary Land Use Services as required by the City of Dover’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU requires that non- residential developments of over 75,000 square feet complete the PLUS Review process prior to application submission. The PLUS Review Comments and the applicant’s response from 2017 are on file in the Planning Office. The Revised Plan S-19-20 was not resubmitted through the PLUS Review process due to the type of changes proposed. Previous an earlier plan for development also went through the PLUS Review process as #2006-12-03. With the revisions to the project to add a residential component (the Apartment Building), the PLUS Waiver Request was sought to waive the PLUS Review requirement given the existing approvals of portions of the site development. A PLUS Waiver was granted subject to conditions; see Letter of June 22, 2020. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at the southwest side of Bay Road. The applicant is proposing to construct an 80-unit, four-story apartment building with a 31,215 SF footprint to be known as Landing Square Apartments. The two restaurant sites previously approved are to remain with building areas of 6,400 SF and 4,200 SF, but the 20,800 SF multi-tenant retail building would be replaced with a 19,186 SF office building. Neighboring properties on Bay Road are also zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and SC-2 (Shopping Center Development). The property immediately to the north was recently developed under Site Plan S-17-30 Century Engineering Office. The property to the south is zoned SC-2 (Shopping Center Development) and is a shopping center known as Bay Court Plaza and provides shared access to the Landing Square Apartments/Bay Road Commercial site. To the east across Bay Road is the Kent County Levy Court Administration Building which is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and to the west are a lumber company and car dealership that front on S. DuPont Highway and are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). III. ZONING REVIEW C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) The application is a Conditional Use Site Plan for the proposed construction of an 80-unit apartment building. Apartments and multi-family dwellings in the C-4 Zone are Conditional Uses which require approval from the Planning Commission. (Zoning Ordinance Article 3 Section 16.2) Article 3 Section 16.1 Highway commercial zone (C-4) 16.1 Uses permitted. In a highway commercial zone (C-4), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: (a) Retail stores. (b) Business, professional or governmental offices. (c) Restaurants. (d) Personal service establishments. (e) Service establishments. (f) Hotels and motels. (g) Places of public assembly.

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 3 (h) Bus terminal. (i) Wholesale, storage, warehousing, and distribution establishments. (j) Indoor or outdoor recreation and amusement establishments. (k) Hospitals and medical centers. (l) Drive-throughs. (m) Motor vehicle, boat, or farm equipment sales or service: (1) The minimum lot size for such establishments shall be 20,000 square feet, and the minimum street frontage shall be 150 feet. (2) Entrance and exit driveways shall have an unrestricted width of not less than 16 feet, shall be located not nearer than ten feet from any property line and shall be so laid out as to avoid the necessity of any vehicle leaving the property to back out across any public right-of-way or portion thereof. (3) Vehicle lifts or pits, dismantled and disabled automobiles, and all parts or supplies shall be located within a building enclosed on all sides. (4) All service or repair of motor vehicles, other than such minor servicing as change of tires or sale of gasoline or oil, shall be conducted in a building fully enclosed on all sides. This requirement shall not be construed to mean that the doors to any repair shop must be kept closed at all times. (5) The storage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk shall be located fully underground in accordance with applicable provisions of the National Fire Protection Association Code. (6) No fuel pumps shall be located nearer than 15 feet to any street line. (7) Fuel pumps shall not be permitted closer than 100 feet from a property line of any school, day care, church, hospital, nursing home, or place of public assembly designed for the simultaneous use and occupancy by more than 100 persons. (n) Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, or any other processing of products for sale on or off the premises, provided that not more than 25 persons shall be engaged in such activity; and provided further, that any such use shall be subject to the performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8. (o) Mini-storage facilities, subject to the following regulations: (1) No unit shall be placed within 30 feet of a residential property line. (2) No outside storage, except for recreational vehicles, boats, or personal automobiles when completely parked in specifically approved locations. Parking for these vehicles shall not count toward the required parking set forth in subsection (e) below. (3) No individual unit may be used for retail, garage sale, or any other commercial activities. (4) No storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive, or other hazardous products may occur in the individual unit. (5) Parking must be provided at a ratio of one space for each 25 rental units, plus a minimum of three spaces for an office. (p) Adult entertainment establishments, subject to the provisions stated in article 5, section 13. 16.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Apartments and multi-family dwellings. (b) Crematory, subject to the following requirements: (1) The building lot line upon which a crematory is to be established shall be located at least 100 feet from any residential zone. (2) Where adjacent to residential zones, all landscape buffers shall be required. The buffer shall consist of a landscape screen no less than six and one-half feet high. All landscaping shall be properly maintained throughout the life of the use on lot. (3) Loading operations shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building. Location of loading doors shall be at the side or rear of the building. (4) The crematory shall comply with the Delaware Incinerator Regulations. A copy of the approved air pollution permit issued by the State of Delaware Department of Natural

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 4 Resources and Environmental Control shall accompany the application for a certificate of occupancy. This Conditional Use Site Plan is subject to the requirements of Article 10 §1 further discussed below. With Conditional Use Site Plan applications, the Planning Commission reviews the proposed project to determine whether or not the intended use is appropriate in type and scale for the immediate neighborhood. The Commission must also consider whether or not the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the future orderly development of the surrounding area. The following sections of the Zoning Ordinance which relates to the role of the Commission in reviewing Conditional Use Site Plan applications are particularly relevant when reviewing this application: Article 10 §1.1 [Accessibility for fire and police protection.] That all proposed structures, equipment or material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection; Article 10 §1.2 That the proposed use be of such location, size, and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the zone in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties in accordance with the zoning classification of such properties; IV. PARKING SUMMARY The parking requirement for apartments in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) is based on a rate of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.25 space per dwelling unit for visitor parking and one parking space for every 200 SF of office space. Based on the number of dwelling units (80 units) and 400 SF of office space the apartment portion of this site would require 182 parking spaces. An office use requires one parking space per 300 SF of floor area. The combined total floor area of the previously approved office building and the newly proposed office is 81,986 SF. The total divided by 300 SF is 274 spaces required for the Office uses. The parking requirements for the restaurants is determined by the seating capacity. There is required to be one space for every four (4) seats. The total number of seats for both restaurants is estimated at 424 seats which gives you 106 parking spaces required. The Plan therefore requires a total of 562 parking spaces and there are 680 spaces proposed, a difference of 118 spaces. See Summary Table of Parking Calculations: Proposed Use Total SF or Calculation Parking Required Occupancy Apartments 80 units & 400 SF 2.25 spaces per unit 180 + 2 = 182 office & 1 space per 200 SF office space Office Space 81,986 SF 1 space per 300 SF 274 Restaurants 424 seats 1 space per 4 seats 106 Total 562 Spaces Required 680 Spaces Proposed

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 5 Loading Berths Article 6 Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that for professional, governmental or business office uses with a floor area of 10,000 to 25,000 SF one (1) loading berth shall be provided. This would mean that the proposed 20,000 SF North Office Building proposed to replace the multi-tenant retail space would require one (1) loading berth. The plan does not clearly identify a loading berth for this building; however, the applicant has confirmed that there is a loading dock and one (1) loading space at the northeast corner of the North Office Building. The approved Site Plan for Phase 1 shows two (2) loading spaces provided at the rear of the Delaware State Police Administration Building. The previously approved Site Plans also showed a loading space at the rear of the north Restaurant which is no longer shown on this Site Plan. A restaurant is not required to have a loading berth. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking is required at a ratio of one space for every twenty parking spaces. If the site is to be served by 680 parking spaces, thirty-four (34) bicycle parking spaces are required. A total of forty-six (46) bicycle parking spaces are placed in various locations along the perimeter of the site, but no bicycle parking is provided in the immediate vicinity of the Apartment Building. V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Access There are three entrances proposed to the site: a right-in/right-out on Bay Road and two access/exit points off the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive which intersects with Bay Road at a signalized intersection of Bay Road and Blue Hen Boulevard (to the east). The parking lot is shown to have two-way traffic throughout parking areas of the site. The Plan continues to identify the cross-access interconnection to a neighboring parcel to the north (550 Bay Road) and to the adjacent parcel on Bay Road (580 Bay Road surrounded by this project and owned by The Law Office of Karen Y. Vicks). Sidewalks Sidewalks are required along the Bay Road street frontage of the site (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 18). The plan shows a shared use path of 10 ft. width as required along the Bay Road frontage. Sidewalk is proposed on the north side of the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive from Bay Road with three connections leading into the commercial site. Additionally, sidewalk connections are made to the Restaurant sites from the shared use path along Bay Road. These multi-use (shared use) paths are needed based on the policies of the City’s Bicycle Plan and the Complete Streets policy, shared between the City and DelDOT, requiring that all road reconstruction projects in the State right-of-way consider all transportation modes and accommodate them accordingly. Based on traffic speed on the adjacent roads, off-road trails are the best way to accommodate bicyclists to this site. In addition, there are existing shared use paths along the Bay Road corridor in the vicinity. The project has a lot of sidewalks around the perimeter of the site, but the internal connectivity especially around the Apartment Building could be improved. The ease of access from the Apartments connecting to the multi-use path along Bay Road is lacking and could easily be improved

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 6 with a crosswalk near the rear (east side) northern building exit and a sidewalk along the southern edge of the Bay Road entrance drive. An extension of the sidewalk up the west side (opposite of what is being shown) of the first drive off Bay Court Plaza Boulevard could improve the safety of pedestrians crossing over to get from the Apartment Building to the Bay Court Plaza Shopping Center. Pedestrians would be crossing a narrower part of the parking area/drive aisle to get to and from the Apartment Building. A marked crosswalk would improve pedestrian visibility from the Bay Road sidewalk connection to the south Restaurant like the connection shown at the north Restaurant. Curbing The upright curbing for the parking lots and drive aisles is required the requirements of Article 6 Section 3.6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. This curb type appears to be utilized throughout the site layout. Lighting Lighting is proposed throughout the site where parking is provided. Most lighting is located along the perimeter and on the parking islands in the larger parking lot area. It is unclear if there will be exterior lighting on or in the immediate vicinity of the Apartment Building. There is none shown on the elevations provided. Emergency Access Emergency rear access is required for some residential dwelling types. According to Article 5, Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance a 24 ft. wide Primary Fire Lane is required for apartments that are 4 stories or greater. The Site Plan shows a Fire Lane around the entirety of the Apartment Building. The Fire Marshal’s Office will also evaluate these fire protection measures. Dumpsters According to Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §6.12, the Dumpster requirements for an office of less than 50,000 SF would be two for the first 16,000 SF and one each additional 16,000 SF or fraction thereof. The proposed North Office Building will require three (3) Dumpster units and four (4) are shown at the northeast corner of the building. Restaurants are required to provide two (2) dumpsters for the first 3,000 SF and one (1) for each additional 3,00 SF or fraction thereof. The north Restaurant measuring 6,400 SF would require four (4) dumpsters and the south Restaurant measuring 4,200 SF would require three (3) dumpsters for a total of seven (7) dumpsters. Each restaurant shows two Dumpsters for their use and there is a note in the Site Data Column explaining that two Dumpster pads will be reserved for future expansion if required. These reserved dumpster pads shall be shown on the Plan. The construction of the Dumpster pad and enclosure would only be required if in the future it was determined to be necessary by the Planning Director. For an apartment complex, the Dumpster requirements are two (2) for the first 48 apartments plus one (1) for each additional 24 apartments. The total Dumpster requirement for the Apartment Building is four (4); three (3) Dumpsters are proposed for the Apartment Building to the north of the south Restaurant. The location of these Dumpsters would require residents to cross a drive aisle to access. In Phase 1, the Delaware State Police Administration Building required two (2) dumpsters and there were three (3) provided on the approved Plan. See Summary Table of Dumpster Requirements:

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 7 Use Dumpster Calculation Number Required Number Provided North Office Building 2 for 16,000 SF + 1 19,186 – 16,000 = 4 for each additional 3,186 OR 2+1=3 16,000 SF North Restaurant 2 for 3,000 SF + 1 for 6,400 – 3,000 = 3,400 2 each additional 3,000 OR 2+1+1=4 SF South Restaurant 2 for 3,000 SF + 1 for 4,200 – 3,00 = 1,200 2 each additional 3,000 OR 2+1=3 SF 80-Unit Apartment 2 for first 48 units + 1 80 – 48 = 32 – 24 = 8 3 Building for each additional 24 OR 2+1+1=4 units Lot Coverage The C-4 zoning district has a maximum lot coverage of 75%. The S-17-20 Plan was originally approved for development with a Maximum Lot Coverage of 88.9% in July of 2017 prior to the Code change implementation of the 75% maximum lot coverage zoning requirement. The amended plan S- 19-20 was approved with 10.08 acres or 77.9% impervious coverage. This Conditional Use Site Plan is proposing no change in the impervious coverage from plan S-19-20. Staff suspects that there is some minor change in this number and suggest it be calculated again to be sure. A decrease in impervious coverage is encouraged to get closer to the 75% maximum lot coverage; however, any increase beyond the previously approved 77.9% coverage would not be permitted without a variance. VI. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The Plan submission includes Architectural Renderings presenting the front elevation (west side) and rear elevation (east side) of the Apartment Building and the front of the newly proposed North Office Building. See attached elevation color renderings and Site Plan drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. The exterior finish of the Apartment Building is comprised of a stone veneer at the first-floor level and then a mixture of board and batten and lap vinyl siding. The exact materials proposed are not specifically identified. The patio/balconies are to be recessed and have black aluminum railings. A flat roof is proposed. The exterior of the proposed North Office Building looks to be a combination of brick (forming columns along the front of the building along with vertical siding. The roof appears to have different elevations which may only be part of the façade as parapet walls. There are also two canopies projecting over the entrance and over another portion of the front of the building for symmetry. There are no specific materials described on this rendering. Also, no architectural information has been submitted for the Restaurant Buildings. VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The submitted plan includes the Landscaping approach for the overall project; this has also been revised from the S-17-20 and S-19-20 plans. The Landscape Plan is providing a mixture of deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and ornamental trees to provide a total of 190 trees. Currently, the Bay Road frontage is extensively treed (associated with the Arterial Street Buffer), and trees are also proposed within parking lot islands and medians and along the northern and southern property line.

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 8 Reconfirm Approval of Tree Mitigation Plan The project site was the subject of S-14-08 Woodland Tree Clearing Plan of 560 Bay Road which included an off-site Tree Mitigation Plan that has been implemented. Also, as part of the approval of S-19-20 Planning Commission granted approval of an additional Tree Mitigation Plan to locate a series of trees along the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive on the adjacent property rather than planting them on the subject site. This alternative planting location is to avoid proposed utility line locations on the subject site’s southern property edge while meeting the tree planting requirements and to still implement a tree-lined entrance drive. Reconfirm Approved Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer In July 2017, the Planning Commission granted a waiver request to reduce the width of the Arterial Street Buffer from the required thirty (30) feet to the proposed twenty (20) feet (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §7.3). With this Site Plan there are no revisions to the plan site development area immediately in this buffer area. The Arterial Street Buffer is shown as twenty (20) feet of landscaped green space and is proposed to be planted with a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrub plantings. Recreation Area/ Consideration for Cash-in-Lieu of Recreation Area Construction As part of the proposed recreation area for the residential use of the Apartment Building, a 3,336 SF Club House/Community Space is provided on the first floor and a 2,610 SF deck is on the fourth floor on the west side. These two spaces provide a total of 5,946 SF of planned Active Recreation Area. Active Recreation area is to be provided at 275 SF per dwelling unit. To provide for the deficit of 16,054 SF of the Active Recreation Area the applicant has chosen to pursue a Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction donation of $98,387.52 to be placed in the City’s Parkland Reserve Fund. A Report on the amenities being provided and the calculation of the Cash-in-lieu donation was prepared and sent to the applicant as well as the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee to be reviewed at their meeting on July 14, 2020. See Attached Recreation Plan Review Report. VIII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with the agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) A Preliminary Land Use Services Review (PLUS) waiver has been granted from the Office of State Planning Coordination for review of the changes to Site Plan S-17-20, provided the applicant meet with DelDOT and submit a letter to the Office of State Planning and the City of Dover addressing any additional issues or requirements by DelDOT based on the new site plan. 2) Confirmation of the previously approved waiver request to allow for a 20-foot wide (rather than 30-foot wide) Arterial Street Buffer must be granted by the Planning Commission. 3) Confirmation of the previously approved Tree Mitigation Plan is required to allow trees along the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive on the adjacent property. The Planning Commission must act on this request. Also, documentation of approval for the tree planting

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 9 on the adjacent property must be received from the adjacent property owner specific to this plan. 4) A ten-foot-wide multi-use path is required to be installed along the Bay Road frontages in accordance with DelDOT requirements and the 2015 Bicycle Plan. The applicant has indicated the intent to provide the multi-use/shared use path. 5) The Planning Commission must approve the Conditional Use for an Apartment Building in the C-4 zone. 6) The applicant is responsible for providing an Active Recreation Area in the amount of 275 SF of space per dwelling unit or a Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction donation. In this case, the Applicant is choosing to provide 5,946 SF of Active Recreation Area and proposes a Cash-in-lieu donation of $98,387.52 based on an appraisal of the property that amounted to $3,440.000.00 and the deficit of 16,054 SF of Active Recreation Area. The Cash- in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction donation shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 7) Dumpsters are required for the proposed Apartment Building. Two (2) Dumpsters are required for the first 48 apartments and one (1) additional Dumpster is required for each additional 24 apartments or fraction thereof. With this calculation four (4) Dumpsters would be required for the use of the Apartment Building alone. Please include this calculation in the Site Data Column. There are three (3) Dumpsters shown for the use of the apartment building at the northern end of the parking lot for the South Restaurant. This would require the residents to cross a main drive aisle to dispose of waste which could be a safety concern. Staff suggest relocating or reconfiguring the Dumpsters. 8) As stated in Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 §5.3 no parking shall be nearer than 15 feet to a wall of multiple dwellings. Please verify that no parking is located closer than 15 feet from the Apartment Building. 9) The lighting is dispersed across the parking area at the front of the Apartment Building. Staff are concerned that there will not be sufficient light near the entrances at the front and rear of the Apartment Building. Please clarify if there will be additional lighting along sidewalk areas or on the building as it is not apparent from the elevations provided. 10) Please verify the height of the Apartment Building. It is currently listed at 35 feet and four stories. 11) Staff notes the need for review of building architecture for the Restaurant buildings. It is required to be presented for Planning Commission review at a future meeting prior to approval for construction of the restaurant buildings. 12) Cover Sheet: a) Please revise the number of parking spaces to the north of the North Restaurant that are adjacent to the building from 12 to 11. This revision should be made to each page. b) Please update all calculations in the Site Data Column to be applicable to 80 dwelling

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 10 units rather than 85. c) When calculating parking spaces if there is a fraction of a space required you should always round up to the next whole number. Therefore, please revise the number of required spaces for the Office Use from 273 to 274. d) The total number of provided parking spaces is listed in the Site Data Column as 681 spaces. Due to the missing space in the North Restaurant lot the actual total number is 680. e) When calculating the number of Dumpsters required for each use please round up to the nearest whole number. The number of dumpsters required for the Office use is three (3). f) The number of Dumpsters for each Restaurant should be calculated separately. When this is done the required number of dumpsters for the North Restaurant is four (4) and the required number for the South Restaurant is three (3) for a total of seven (7) dumpsters. g) If any Dumpsters are to be reserved as noted in the Site Data column then they need to be shown as reserved on the Site Plan. h) Please show the calculation for the number of Dumpsters required and proposed for the Apartment Building in the Site Data column. If other trash receptacles will be utilized, please include a note. i) Update the number of required dumpsters for the D.S.P. Office to three (3). 13) Cover Sheet and all subsequent pages: a) A loading space is required for the proposed North Office Building. Please show and label the location of the 12 ft. by 60 ft. loading space. b) Please include location of handicapped ramps in the vicinity of the proposed North Office Building, Apartment Building, and South Restaurant. c) Please include handicapped parking near entrances to the proposed Apartment Building and South Restaurant. 14) Page C-201 & C-202 a) Striping & Signage Construction Notes T-10 and T-15 could not be located on the Site Plan. If these are no longer relevant to the revised plan, please remove these notes. b) General Construction Notes G-15, G-16, G-20, G-21 and G-22 could not be located on the Site Plan. If these are no longer applicable to the Phase 2 construction or because of the revisions made to the plan, please remove these notes. c) C-202 only: Remove note written over D.S.P. building that says Gate Access Below. 15) Pages C-301 & C-302: a) Please make sure all Construction Notes are displayed. 16) Page L-101: a) Please revise the number and label for the Cornus Florida at the north east corner of the south Restaurant parking lot. Currently it reads 5 QR and should read 1 CF. b) Please update the number of Ilex Glabra “Shamrock” in the Plant List from 165 to 168. c) Ensure tree planting locations and landscaping maintain the required spacing distances or access provisions from utility lines, fire hydrants, site lighting, etc. 17) The Final Plan set must include notes documenting any action taken by the Planning Commission regarding requested waivers and must list any additional conditions of approval.

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 11 18) As associated with S-14-08 Woodland Tree Clearing Plan for this site, Staff notes that the Tree Mitigation Plan has been implemented. The Woodland Mitigation Plan was developed in conjunction with DNREC-Division of Parks & Recreation for the McClements Woodland Tract at the Fork Branch Nature Preserve (Forest Mitigation Plan dated March 2006 and as proposed for amendment by Letter of 10/16/2009). The project is required to submit to the Planning Office copies of the Monitoring Reports as listed in the Mitigation Plan following completion of any monitoring activities of the reforestation area. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §1, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon Conditional Use Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed in subsections 1.1 to 1.3. 1) Conditional Use for Apartments: The request is for the establishment of apartment use through the Conditional Use process. Staff are pleased with this attempt at a mixed-use development. There are some concerns however about the friendliness and usability of the area for the potential residents. Staff recommends the following items for design changes to improve livability of this residential component. a) Pedestrian Connectivity: There are several opportunities across the site to increase the number of sidewalk connections and rethink the placement of crosswalks for increased pedestrian safety. b) Open/Green Space: With a reduction of parking, there is an opportunity to increase the green space in the direct vicinity of the Apartment Building. This would make the area more livable by providing an opportunity for residents to lay out in the grass, walk their dogs, find an additional area for outdoor bike storage or any number of other outdoor activities. The reconfiguration of some parking would also allow for larger islands and opportunity for increased number of trees and other green space. c) Parking: There are two areas where Staff notes an opportunity to improve the parking area for the increased health and safety of the residents. The first is by creating a solid median along east side of the far west drive aisle entering and exiting from the Bay Court Plaza Boulevard and rotating the parking spaces in front (west side) of the Apartment Building 90 degrees. This would create more of a protected parking area for the resident’s vehicles. As a result, there would be a designated area of parking specifically for the Apartment Building and a larger median area that could accommodate additional trees and green space. The second safety concern is the backing out of the parking spaces into the main drive aisle that connects the Bay Road entrance to the first entrance off Bay Court Plaza Boulevard between the east side of the Apartment Building and the Restaurant locations. By eliminating these forty-three (43) parking spaces there is an

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 12 opportunity to create additional green space around the Apartment Building and to reduce the likelihood of vehicle collisions along this main circulation drive aisle for the complex. d) Amenities: Opportunities for additional amenities are abundant on this site. The one that seems like an obvious choice would be the addition of bike racks or covered bike storage around the Apartment Building or even an indoor bike storage area. Due to the proximity of the site to the Capital City Bike Trail and the St. Jones Greenway Trail the probability of the residents owning bicycles is high. Other additions could be a patio with a sail-type shade, dog waste station, and benches along the sidewalks. 2) Recommendation on Waiver Requests for Reconfirmation: a) Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer: Staff recommends the Planning Commission reconfirm the approval of the Request to Reduce the Arterial Street Buffer from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet. The plan remains unchanged along the Bay Road frontage from the previously approved plans. b) Tree Mitigation Plan: Staff recommends the Planning Commission reconfirm approval of the Tree Mitigation Plan. A Woodland Tree Clearing Plan (S-14-08) of 560 Bay Road has been approved and implemented prior to construction of Phase 1. Approval was also granted to a second Tree Mitigation Plan under the review of S-19-20 to plant twenty (20) of the proposed 190 trees along the northern edge of Bay Court Plaza Boulevard on the adjacent property. 3) Active Recreation Plan: The proposed active recreation for the 80-unit Apartment Building is to consist of a community space on the 1st floor and a 4th floor deck on the west side of the building. Staff recommends approval of these amenities after the spaces have been developed further with seating plans and proposed uses/activities to be held in these spaces. These amenities are outlined in the Active Recreation Area Review Report prepared for the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement (PRCE) Committee. The Recreation Area Plan is pending PRCE review comments. 4) Cash-in-Lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction: A Cash-in-Lieu fee has been calculated and presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee for the deficit of the required Active Recreation Area. The calculation of the Cash-in-Lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction donation is outlined in the Active Recreation Area Review Report prepared for the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement (PRCE) Committee. The Cash-in-Lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction Donation is pending PRCE review. IX. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) This property qualifies for consideration of a Unified Comprehensive Sign Plan to address signage on the site. The applicant is encouraged to discuss this option with the Planning Office before applying for any new signs to be placed on site. 2) The Planning Commission should act upon the request for waivers as part of any motion regarding this project application, or as a separate motion as necessary. Note: All waivers are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may approve or deny

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 13 waiver requests. 3) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Conditional Use Site Plan occur in the finalization of the Conditional Use Plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. Examples include relocation of site components like paving and increases in floor area. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regard to the Plan. 4) Following Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Site Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff and the other commenting agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement (Final Plan Approval). 5) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 6) The Building Permit for the Apartment Building shall not be granted until the payment of the Cash-in-Lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction donation has been received by the City. 7) For building new construction, the requirements of the building code and the fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and City of Dover Fire Marshal for these requirements. The resolution of these items may impact the site design including such items as building dimensions and height, building openings, and fire protection needs, etc. 8) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any development or ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections and permits are required. This includes activities to clean-up existing vegetation, the import of fill dirt, etc. 9) Construction may have an effect on the adjacent property owners and nearby travel lanes. Any work requiring the closing or rerouting of potential customers or visitors to adjacent properties should be coordinated as to offer the least amount of inconvenience to the adjacent property owners. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Conditional Use Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. Building Permits will be required for each building. 11) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate Site Plan approvals, Pre-Construction meetings, site inspections and permits are required.

C-20-02 Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road DAC Report of July 8, 2020 Page 14 12) The applicant shall be aware that Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign may require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JULY 1, 2020 APPLICATION: Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 560 & 600 Bay Road FILE #: C-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Works Department CONTACT PERSON: Sharon J. Duca, P.E. CONTACT PHONE #: 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 STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the Kent Conservation District Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approval letter is submitted to our office. STREETS 1. The plan proposes connection to a private street as well as a State road (Bay Road). It is our understanding that agreements were established during Phase 1 of the project for connection to the private street. Regarding the connection to Bay Road, final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the DelDOT entrance plan approval letter is submitted to our office. SANITATION 1. As noted on the plans, the proposed site development will require private sanitation services. GENERAL 1. None. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GENERAL 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 .

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JULY 1, 2020 APPLICATION: Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 560 & 600 Bay Road FILE #: C-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Water / Wastewater Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Water / Wastewater CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 WATER / WASTEWATER – 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. Owner is responsible for locating all existing underground facilities to include electric, water and gas. 2. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 3. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 4. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 5. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 6. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon receipt of final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department. WATER 1. Our office has no objection to the conditional use proposed for the subject property. 2. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 3. The 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

Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 560 & 600 Bay Road File #: C-20-02 July 1, 2020 Page 2 of 4 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. 4. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. 5. 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 site 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the conditional use proposed for the subject property. 2. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 3. The 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, 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. c. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures. 4. Cleanouts must be installed on sanitary sewer laterals within five feet (5’) of the building, one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way and at all bends. Any cleanout located within a traffic bearing location shall be installed with a heavy duty cast iron frame and cover to prevent damage to the cleanout and lateral. 5. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer mains showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. Any projected future flow requirement must be clearly identified. 6. 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. 7. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”).

Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 560 & 600 Bay Road File #: C-20-02 July 1, 2020 Page 3 of 4 8. 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. GENERAL 1. The final site plan must be submitted in a digital format compatible with AutoCAD 2010 (.dwg format) and 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 / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. City of Dover will need proposed load sheets to validate current electrical equipment is adequate. Load sheets can be found at https://www.cityofdover.com/media/Electric%20Department/COD%20Electric%20Load%20Sheet.pdf. 2. With the additional structures there may be a change in the underground power design. Please have the Electrical Contractor contact the Electric Department to coordinate. Complete additional load sheets for accurate sizing of services. WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Water impact fees may be required for this proposed site plan. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the sanitary sewer system plans may be required to be submitted to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. Wastewater impact fees may be required for this proposed site plan. 4. Profiles of the sanitary sewer main must be provided with the construction plans. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings must be shown on the profiles. GENERAL

Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 560 & 600 Bay Road File #: C-20-02 July 1, 2020 Page 4 of 4 1. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. 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 C-20-02 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: July 7, 2020 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) FILE #: C-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Matthew Brown, Deputy Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is: Building 1: Apartments/Residential Building 2: Office/Business Building 3 and 4: Restaurant/Assembly 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 (see below) and clearly shown on the plans: a. Building 1: 75% b. Building 2: N/A c. Building 3+4: 25% 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. 5. Fire lanes shall cover (see below) of the proposed building.

a. Building 1: 35% b. Building 2: 25% c. Buildings 3+4: N/A 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. 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. 11. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 12. 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) 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements. Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code.

Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 16. Sprinkler system required. System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. This chapter shall apply to all buildings, structures, marine vessels, premises, and conditions which are modified by more than 50% after the effective date of these Regulations. The 50% figure shall be calculated utilizing the gross square footage of the building, structure, marine vessel, premises and conditions as to arrive at the correct application. Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for review and approval for a building rehabilitation as defined in the 101 Life Safety Code, for less than 50% of the gross square footage of a non-sprinklered building, may not have another such project for the same building submitted for review and approval any sooner than three (3) years after the date of the final inspection unless sprinkler projection is provided throughout the entire building. In all buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of aggregate, gross floor area. In all buildings in excess of 40 feet in height or more than four (4) stories in height. In all buildings or areas thereof used for the storage, fabricating, assembling, manufacturing, processing, display or sale of combustible goods, wares, merchandise, products, or materials when more than two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. In all basement areas exceeding 2,500 square feet floor area. In residential occupancies when of: Type V (0,0,0) or Type III (2,0,0) construction and exceeding two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. Type V (1,1,1) and Type III (2,1,1) or Type IV (2,H,H) construction exceeding three (3) stories or 3In all residential apartment buildings storage areas except individual unit closets that are located within individual residential living units. In all buildings used as health care occupancies as defined in the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. In all buildings or areas classified as "high hazard" under the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, or "extra hazard" under the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. All buildings used as dormitories, in whole or in part, to house students at a public or private school or public or private institution of higher education. (16 Del.C. Ch. 88) This applies to all such dormitories regardless if new or existing. (2015 State of Delaware Fire Prevention Regulations, 702, Chapter 4)

Places of assembly shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Any interior renovations of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 150 persons. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly that would create an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Places of assembly where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any interior renovation of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 100 persons and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly which would create an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. New educational occupancies of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162) 17. 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. 18. 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) 19. Fire Department Connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment. 20. 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) 21. 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) 22. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and

valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 23. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: 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, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, 24. A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection.

Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings. Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level 25. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non-slip surface and leading to and terminating at a public way. 26. All new passenger elevators in a building shall be provided with a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches (609 mm) by 84 inches (2133 mm) in its horizontal open position. Where two or more new passenger elevators are located in a single hoist way and serve all or the same portion of the building, only one elevator car that provides a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches by 84 inches in its horizontal position for each hoist way shall be required. Elevator cars required to comply with 15.1 or 15.2 shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist way door frame. Firefighter recall keys shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the local fire department. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 1, 15) 27. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done by Delaware State Communications prior to Final CO. This must be scheduled in advance with Delaware State Communications. 28. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 29. Full building and fire plan review is required. 30. 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”.

31. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 32. 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. 33. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Actual Height of Building? Mid Rise? 2. FDC Location needs to be clearly shown on the plan for the apartment Building 3. Item #3 Confirm width of no parking area of FDC 4. Office Building #2. Fire Lane needs to be 10 feet from building 5. Item #11 label the front and rear of the apartment building, Rear needs fire lane 6. Confirm Fire Hydrants are within 300 feet (as the hose comes of the truck) to FDC’s 7. Stand pipe required for apartment building. 8. Clearly show all fire lanes and perimeter access for all buildings 9. Show all gas meters with Impact protection. 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.

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY July 2020 APPLICATION: Landing Square (previously Bay Road Commercial) at 600 Bay Road FILE #: C-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jessica L. Verchick, EIT PHONE #: 302-608-5370 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to conditional use site plan of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. Landing Square (previously Bay Road Commercial) has previous plan approved on 12/03/2019 by the Kent Conservation District which has a different layout than what was just provided. 2. Contact the Kent Conservation District to discuss plan changes. A new plan set must be submitted for review and approval.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Landing Square (fka Bay Commercial 560 & 600 Bay Road) FILE#: C-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The developer has submitted for Traffic ADT to be reviewed by DelDOT. After completing, the developer should schedule for a pre-submittal meeting request to DelDOT to review the project. 2. At a minimum the Site is expected to require Record Plan approval.

City of Dover June 17, 2020 Constance Holland, AICP Director, Office of State Planning Coordination Dover DE Via Email: connie.holland@delaware.gov and david.edgell@delaware.gov RE: Request for Waiver of PLUS Review C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) at 560 & 600 Bay Road, Dover, DE PLUS Review: #2017-05-08 Dear Connie: The City of Dover Planning Office has received a Conditional Use Site Plan Application C-20- 02 Landing Square (Previously known as Bay Road Commercial). The application again revises the proposed shopping center development to focus on a mixed-use development of office buildings, an apartment building, and restaurants. The project filed this application on Friday, June 5, 2020 in order for the Plan to be scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on July 20, 2020. The Application is beginning the City’s development review process. The proposed project would meet the threshold for PLUS review based on total square footage; however, the City believes that it is not necessary to submit the proposal for PLUS Review process. 1. The project location was reviewed most recently as PLUS Review: #2017-05-08 as associated with Site Plan S-17-20 Bay Road Commercial. 2. The location received Final Plan Approval of S-17-20 Bay Road Commercial on July 23, 2019. Then the project was revised under Site Plan S-19-20 to replace the two buildings previously proposed as a grocery store and a multi-tenant retail building on the west side of the site with the construction of a one-story 62,900 SF Office Building and associated site improvements which are identified as Phase 1. The other buildings of the Bay Road Commercial project development as proposed include two restaurants of 4,200 SF and 6,400 SF each and a 26,814 SF multi-tenant building. Final Plan Approval of Site Plan S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building – Update to Bay Road Commercial was granted March 6, 2020. 3. The construction activity for Phase 1 of the project for the Administration Building is currently underway as authorized by Final Plan approval of S-19-20 Delaware State Police Building – Update to Bay Road Commercial. 4. Application C-20-02 revises the Phase 2 areas of the site by replacing the multi-tenant retail building on the north with an office building, by adding an 85-unit apartment building, and retaining the two restaurant sites. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Letter Re: Request for PLUS Waiver for Landing Square Project at 560/600 Bay Road June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 2 5. The Conditional Use Site Plan C-20-02 will be reviewed through the City of Dover’s Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.). A number of the PLUS reviewers also participate in this process and will be required to review and reauthorize any prior approvals for the revised project plan. Attached to this letter is a copy of the applicant’s submission letter and plan information on the proposed project site (cover sheets of Final Plan S-19-20 and Plan Submission C-20-02). We are requesting a determination that a Waiver from review as identified in the Memorandum of Understanding for the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) is appropriate. I feel that a waiver appropriate given the previous PLUS Review and plan approvals that have been achieved for development activity at this site. If there is potential for such a waiver, I support your consideration of this request. As always, we are available to discuss, please contact the Planning Office at (302)736-7196. Sincerely, David S. Hugg, III, Planning Director City of Dover, Delaware DSH/demw Attachments: Applicant Submission Letter of June 5, 2020 S-19-20 Final Site Plan Sheet C-001 C-20-02 Application Submission Plan Sheet C-001 CC via Email: David Edgell, AICP, Office of State Planning Coordination Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP, Principal Planner

STATE OF DELAWARE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING COORDINATION June 22, 2020 Mr. David S. Hugg, III Planning Director, City of Dover 15 E. Loockerman Street P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 RE: PLUS Waiver for the Landing Square, 600 Bay Road, Dover Dear Mr. Hugg: I am writing to inform you that I have waived the PLUS process for the above referenced project pursuant to your request, provided the applicant meet with DelDOT and submit a letter to the Office of State Planning and the City of Dover addressing any additional issues or requirements by DelDOT based on the new site plan. This application was originally reviewed under PLUS 2017-05-08 and a received final approval from the city on July 13, 2018. At this time, the applicant is seeking approval to revise the Phase 2 areas of the site by replacing the multi-tenant retail building on the north with an office building, by adding an 85-unit apartment building, and retaining the two restaurant sites. We understand that the site has already been cleared and all environmental approvals have been received. We are concerned; however, that changes to the site plan could alter the DelDOT comments received through PLUS. According to DelDOT the developer has requested a Pre- submittal meeting. Therefore, we are requesting the developer submit a letter following that meeting to address any new issues or requirement based on the new site plan. This waiver has been granted at my discretion according to the provisions of Title 29, Chapter 92, § 9205 of the Delaware Code. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Constance C. Holland, AICP Director, Office of State Planning Coordination 122 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., South ⋅ Third Floor ⋅ Dover, DE 19901 Phone (302)739-3090 ⋅ Fax (302) 739-5661 ⋅ www. stateplanning.delaware.gov

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR RECREATION PLAN REVIEW Review of Active Recreation Area Plan and Consideration of Cash-in-Lieu Donation PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF July 14, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of July 20, 2020 Plan Title: Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) Plan Type: Active Recreation Area and Consideration of Cash-in-lieu Donation (Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction) Associated with Conditional Use Site Plan C-20-02 Location: Southwest side of Bay Road Address: 600 Bay Road Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-000 Owner/Applicant: Bayroadcap, LLC Site Area: 12.9366 acres Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Prior Use: vacant, wooded areas Proposed Use: Phase 1: Office Building (Under Construction) Phase 2: Apartment Building of 80 Units, Office Building and 2 Restaurants Dwelling Units: 80 units Recreation Area: Required – 22,000 SF Provided – 5,946 SF (Deficient 16,054 SF) Proposed Cash-in-lieu Donation: $98,387.52 I. PROJECT SUMMARY: The project proposes a revision of Site Plan S-19-20 (and S-17-20) to replace a 20,800 SF multi- tenant retail building with a 20,000 SF office building and 80-unit apartment building while retaining two restaurant sites, along with associated site improvements including parking and landscaping. A portion of this site is under construction under Site Plan S-19-20 Delaware State Police Administration Building. The project was also the subject of S-14-08 Woodland Tree P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

C-20-02: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) Active Recreation Area Review and Approval of Cash Donation Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee – July 14, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Clearing Plan of 560 Bay Road which included an off-site Tree Mitigation Plan that has been implemented. II. ACTIVE RECREATION AREA PLAN SUMMARY: As part of the Plan review process for this project, the applicant prepared a Conceptual Recreation Plan which illustrates how the Landing Square Apartments development will provide recreation amenities in accordance with the design specifications described in Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Section 10 Open space, recreation, and other public facilities. Due to the property size and unit density, this project does not qualify for any of the Active Recreation Area exemptions for small developments under Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.5. The Active Recreation Area is required at a rate of 275 SF per unit or a half acre (21,780 SF), whichever is greater. With this project of eighty (80) units, the Active Recreation Area requirement calculates to 22,000 SF which is greater than the half-acre (21,780 SF). The Active Recreation Area proposal for the Landing Square Apartments project is depicted in the floor plan submission and in a Letter of Request. The proposal is to provide a “Club House / Community Space” area of 3,336 SF on the first floor and an Open Deck area of 2,610 SF on the fourth floor of the apartment building. The following table provides information from the submitted Plan for the Active Recreation Area as proposed: Required Provided on Plan Active Recreation 275 S.F. per dwelling unit or ½ Club House area and Open Area (Article 5 acre (21,780 SF) whichever is Deck = 5,946 SF §10.514) greater to be provided on site. • 3,336 SF Club House • 2,610 SF Open Deck 80 DU = 22,000 SF Required = 22,000 SF Provided: 5,946 SF Deficient: 16,054 SF (0.37 ac) Active Recreation Accessible Located inside the building. Amenities Club House area located on (Article 5 §10.15) ground level (1st floor) and Open Deck accessible by stairs or elevator (4th floor). Active Recreation Age Oriented to development Open community area lends Amenities itself to multi-purpose activities (Article 5 §10.15) and meeting space. Area is adaptable to what the tenants prefer the space to be. Parking This type of recreation area does not have associated parking needs. There are on-site parking areas for the apartment complex.

C-20-02: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) Active Recreation Area Review and Approval of Cash Donation Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee – July 14, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Setbacks: 30 feet from There are no specific equipment residential lots and 25 feet from amenities or designated game right-of-way for street court surfaces that must meet this requirement. Landscaping The recreation area is contained within the building and does not require additional landscaping. III. CONSIDERATION OF CASH-IN-LIEU The applicant has made a request for consideration of Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction. Their request seeks to pay cash-in-lieu of construction the remaining recreation area of 16,054 SF (22,000 SF – 5,946 SF). If the Planning Commission determines that the construction of some or all of the required active recreation area is not practical or desirable, then they shall require a full or partial cash in lieu donation for the portion of the active recreation area determined as not practical or desirable. The applicant would be required to make a cash donation to the City’s Parkland Reserve Fund in lieu of the required recreation area. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10 addresses Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities outlines the calculation of the amount for cash-in-lieu of recreation area construction. For the calculation of the amount of the cash donation, the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.173 Amount of cash donation specifies that the “cash donation shall be equivalent to the appraised value of land area required…” and that land area value shall be “based on the appraisal prepared for the developer to secure construction financing.” An appraisal performed by Newmark Knight Frank, Report dated April 2, 2020, was submitted to the Planning Office. (The appraisal document is on file in the Planning Office.) This appraisal identifies a market value (land value) of the entirety of the property which was utilized to generate a land value per acre. Based on the value of the 16,054 SF of land required to satisfy the Active Recreation Area requirement, the cash-in-lieu amount was determined. See calculation below: 2020 Appraisal of Land Value: $3,440,000 Bay Road property consists of 12.9366 acres of land Land Value per acre = $265,912.22 per acre Active Recreation Area Deficiency =16,054 SF = 0.3685 ~ 0.37 acre Cash-in-Lieu Amount = $265,912.22 per acre value x 0.37 acre = $98,387.52 IV. REVIEW PROCESS The Planning Office has prepared this Active Recreation Area Report outlining the Recreation Area proposal and outlining the amount of the Cash-in-lieu donation. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will need to consider the proposed Active Recreation Area and the proposed Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area payment request and make a recommendation.

C-20-02: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) Active Recreation Area Review and Approval of Cash Donation Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee – July 14, 2020 Page 4 of 7 The Planning Commission must act to accept the Recreation Area Plan and the Cash-in-lieu donation as part its review of the Conditional Use Site Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will review the Recreation Area Plan and the Consider the Cash-in-lieu Donation amount for Landing Square Apartments (previously Bay Road Commercial) at their meeting on July 14, 2020. The Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review of the Conditional Use Site Plan C-20-02 and the Recreation Area Plan/Consideration of Cash-in-lieu Donation is scheduled for July 20, 2020. V. CODE CITATIONS: Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 – Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities (select excerpts). Article 5 Section 10 Section 10. - Open space, recreation and other public facilities. The City of Dover shall require the reservation of open space, recreation and other public facilities in accordance with the provisions of this section as a condition of approval for all one-family dwelling, two- family dwelling and multiple-family dwelling residential developments requiring conditional use approval, site development plan approval, or land subdivision approval by the City of Dover Planning Commission. 10.1 Recreation areas. 10.11 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that active recreation areas are provided as an integral design element within residential developments and that such facilities are of an adequate scale in relation to the size of the residential development and which provide residents with a variety of active recreational pursuits. 10.12 Dedication required. The commission shall require the dedication or reservation of recreation areas, and the subsequent construction of recreation facilities of a character, extent and location suitable to the needs created by a development for recreation facilities as defined and in accordance with the design guidelines set forth. 10.13 Definition. The following are illustrative of the types of recreation areas and subsequent facilities that shall be deemed to serve active recreational needs and therefore to count toward satisfaction of the recreation area requirements of this section: tennis courts, handball courts, racquetball courts, swimming pools, saunas and exercise rooms, meeting or activity rooms within clubhouses, baseball and soccer fields, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swings, slides and play apparatus, and developed walking, jogging or biking trails. 10.14 Recreation area review…. 10.15 Design guidelines… 10.16 Area required. All residential developments shall provide recreational areas in a size equal to 275 square feet per dwelling unit or one-half acre of land, whichever is greater. In no case shall the commission require that more than ten percent of the gross area of the development be so dedicated or reserved when the gross area is greater than five acres. 10.17 Cash in lieu of recreation area construction. 10.171 Determination of suitability for cash donation. If the commission determines that the construction of recreation is not practical due to close proximity to existing available recreation facilities or infeasible due to natural characteristics of the land or will not

C-20-02: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) Active Recreation Area Review and Approval of Cash Donation Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee – July 14, 2020 Page 5 of 7 benefit the residents of the development, the commission shall require a full or partial cash in lieu of areas of donation to be made by the developer in lieu of a full or partial dedication of land. 10.172 Separate recreation account. The cash donation shall be deposited in a separate account to be used for parks, playgrounds or recreational purposes. 10.173 Amount of cash donation. The cash donation shall be equivalent to the appraised value of land area required in section 10.16. The land area value shall be based on the appraisal prepared for the developer to secure construction financing. This submitted appraisal shall be a copy of the original supplied to the lending institution, with that institution identified, and shall conform in all ways to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal practice and be performed by an appropriately qualified certified appraiser. If an appraisal prepared for construction financing is not available, then the developer shall have an appraisal done in accordance with the procedures set forth in [sub]section 10.174. 10.174 Appeal of appraised value. If the city does not accept the land value established by the appraisal detailed in [sub]section 10.173, the city may, at the developer's expense, require another appraisal be performed. This appraisal will be let on a bid basis between at least three appropriately qualified, certified appraisers selected by the city. The appraiser(s) who prepared the original appraisal in [sub]section 10.173 cannot be a party to this appeal appraisal. 10.175 Payment of cash donation. One hundred percent cash donation provided under this section shall be collected prior to issuing the first building permit for the development. 10.7 Council approval. Prior to acceptance by the planning commission, all areas planned for public dedication, or cash donations provided under this section must be submitted to, and approved by the parks, recreation, and community enhancement committee of the City of Dover, and shall be subject to final review and approval by [the] city council. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The following are comments and recommendations from Staff of the Planning Office following review of the Active Recreation Area Plan and Request for Consideration of Cash-in-lieu. 1) Active Recreation Area: As a residential development there is a requirement for Active Recreation area. The project proposes a “Club House” and “Roof Top Deck” with no specific amenity improvements. The floor plan shows the community space proposed as the “Club House” would consist of two larger rooms, one with a door and one open to a hallway and a smaller room with a door as well as two public restrooms. All rooms are connected by a hallway with an entrance from the front corridor and one entry on the side of the building open directly to the exterior. The floorplans show no detail for the 4th Floor Deck other than two entrances to the deck off the main hallway on either end of the open space. Staff Recommends the following regarding this Recreation Area: a. Club House / Community Space: Further development of the Active Recreation areas are needed. If they are to be strictly meeting spaces, please provide furniture layout. If they are going to hold any type of activities, this would be important to demonstrate on the plans or a more thorough written description would suffice. b. 4th Floor Deck Area: The deck is referred to as a “Roof Top Deck” although it appears from the floor plan that it is on the 4th floor. There is no representation of this area on the Site Plan or Architectural Elevations provided. Clarification is required on

C-20-02: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) Active Recreation Area Review and Approval of Cash Donation Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee – July 14, 2020 Page 6 of 7 the location of the deck and all visual representations should reflect its location. c. Bike Parking & Connectivity: Bike parking should be located inside and around the apartment building. The proximity to the multi-use path on Bay Road and the connection to the Capital City Trail and St. Jones Greenway Trail would suggest that heavy bicycle use would be common amongst the tenants. i. Add exterior (outside) bike parking specific to the apartment building. The other bike parking locations provided on site are not within the proximity of the apartment building. ii. Provide an indoor bike storage area for apartment tenants d. Pedestrian Connectivity: Staff notes that the sidewalk system could easily be extended in several locations to increase pedestrian connectivity for the overall development and this residential component. This apartment building location is on a bus route and presents many live-near-your-work opportunities. i. Extension of the sidewalk from the rear of the building coming out of the northern exit along the site entrance off of Bay Road would result in a safer connection for residents to the mutli-use path along Bay Road. ii. Extension of the sidewalk along the west side of the first entrance off of the Bay Court Plaza Boulevard would create a safer pedestrian crossing for residents who may be traveling to the neighboring Bay Court Plaza Shopping Center rather than crossing the drive aisle at its widest part behind the south Restaurant site. e. Amenities: The project provides 120 parking spaces over the required number of spaces. An attempt to remove some or all of these spaces would result in an opportunity to add more green space and additional amenities for residents. These amenities could include a patio with sail-like shade feature, small fenced in dog yard, additional landscaping or covered bike storage pavilion. In addition, there are opportunities to provide benches and dog waste stations along the sidewalks around the apartment building as it currently exists. 2) The proposed plan presents an area designated for Active Recreation Area for this project. However, the plan is required to provide 22,000 SF of Active Recreation Area and it is currently shown as proposing 5,946 SF of Active Recreation Area. The project deficit is 16,054 S.F. of Active Recreation Area. a. The deficiency of Active Recreation Area must be satisfied. There are multiple options to achieve this including, but not limited to, a reduction in the project unit count and/or size of the proposed building to increase outdoor open space availability, the addition of interior recreation space, or a cash-in-lieu donation for the recreation area. The applicant has made a request for Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction. 3) Consideration of Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction: The Commission should determine how the proposal should best address the requirement for an Active Recreation Area, which must be at least 275 SF per dwelling unit (275 SF x 80 D.U. = 22,000 SF) as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is seeking to instead pay a Cash-in-lieu for

C-20-02: Landing Square Apartments (Bay Road Commercial) Active Recreation Area Review and Approval of Cash Donation Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee – July 14, 2020 Page 7 of 7 a portion of the required area not provided. Staff recommends acceptance of the $98,387.52 Cash-in-lieu of Recreation Area Construction donation, as the amount complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. VII. ADVISORY COMMENTS 1) The Conditional Use Site Plan set including any floor plans depicting the Recreational Area are to include appropriate improvements, plans, and details of the Recreation Area as approved. 2) A Cash-in-lieu of Active Recreation Area Construction payment shall be submitted for the agreed upon amount to the Planning Office prior to the issuance of the Building Permit for the Apartment Building. The Cash-in-lieu donation will be deposited in the City’s Parkland Reserve Fund account. 3) There shall be provisions which ensure that the community space (all areas under consideration for active recreation areas) shall continue as such and be properly managed and maintained. The developer shall either retain ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the common use areas or provide for and establish one (1) or more organizations for the ownership and maintenance of all common space i.e. a Homeowners Association. The organization shall be responsible for maintenance, insurance and taxes on the community space. 4) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Planning Office. Examples include reorientation of buildings, relocation of site components, changes in floor area or unit count, or design revisions impacting Active Recreation Areas. These changes may require resubmission for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regard to the plan. 5) The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee shall submit to the Planning Commission a report detailing the recommendations as to the Recreation Area Plan and Request for Consideration of Cash-in-Lieu Donation. Attachments: • Site Plan C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial) Cover Sheet (C- 001) and Landscape Plan Sheet (L-101) • Floor Plan of the 1st and 4th floor of the proposed apartment building showing the areas under consideration for Active Recreation Areas. • Building Architecture: Elevations of Apartment Building • Letter regarding Recreational Areas and Request for Consideration of Cash-in-lieu Donation dated 6/23/2020

24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 WWW.beckermorgan.com PR. BRL / ARTERIAL BUFFER 653.02' 24x36 24x36 LANDS N/F FIR BAY ROAD ONE, LLC EX. 24' WIDE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT N N ED-05-077.00-01-10.01-000 PLOT BOOK: 136 LANDS N/F S 32° 51' 37" E DEED BOOK: A40 PAGE 274 PAGE No.: 85 S. LITTLE CR ZONED: C4 EEK RD. 24x36 BAY ROAD ONE, LLC 7.08' 16 PR. 10' SHARED USE PATH S. 24x36 ED-05-077.00-01-11.00-000 Y DEED BOOK: W41 PAGE 185 N 51° 59' 18" E SITE BA FIRE LANE N 57° 08' 23" E ZONED: C4 199.96' FCM EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY S 32° 56' 37" E 17 FIP 25' B.R.L. AD 24x36 FIR 24x36 LANE FIRE 28 28 27 27 9 WY RO LANE FIRE 26 26 26 25 25 27 12 . 24 24 28 EX. VARIABLE WIDTH ARCH I T E C TURE S. D 25 B ECKER M ORGAN G ROUP ARCHITECTURE - ENGINEERING DOVER, DE SALISBURY, MD WILMINGTON, NC SITE 24x36 24x36 PERMANENT EASEMENT ENG I NE E R I NG 28 27 276 28 27 26 28 27 26 28 LANE PLOT BOOK: 136 PAGE No.: 85 UPO S. NT 2 25 Y Dover, DE 25 25 24 24 BA 24x36 24x36 23 23 H 26 24 22 22 21 28 309 S. Governors Ave. AD 28 27 23 21 21 26 25 24 23 Dover, DE 19904 444.62' 22 NORTH 18 PROPOSED RESTAURANT RO Ph. 302.734.7950 20' B.R.L. 6,400 S.F. 24x36 BIKE SPACES PR. OFFICE F.F. = 32.39 Fax 302.734.7965 24x36 19,186 S.F.± FIRE 7 27 26 25 22 21 22 22 Salisbury, MD 21 21 5 PROPOSED 200' EXISTING R.O.W. 24 24 24 23 23 23 BIKE SPACES 312 West Main St. Suite 300 27 27 28 27 24x36 24x36 26 26 26 F.F. = ??.?? Salisbury, MD 21801 ED-05-077.00-01-12.04 28 25 25 25 26 10 36.70' 28 28 Ph. 410.546.9100 PIERCE HARDY, L.P. X X X X KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE X Fax 410.546.5824 VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP ZONED: C4 11 SCALE: 1" = 1,200' SCALE: 1" = 400' LANDS N/F LANE FIRE LANE FIRE 24x36 24x36 DEED BOOK: D444 PAGE 127 Wilmington, NC SOUTHBOUND LANES - BAY ROAD (K007) NORTHBOUND LANES - BAY ROAD (K007) X FIRE LANE 3205 Randall Parkway, Suite 211 X SITE DATA Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 PLAT BOOK: 61 PAGE: 47 NO PARKING 24x36 24x36 Ph. 910.341.7600 1. OWNER / DEVELOPER: BAYROADCAP, L.L.C. X 13 14 Fax 910.341.7506 105 FOULK ROAD, SUITE 200 10 15 WILMINGTON, DE 19803 www.beckermorgan.com 24x36 X (302) 429-8700 24x36 6 2. ENGINEER / SURVEYOR: BECKER MORGAN GROUP INC. PHASE 1 309 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVENUE NO PARKING X BOUNDARY LINE 315.15' 24x36 DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 24x36 (302) 734-7950 X 3. PROPERTY MAP NUMBER: ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-00001 14 18 X 4. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: EXISTING: C-4/ HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 24x36 LANDS N/F PROPOSED: C-4/ HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 24x36 152.02' S 57° 15' 29" W BAYROADCAP, L.L.C. 5. DEED SUMMARY: DEED BOOK: 136 PAGE: 85 X FIP DIST. ED-05-077.00-01-09.00-00001 LANDS N/F 6. PRESENT USE: UNDEVELOPED SITE 10' B.R.L. 33 S 32° 54' 31" E 4 7 DEED BOOK: 136 PAGE: 85 B & B DELAWARE INVESTMENTS LLC 24x36 24x36 X 12.6746 ACRES ± ED-05-077.00-01-08.00 7. PROPOSED USE: OFFICE BUILDING, APARTMENTS, W/ 2 RESTAURANT PADS 10 DEED BOOK: D5630 PAGE 187 9 8. TOTAL SITE AREA: 12.9366 ACRES +/- ZONED: C4 9. BUILDING AREA: BUILDING AREA (SQFT) AREA (SQFT) AREA (SQFT) LANE X 24x36 X LANE 14 18 LANE NORTH OFFICE OFFICE BUILDING 20,000 SQFT +/- 62,800 SQFT +/- 24x36 6 NORTH RESTAURANT 6,400 SQFT +/- SOUTH RESTAURANT 4,200 SQFT +/- 24x36 X PR. D.S.P. OFFICE FIRE FIRE 9 FIRE PROPOSED 24' WIDE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT APARTMENTS TOTALS 82,800 SQFT +/- 10,600 SQFT +/- 31,215 SQFT +/- 31,215 SQFT +/- 24x36 X 10. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: EXISTING: 0.13 ACRES (1.03%) FIP 62,800 S.F. 591 DUPONT HIGHWAY, LLC PROPOSED: 10.08 ACRES (77.9%) PREVIOUSLY AP. - 11.50 ACRES (88.9%) KENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX F.F. = 32.00 ED-05-077.00-01-12.05 N 33° 00' 44" W 14 18 83 201.50' 24x36 24x36 X 11. SETBACKS: C-4/ HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL FRONT: 20 FT. .NA ZONED: C4 SIDE: 15 FT. LANDS N/F X 9 PR. APARTMENTS EXISTING BUILDING REAR: 10 FT. OR EQUAL TO HEIGHT OF BUILDING D BAY ROAD (K007) 24x36 10 (EXISTING "VERIZON STORE") LOT WIDTH: 150 FT. 24x36 DEED BOOK: 7232 PAGE 16 31,215 S.F.± LOT DEPTH: 150 FT. F.F. = ??.?? LANDS N/F 14 12. PARKING CALCULATION: C-4 ZONE: X OFFICE: 1 SPACE / 300 S.F. N 24x36 REQUIRED: 81,986 S.F. / 300 S.F. = 273 SPACES 24x36 MINOR ARTERIAL 14 18 RESTAURANT: 1 SPACE / 4 SEATS FIP DIST. X REQUIRED: 6,400 S.F. + 4,200 S.F. = 10,600 S.F. 201.50' 9 25 S.F. / PATRON = 10,600 / 25 = 424 SEATS / 4 = 106 SPACES X 24x36 FCM APARTMENTS: 2.25 SPACES / D.U + 1 SPACE / 200 S.F. OF OFFICE SPACE 24x36 X 200' R.O.W. REQUIRED: (2.25 x 85) + (400 / 200) = 194 SPACES FIP N 57° 15' 29" E 152.14' REQUIRED: 273 + 194 + 106 = 573 SPACES X PROVIDED: 681 SPACES (15 HANDICAP SPACES) S 56° 49' 08" W X FIP 24x36 13. BICYCLE PARKING: REQUIRED: 1 BICYCLE SPACE PER 20 PARKING SPACES - 681 / 20 = 34 24x36 18.45' S 32° 56' 37" E PR. BRL / ARTERIAL BUFFER PROVIDED: 46 SPACES 245.12' 7 LANE 14 18 LANE 9 9 PR. 10' SHARED USE PATH 14. TREE PLANTING CALCULATION: C-4 ZONE: REQUIRED: 1 / 3,000 S.F. ; 563,514 / 3,000 = 188 TREES PROPOSED: 188 TREES FIRE LANE 24x36 24x36 15. DUMPSTERS: OFFICE: TWO REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST 16,000 S.F., ONE REQUIRED PROJECT TITLE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 16,000 S.F. FIRE FIRE EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED: 19,186 S.F. - 16,000 S.F. = 3,186 S.F. PHASE 1 PHASE 2 3,186 S.F. / 16,000 S.F. = 0.20 24x36 5 8 7 REQUIRED: 2 DUMPSTERS PROPOSED: 4 DUMPSTERS LANDING 24x36 FIP DIST. SQUARE 14 18 EX. 8.5' WIDE PERMANENT RESTAURANT: TWO REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST 3,000 SQFT, ONE FOR EACH THE STATE OF DELAWARE ED-05-077.00-01-18.00 PLOT BOOK: 136 ADDITIONAL 3,000 S.F. 24x36 PAGE No.: 85 REQUIRED: 10,600 S.F. - 3,000 S.F. = 7,600 S.F. 24x36 FIRE LANE 7,600 S.F. / 3,000 S.F. = 2.53 (PREVIOUSLY ZONED: IO 7 LANDS N/F SOUTH REQUIRED: 5 DUMPSTERS 24x36 RESTAURANT 4,200 S.F. PROPOSED: 7 DUMPSTERS (2 SPACES ARE RESERVED FOR THE NORTH RESTAURANT. BAY ROAD 24x36 DEED BOOK: D456 PAGE 154 F.F. = 32.00 20' B.R.L. D.S.P. OFFICE: TWO REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST 50,000 S.F., ONE FOR EACH 11 5 13 18 LANE 5 PROPOSED BIKE SPACES FIRE 8 200' EXISTING R.O.W. ADDITIONAL 24,000 S.F. REQUIRED: 62,800 S.F. - 50,000 S.F. = 12,800 S.F. COMMERCIAL) 24x36 9 24x36 100' 12,800 S.F. / 24,000 S.F. = 0.53 8 REQUIRED: 2 DUMPSTERS 108.5' PROPOSED: 3 DUMPSTERS N 33° 10' 57" W 8 24x36 16. SIGNAGE: FUTURE PERMIT SUBMISSION 24x36 220.00' 560 & 600 BAY ROAD FIRE LANE 17. WOODLANDS: EXISTING WOODLANDS = 0.00 ACRES± 10 11 12 EXISTING WOODLANDS TO BE REMOVED = 0.00 ACRES± (PREVIOUS WOODLANDS CLEARED AS PART OF THE WOODLAND TREE CLEARING PLAN DOVER 37.60' APPLICATION S-14-08. 24x36 15' B.R.L. 12 18. BUILDING HEIGHT: PERMITTED: 75' OR SIX STORIES KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 24x36 FCM PROPOSED: 35' SHEET TITLE 830.42' PHASE 1 S 56° 49' 36" W 19. POSTED SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH 24x36 18 PROPOSED 20. ROAD CLASSIFICATION: MINOR ARTERIAL 24x36 BIKE SPACES BOUNDARY LINE 21. 22. STATE POLICY FOR SPENDING: SOURCE OF WATER: INVESTMENT LEVEL 1 CITY OF DOVER COVER SHEET AND 24x36 23. 24. SOURCE OF SEWER: SOURCE OF ELECTRIC: CITY OF DOVER CITY OF DOVER OVERALL SITE 24x36 24x36 EXISTING ENTRANCE BOULEVARD 25. 26. SOURCE OF GAS: SURVEY BENCHMARK: CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES NGS MONUMENTATION PLAN 24x36 VERTICAL: NAVD88 - L37 HORIZONTAL: NAD83 (2007) - DNREC THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 27. MONUMENTATION: EXISTING: 10 FOUND 24x36 MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THIS PROPOSED: NONE TO BE SET 24x36 ENTRANCE AT ALL TIMES. EXISTING VARIABLE 0 25 50 100 WIDTH EASEMENT 24x36 24x36 LANDS N/F DOVER BAY COURT PLAZA, LLC BAY COURT DOVER, LLC LANDS N/F SCALE : 1" = 50' ED-05-077.00-01-16.00 ED-05-077.00-01-16.01 DEED BOOK: 6351 PAGE 172 DEED BOOK: 6985 PAGE 328 24x36 ZONED: SC2 ZONED: C4 ISSUE BLOCK 24x36 24x36 GENERAL NOTES: OWNERS CERTIFICATION 24x36 ??/??/?? .. NOTES-GENERAL-BLK 9. 1. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA SHOWN HEREON WAS PREPARED BY BECKER 9. PART II, CHAPTER 180, ARTICLE III, SECTION 180-10 OF THE CODE OF KENT COUNTY REQUIRES THAT 14. AT IT'S MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED WE, BAYROADCAP LLC, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN MORGAN GROUP, DOVER, DE., IN APRIL OF 2017. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD 88. "NO PERSON SHALL DISCHARGE OR CAUSE TO BE DISCHARGED ANY STORMWATER, SURFACE APPROVAL OF: ON THIS PLAN, AND THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO ME 8. ??/??/?? .. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON DELAWARE STATE PLANE NAD 83 (2011). WATER, UNCONTAMINATED NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER OR UNPOLLUTED INDUSTRIAL PROCESS A. THE ARTERIAL STREET BUFFER REDUCTION FROM 30 FT. TO 20 FT. ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF BY ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS ??/??/?? .. 24x36 24x36 WATERS TO ANY SANITARY SEWER", THIS SHALL INCLUDE CONDENSATE. SEC. 110-231 OF THE CITY BAY ROAD. AND REGULATIONS. 7. 2. THE BOUNDARY LINES PORTRAYED HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED SOLELY ON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DISCOVERED IN THE FIELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETERMINATIONS DERIVED FROM OF DOVER CODE DEFINES STORM SEWER AS "ANY SYSTEM USED FOR CONVERTING RAIN WATER, B. THE TREE MITIGATION SHOWN ON THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE PLAN LOCATED ON THE SURFACE WATER, CONDENSATE, COOLING WATER OR SIMILAR LIQUID WASTES, EXCLUSIVE OF ENTRANCE BOULEVARD SOUTH OF BAYROAD COMMERCIAL. 6. ??/??/?? .. SOURCE OF TITLE AND ADJACENT DEED RECORD INFORMATION. SEWAGE". THE CONTRACTOR, DEVELOPER, OWNER AND DESIGNER SHALL ENSURE DURING SHEET INDEX 24x36 3. PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS SUBJECT TO ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, ETC. 15. THE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR 5. ??/??/?? .. 24x36 CONSTRUCTION THAT NO ILLEGAL DISCHARGES TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ARE CREATED PURPOSE OF PERIODIC SITE INSPECTION. COVER SHEET AS MAY BE SHOWN OR NOTED IN ANY RECORD, PUBLIC OR OTHERWISE, OR ANY REQUIREMENT OR WITH THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 16. THE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, MODIFY, OR DELETE ANY C-001 COVER SHEET & OVERALL SITE PLAN 4. ??/??/?? UPDATE TO SITE PLAN REGULATION OF ANY PUBLIC AGENCY. 4. THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN WERE TAKEN FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE 10. AT IT'S MEETING OF APRIL 21, 2014 THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED APPROVAL OF THE TREE CLEARING PLAN AND THE FOLLOWING WAIVER REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE, AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY. 17. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO APPROVED THE OFF-SITE TREE MITIGATION AT ITS MEETING ON 2/7/20 C-002 COVER SHEET & OVERALL SITE PLAN NOTES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLANS 3. ??/??/?? UPDATED PER KCD COMMENTS DATED 24x36 CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT MISS UTILITY OF DELMARVA (1-800-282-8555) TO VERIFY THEIR EXACT SIGNATURE DATE 11/7/19. 24x36 S-14-08: APRIL 21, 2014. THE TREE MITIGATION IN THE WOODLAND (FOREST) MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED BY C-100 OVERALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN LOCATION PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE INCURRED TO ANY UTILITIES 2. ??/??/?? REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC 1. ARTICLE 5, SECTION 16.91 - TO ALLOW FOR THE CLEARING OF WOODLANDS TO EXCEED 50% MCBRIDE AND ZIEGLER DATED MARCH 1, 2006 WAS AMENDED BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 16, 2009 C-101 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN WORKS COMMENTS DATED 10/31/19. SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. IF THE CONTRACTOR RELIES SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED WOODLAND MITIGATION PLAN. DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DNREC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION. MITIGATION PLAN C-102 DEMOLITION PLAN ON THE UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN RISK AND WILL NOT BE WAS IMPLEMENTED AT THE McCLEMENTS WOODLAND TRACT AT THE FORK BRANCH NATURE ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION SITE PLANS 1. ??/??/?? ISSUED FOR BID 24x36 ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DUE TO TIME DELAYS FROM SAID RELIANCE. 11. AT IT'S MEETING OF JULY 17, 2017 THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED APPROVAL 24x36 OF: PRESERVE. MITIGATION WAS COMPLETED ON OCTOBER 17, 2013. A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 25, I, J. MICHAEL RIEMANN, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, C-200 OVERALL SITE PLAN MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 5. THIS AREA OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IMPACTED BY THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAN AS SHOWN ON FIRM 2013 DOCUMENTED THE PLANTING OF 140 TREES. THUS THE WOODLAND MITIGATION PLAN WAS C-201 SITE, SIGNAGE & STRIPING PLAN A. THE ARTERIAL STREET BUFFER REDUCTION FROM 30 FT. TO 20 FT. ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY BEST LAYER STATE: C-001 MAP 10001C0169J PANEL169 OF 435, DATED JULY 7, 2014. IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE TREE CLEARING ON THE SUBJECT SITE. C-202 SITE, SIGNAGE & STRIPING PLAN BAY ROAD. KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE PROJECT NO.: 2016134.03 6. DELAWARE REGULATIONS PROHIBIT THE BURIAL OF CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION DEBRIS, B. CROSS ACCESS AND SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO PROPERTY AT 580 BAY ROAD IS SHOWN 18. SANITATION SERVICE COLLECTION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A PRIVATE HAULER. LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. UTILITY PLANS 24x36 24x36 INCLUDING TREES AND STUMPS ON CONSTRUCTION SITES. ANY SOLID WASTE FOUND DURING 19.FOR ALL EASEMENTS AND RECORDED BOUNDARY FOR THIS PARCEL, PLEASE REFER TO THE EXCAVATION MUST BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISCARDED. ON THE PLAN. RECORDED DOCUMENT TITLED "LANDS OF BAYROADCAP, LLC" RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE C-300 OVERALL UTILITIES PLAN DATE: 06-05-2020 C. LANDSCAPING DEPICTED IN COLOR RENDERINGS PRESENTED IN THE PARKING LOT ISLANDS A C-301 UTILITIES PLAN 7. ALL HANDICAPPED PARKING DEMARCATION, STALLS, AND BUILDING ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL SERIES OF TREES AND UNDER-PLANTINGS OF SHRUBS AND OTHER LOW PLANTINGS AND RECORDER OF DEEDS DATED MAY 21, 2019, PLOT BOOK 136, PAGE 85. C-302 UTILITIES PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50' COMPLY WITH THE "AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT". PLANTING BEDS WITH SEATING BENCHES SPACED ALONG FRONTAGES OF THE MULTI-TENANT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS DRAWN BY: J.N.S. PROJ. MGR.: J.N.S. 24x36 24x36 8. WETLANDS: THIS SITE WAS EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE SEGMENTS OF THE BUILDINGS C-901 - C-903 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 1987 CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL (TECHNICAL REPORT Y-87-1). AND 12. THIS PROJECT, S-17-20, WAS GRANTED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING LANDSCAPE PLANS SHEET SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC NOTICES, TO IDENTIFY THE PRESENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, AS COMMISSION IN JULY 2017 WHICH GRAND-FATHERED THE SITE WITH A TOTAL IMPERVIOUS L-101 - L-102 LANDSCAPE PLANS DESCRIBED IN A REPORT PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. DATED JUNE COVERAGE OF 88.9% IMPERVIOUS. 24x36 29, 2001, AND NO WETLANDS WERE FOUND TO EXIST ON THE SITE. 13. AT ITS MEETING OF JULY 15, 2019 THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. J. MICHAEL RIEMANN P.E. NO. 2/7/20 DATE C-001 COPYRIGHT 2015 24x36 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2016\2016134\2016134.03\DWG\201613403-SITE-C3D18.dwg, Jun 05, 2020 - 10:00am .PDF 24x36 24x36 2020-06-05 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36

24x36 24x36 G NOTE: 18 24x36 24x36 DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT 18 LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD OE 24x36 24x36 BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR 6 TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES IG MAY BE PRUNED; HOWEVER, DO 2 4 18 NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS 24x36 PS CR OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO 24x36 G 1 THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. 3 1 SET ROOT BALL 2" ABOVE GRADE. LANDS N/F 3 CF FIR REMOVE EXCESS SOIL ON TOP OF THE BAY ROAD ONE, LLC PROPOSED ELECTRIC SHOWN CR CF 5 IS BY OTHERS. LAYOUT PROVIDED BY CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC. PS BALL, JUST EXPOSING THE ROOT FLARE. CANVAS WEBBING OR ARCH I T E C TURE EX. 10" CIP WATER 24x36 ED-05-077.00-01-10.01-000 24x36 DEED BOOK: A403 PAGE 274 JV UE UE UE PLASTIC HORTICULTURAL 2 1 3 LANDS N/F BAY ROAD2ONE, LLC 3 1 1 1 1 3 CF 1 PSC4 ZONED: 16 TAPE. DO NOT STRETCH. ENG I NE E R I NG ED-05-077.00-01-11.00-000 QR QR AC AR CF CR UE MULCH - PLACE 3" LAYER OF AC QR PS JV UE OE DEED BOOK: W41 PAGE 185 1 SPECIFIED MULCH. DO NOT PLACE IN Dover, DE FIRE LANE ZONED: C4 UE 24x36 24x36 FCM AR 3 CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. KEEP UEUE 17 FIP UE UE UE FIR UE PS MULCH WEEDED AND REPLACE AS 2"x2" WOODEN STAKES. 309 S. Governors Ave. 1 Dover, DE 19904 LANE FIRE 28 28 G NEEDED. DRIVE SECURELY INTO 27 27 CF 9 GROUND. 3 PER TREE. Ph. 302.734.7950 LANE FIRE 26 26 26 25 27 Fax 302.734.7965 24x36 25 12 24x36 24 24 28 25 CITY OF DOVER C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD 7 G G G G G IG G FINISHED Salisbury, MD 24x36 28 27 276 2 28 27 26 28 27 26 28 LANE GRADE 312 West Main St. Suite 300 Salisbury, MD 21801 24x36 25 25 25 24 24 1 OE Ph. 410.546.9100 UE 23 23 26 24 22 22 21 28 AR Fax 410.546.5824 28 27 23 21 21 26 25 24 UEUE EX. X" WATER 23 22 G 24x36 NORTH 24x36 PROPOSED INFILTRATION PR. OFFICE RESTAURANT 6,400 S.F. 4 Wilmington, NC 19,186 S.F. F.F. = 32.39 REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP. SOIL MIXTURE - CONSISTING OF BASIN 3205 Randall Parkway, Suite 211 C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-4ID REWES CR CUT & REMOVE ALL STRAPPING, 1/4 HUMUS AND 3/4 TOPSOIL FIRE REWES 7 27 22 21 22 22 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-4ID 24x36 26 25 21 21 7 ROPES, AND WIRE CAGES. 24x36 24 24 24 23 IG UNDISTURBED SOIL Ph. 910.341.7600 23 23 C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID 27 27 28 27 6 Fax 910.341.7506 26 2 F.F. = ??.?? STORM 26 1 1 ED-05-077.00-01-12.04 28 25 25 25 26 CITY OF DOVER C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD 10 28 28 AR CF www.beckermorgan.com PIERCE HARDY, L.P. 24x36 X X C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID STO RM X X X STORM 1 4 OE TREE PLANTING DETAIL 24x36 ZONED: C4 C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID 11 AR G STO LANE FIRE RM LANDS N/F LANE FIRE C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID PS DEED BOOK: D444 PAGE 127 NO SCALE BMG NO. : L-01 1 UEUE SOUTHBOUND LANES - BAY ROAD (K007) NORTHBOUND LANES - BAY ROAD (K007) X FIRE LANE 1 CF UE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES : 24x36 24x36 AR X 10 NO PARKING 10 PLAT BOOK: 61 PAGE: 47 2 2 LM 1. QUALITY AND SIZE OF PLANTS, SPREAD OF ROOTS, AND SIZE OF BALLS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LM AC CC X 13 14 CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN "AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR 24x36 2 2 1 NURSERY STOCK." 24x36 10 PV 15 IG 1 6 AR X QR QR EVERGREEN TREES SHALL HAVE A FULL, WELL-BRANCHED, CONICAL FORM TYPICAL OF THE SPECIES. 6 2 OE G 1 CR ALL DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES SHALL BRANCH A MINIMUM OF 7'-0" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. TREES SHALL BE UE 24x36 24x36 NO PARKING X CF PLANTED AND STAKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAIL SHOWN. 10 2 10 2 UEUE X LM CC 2 LM AC 5 PLANT MATERIALS DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN UNCOVERED TRUCKS WILL BE REJECTED. 24x36 14 18 12 QR 24x36 X 2 AR 2 6 UNACCEPTABLE PLANT MATERIALS: MATERIALS WHICH HAVE DAMAGED OR CROOKED LEADERS, DEFORMED IG PV IG IG GROWTH HABIT, ABRASIONS OF THE BARK, SUN SCALD, WINDBURN, DISFIGURING NOT COMPLETELY CALLUSED WILL BE REJECTED. IN ADDITION, TREES HAVING THEIR CENTRAL LEADERS HEADED BACK WILL ALSO BE X REJECTED. PLANTS WITH LOOSE OR CRACKED ROOT BALL OR CONTAINERS WILL BE REJECTED. FIP DIST. 24x36 24x36 33 4 7 LANDS N/F G B & B DELAWARE INVESTMENTS LLC 2 OE 2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PLANTED IN TOPSOIL THAT IS THOROUGHLY WATERED AND TAMPED AS BACKFILLING X PROPOSED OFFICE ED-05-077.00-01-08.00 CR UE 62,800 S.F. F.F. = 29.64 10 10 2 10 2 9 DEED BOOK: D5630 PAGE 187 PROGRESSES. NOTHING BUT SUITABLE TOPSOIL, FREE OF DRY SOD, STIFF CLAY, LITTER, STONES IN EXCESS OF LM 5 ONE (1) INCH DIAMETER, ETC. SHALL BE USED FOR PLANTING. 24x36 LM AC CC ZONED: C4 83 24x36 JV UEUE LANE X 2 PV LANE 14 18 2 IG LANE MULCH FOR PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS AND SHALL HAVE NO LEAVES, YOUNG GREEN GROWTH, BRANCHES, TWIGS, GREATER IN DIAMETER .NA 24x36 X 6 OF ½", WEEDS, SHAVINGS OR FOREIGN MATERIAL SUCH AS STONES, ETC. SHALL BE MIXED WITH THE MULCH. D 24x36 ALL SHRUB MASSES SHALL BE PLANTED IN CONTINUOUS MULCHED BEDS WITH A LIGHTLY COMPACTED DEPTH X FIRE FIRE 9 FIRE2 G OF THREE (3) INCHES. ALL CONTAINER PLANTS ARE TO HAVE ROOTS CUT ON FOUR SIDES AND/ OR SPREAD OUT IN NEW SOIL MIXTURE. EX. 10" CIP WATER EX. 2.5" WATER PROPOSED ELECTRIC SHOWN X 10 2 10 2 IS BY OTHERS. LAYOUT PROVIDED BY CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC. OE N FIP QR 591 DUPONT HIGHWAY, LLC 24x36 24x36 LM 3. ALL AREAS NOT STABILIZED IN PAVING OR PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. (SEE EROSION LM CC 2 AC ED-05-077.00-01-12.05 14 RM STO C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID 18 C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID STORM & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES.) UE X 2 AR 2 G IG PV 16 4. LANDSCAPE BEDS NOT DEFINED BY CURBS, SIDEWALKS, WALLS OR OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL BE ENCLOSED UEUE W.M. PR. APARTMENTS LANDS N/F ZONED: C4 24x36 31,216 S.F. 24x36 X IG EXISTING BY ALUMINUM EDGING UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. CITY OF DOVER 9 C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD BUILDING BAY ROAD (K007) 10 (EXISTING "VERIZON STORE") DEED BOOK: 7232 PAGE 16 5. AREAS DISTURBED BY LANDSCAPE OPERATIONS SHALL BE GRADED TO MATCH EXISTING TOPSOIL AND SEED OR SOD AS REQUIRED. 10 G 24x36 10 2 2 F.F. = ??.?? 14 24x36 X LM LM CC 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND MAY MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN AC MINOR ARTERIAL CITY OF DOVER SPACING AND/OR LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. CONTACTOR TO VERIFY "AS BUILT" LOCATION OF ALL OE 18 C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD 14 2 2 3 UTILITIES. 5 FIP DIST. X 24x36 PV IG CR 24x36 G 9 QR PROJECT TITLE X 7. NO PLANT, EXCEPT GROUNDCOVERS, SHALL BE WITHIN THREE (3) FEET FROM SIDEWALKS. FCM 5 UE X 7 STORM 200' R.O.W. C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID QR 8. NO TREE SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN TEN (10) FEET FROM ANY STRUCTURE OR BUILDING. 24x36 UEX X 10 2 10 2 AR FIP FIP G 9. NO TREE SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN TEN (10) FEET OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR FIRE HYDRANTS. LANDING 24x36 LM LM AC 24x36 1 AR 7 2 LANE CC 14 2 AR 18 2 LANE 9 UE 9 UE UE C.S. 10. ONLY TREES THAT REACH A HEIGHT AND SIZE AT MATURITY OF SMALL TO MEDIUM SHALL BE PLANTED UNDER POWER LINES. SQUARE 24x36 PV G IG OE 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER ALL PLANTS THOROUGHLY TWICE DURING THE FIRST 24-HOUR PERIOD (PREVIOUSLY FIRE LANE 1 AR CITY OF DOVER 2 AFTER PLANTING, AND THEN WEEKLY OR MORE OFTEN, IF NECESSARY, DURING THE FIRST GROWING SEASON, FIRE C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD 24x36 1 FIRE 10 1 AR PS 5 UE UE UNLESS THE OWNER AGREES TO MAINTAIN AND WATER THEM. BAY ROAD 24x36 10 2 12. TREES TO REMAIN ON-SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH SNOW FENCE DURING CONSTRUCTION (SEE DETAIL). QR 5 LM 2 AC LM CC 8 IG 7 G NOTE: SET ROOT BALL 2" ABOVE SNOW FENCING TO BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION BY CONTRACTOR. COMMERCIAL) FIP DIST. 14 18 6 1 PRIOR TO MULCHING. APPLY GRADE. REMOVE EXCESS 2 THE STATE OF DELAWARE UE 2 24x36 24x36 13. THE PLANTING PLAN SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANT SCHEDULE SHOULD ANY PLANT QUANTITY ED-05-077.00-01-18.00 AR 3 APPROVED PRE-EMERGENT WEED SOIL ON TOP OF THE UE PV IG IG DISCREPANCIES OCCUR. 4 W.M. PS CONTROL ON ALL SHRUB BEDS. BALL, JUST EXPOSING G THE ROOT FLARE. PS FIRE LANE ZONED: IO 14. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND OE 7 LANDS N/F 24x36 SOUTH THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING OFFICE.. 560 & 600 BAY ROAD 24x36 RESTAURANT 1 C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD CITY OF DOVER C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-4ID SEWER SEWER C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-4ID 4,200 S.F. MULCH - PLACE 3" DOVER DEED BOOK: D456 PAGE 154 10 2 10 2 F.F. = 32.00 LAYER OF SPECIFIED 15. ALL NEW TREES SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO SURVIVE FOR ONE FULL YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION (FULL COST). QR 3 UE UE LM AC KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 24x36 1 11 5 LM 2 CC 13 2 AR 18 2 1 LANE 1 AR 4 PROPOSED BIKE SPACES FIRE CR 8 G MULCH. DO NOT PLACE IN CONTACT WITH ALL STAKES AND GUYS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM TREES AND SITE AS EARLY AS THREE (3) MONTHS, BUT NO LONGER THAN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER PLANTING. 24x36 PS 9 PV SHRUB TRUNK. KEEP IG AR MULCH WEEDED AND TREE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS : 6 SHEET TITLE UE G 8 G REPLACE AS NEEDED. FINISHED 24x36 IG UE 7 1 7 1 8 GRADE 1. TREE DENSITY REQUIREMENT : 1 TREE PER 3,000 S.F. OF DISTURBANCE 24x36 QR CF QR AR 4 6 563,514 S.F./ (3000 S.F. / TREE) = 188 TREES 1 6 26 PS 15 OVERALL LANDSCAPE FIRE LANE 26 QR 2. TREES PROVIDED : 170 TREES PROPOSED ON SITE QR IG IG 11 12 18 5 24x36 10 RM STO C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID RM STO C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID IG IG IG 20 TREES PROPOSED ON ADJACENT SITE ALONG BOULEVARD PLAN 24x36 1 . STORM C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID E 15 OE STORM C-PR-U-SD-MH-4ID U G QR 12 E REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP. O FCM CUT & REMOVE ALL STRAPPING, C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD CITY OF DOVER C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD CITY OF DOVER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATION 24x36 CITY OF DOVER 24x36 C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD ROPES, AND WIRE CAGES. FOR SOIL MIXTURE - CONSISTING OF 1/4 OE CONTAINER PLANTS, CUT 15 UE UE UE UE UE UE HUMUS AND 3/4 I, CHAD D. CARTER, RLA, ASLA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A UE UE UE ROOTS ON FOUR (4) SIDES AND/ TOPSOIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE G G G G G G G G OR SPREAD OUT IN NEW SOIL 0 25 50 100 24x36 G G G G LANDSCAPING INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED 24x36 MIXTURE. UNDISTURBED SOIL 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 OE 5 5 5 OE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, 5 5 5 15 PV REPRESENTS GOOD LANDSCAPING PRACTICES. PV PV PV PV PV 24x36 15 UE EXISTING ENTRANCE BOULEVARD G SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SCALE : 1" = 50' 24x36 15 15 NO SCALE BMG NO. : L-03 DOVER CITY OF C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD OE 24x36 PLANT LIST OE OE ISSUE BLOCK 24x36 KEY QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 15 SIZE ROOT REMARKS 24x36 SHADE TREES CHAD D. CARTER, RLA, ASLA S1-499 DATE 24x36 AR 29 ACER RUBRUM 'RED SUNSET' 15 SUNSET RED MAPLE 2-2 1/2" CAL. G B&B SINGLE-STEM TRUNK, BRANCHING 7'-0" ABOVE GRADE QR 46 QUERCUS LANDS N/F RUBRA NORTHERN RED LANDS N/F 15 OWNERS CERTIFICATION: DOVER BAY COURT PLAZA, LLC. DOVER BAY COURT PLAZA, LLC BAY OAK COURT DOVER, LLC 2-2 1/2" CAL. B&B SINGLE-STEM TRUNK, BRANCHING 7'-0" ABOVE GRADE 24x36 ED-05-077.00-01-16.00 ED-05-077.00-01-16.01 WE, DOVER BAY COURT PLAZA LLC, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF PARCEL NO. ED-05-077.00-01-16.00 24x36 EVERGREEN TREES DEED BOOK: 6351 PAGE 172 15 DEED BOOK: 6985 PAGE 328 AND SHOWN AS AN ADJOINER ON THIS PLAN. WE RECOGNIZE AND AGREE THAT PLANTINGS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE EX. 8" C.I.P ZONED: SC2 ZONED: C4 15 15 ACCEPTABLE AS SHOWN TO BE PLANTED ON OUR PROPERTY, AND THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT OUR DIRECTION, W.V. JV 13 JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA EASTERN RED CEDAR 5'-6' B&B MATCHED, DENSE AND THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO US BY ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 24x36 PS 32 PINUS STROBUS EASTERN WHITE PINE 5'-6' B&B MATCHED, DENSE 24x36 F.H. UPDATED PER COD COMMENTS DATED 4. ??/??/?? 11/18/19. ELECTRIC BOX (TYP.) FLOWERING TREES 15 UPDATED PER KCD COMMENTS DATED 3. ??/??/?? 11/7/19. 24x36 AC 20 AMELANCHIER CANADENSIS SHADBLOW SERVICEBERRY 6'-8' B&B 24x36 CC 16 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD 6'-8' B&B 02/07/20 2. REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC ??/??/?? WORKS COMMENTS DATED 10/31/19. EXISTING BUILDING 1 15 SIGNATURE DATE 71,018 S.F.± FOOTPRINT "VALUE CITY" CF 10 CORNUS FLORIDA WHITE FLOWERING DOGWOOD 6'-8' B&B 1. ??/??/?? ISSUED FOR BID 24x36 24x36 CR 24 CORNUS RUBRA PINK FLOWERING DOGWOOD 6'-8' B&B 15 OWNERS CERTIFICATION: BAYROADCAP, LLC. MARK DATE LAYER STATE: L-101 DESCRIPTION SHRUBS & GRASSES WE, BAYROADCAP LLC, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON PROJECT NO.: 2016134.03 24x36 THIS PLAN, AND THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO ME BY ACT 24x36 CITY OF DOVER C-PR-U-SEWER-MH-5ID-COD IG 165 ILEX GLABRA 'SHAMROCK' SHAMROCK INKBERRY 24"-36" CONT. 1M : 9F AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND DATE: 06-05-2020 LM 160 LIRIOPE MUSCARI 'BIG BLUE' BIG BLUE LIRIOPE 2 QT CONT. 15 REGULATIONS. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BAYROADCAP LLC. SCALE: 1" = 50' PV 46 PANICUM VIRGATUM 'NORTHWIND' NORTHWIND SWITCHGRASS 3 GAL. CONT. DRAWN BY: C.D.C. PROJ. MGR.: J.N.S. 24x36 24x36 TOTAL: 190 TREES / 371 SHRUBS 15 SHEET INV. IN: 20.97' EX. SAN. MH. 02/07/20 24x36 INV. OUT: 20.87' RIM EL.: 26.63' L-101 24x36 EX. ??"W SIGNATURE DATE 15 COPYRIGHT 2015 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2016\2016134\2016134.03\DWG\201613403-LANDSCAPE-C3D18.dwg, Jun 05, 2020 - 9:35am .PDF 24x36 24x36 2020-06-05

420'-01/2" 4'-11/2" 4'-11/2" 46'-5 1/2" 9'-5" 10'-2" 51'-6 1/2" 10'-2" 7'-9 1/2" 10'-2" 51'-6 1/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 40'-81/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 51'-61/2" 10'-2" 9'-5" 46'-51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH 1" MECH MECH MECH 51/2" 14'-51/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 31/2" 14'-11/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 6'-101/2" 51/2" 31/2" 6'-61/2" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 20'-0" 31/2" 25'-3" 51/2" 7'-2" PATIO 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" PATIO 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 6'-81/2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-1" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" PATIO PATIO 7'-0" 7'-0" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" 3'-21/2" 6" 3'-21/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 3'-21/2" 3'-21/2" 4'-2" 6" WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 12'-41/2" BEDROOM #2 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 31/2" 51/2" 1" 1" 1/2" 5 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1" 1" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1" 1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 13'-6" 5 1/2" 3 1/2" 8'-8" 3 1/2" 5 1/2" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 5 1/2" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 5 1/2" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 5 1/2" 21'-2" 5 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-2" 3 1/2" 5 1/2" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 5 1/2" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 5 1/2" 12'-1" 3 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 31/2" 8'-8" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 31/2" LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER BATH 21'-6" 21'-6" SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM 14'-91/2" 1/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 4'-5" 14'-9 6" 9'-6" 31/2" 5'-7" 42" VAN. 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-7" 31/2" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 5'-1" 51/2" 5'-1" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 8'-61/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 5'-1" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 8'-61/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 2'-0" STAIR #2 39'-81/2" STAIR #2 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-61/2" 3'-8" 3'-4" B12 B12 3'-4" 3'-4" B12 B12 3'-4" B12 3'-4" 3'-4" B12 B12 3'-4" 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. AREA OF REFUGE AREA OF REFUGE 31/2" 1/2" 31/2" B30 B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 B30 31/2" 31/2" B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 B30 31/2" 31/2" BATH 6'-1" 5'-0" BATH BATH 6'-1" 5'-0" BATH 5'-0" BATH BATH 6'-1" 5'-0" BATH DW DW DW DW DW DW DW 3 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 42" VAN. 5'-0" 6'-1" 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 5'-0" 6'-1" 42" VAN. 6'-1" 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 5'-0" 6'-1" 42" VAN. 50'-111/2" DW B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 LIN. SB27 SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 51/2" 51/2" SB27 B12 12'-1" W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 10'-10" W3018 W3018 10'-10" BEDROOM #2 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 31/2" 3'-101/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. 4'-0" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 1/2" 3'-5" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" D5 D5 1" D5 D5 6'-1" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-2" 3 1/2" 7'-1" 5'-0" 3 1/2" 5'-2" 3 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-2" 3 1/2" 5'-0" 3 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" D 5 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-0" 3 1/2" 5'-2" 3 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 6'-1" 3 1/2" 5 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-0" 3 1/2" 5'-2" 3 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-2" 3 1/2" 5'-0" 3 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" D 5 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 2'-01/2" 3 1/2" 16'-10" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 9'-11/2" 31/2" 5'-7" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY W W W W 91/2" 1" 91/2" 91/2" 1" 5'-0" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" B21 W/D B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" B21 W B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 21'-2" 51/2" 31/2" B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" B21 W B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 31/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. REF REF REF REF REF 31/2" REF REF 31/2" REF 2'-11" 2'-11" 2'-11" CL. CL. CL. CL. CL. CL. W3318 W3318 2'-1" W3318 W3318 2'-1" 2'-1" W3318 W3318 W3318 2'-1" W3318 2'-61/2" 2'-61/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 74'-2" 5 UP 5" UP 5" UP 5" 6'-2" 1/20 SLOPE 1/20 SLOPE 1/20 SLOPE 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 5 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" CL 2'-51/2" 51/2" W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" CL. 2'-1" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" CL. 2'-1" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 2'-1" CL. CL. 2'-1" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 2'-1" CL. 51/2" 13'-61/2" 31/2" 31'-81/2" 51/2" PAN. REF REF PAN. 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" PAN. REF PAN. REF REF PAN. PAN. REF REF PAN. REF PAN. 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" PAN. REF 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" B21 B15 B15 B21 B21 B21 B21 B15 B15 W W W 5'-7" 5'-7" 5'-7" 5'-7" 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. COMMUNITY SPACE LAUNDRY BATH BATH LAUNDRY LAUNDRY W LAUNDRY LAUNDRY W BATH BATH 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC 31/2" 8'-4" 51/2" 6'-4" 3'-41/2" 31/2" 31/2" 5'-51/2" CL. 10'-41/2" 51/2" 10'-1" CL. 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 3'-1" 31/2" 6'-4" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 6'-4" 3'-41/2" 31/2" 31/2" 5'-51/2" CL. 10'-41/2" 51/2" 10'-1" CL. 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 3'-1" 31/2" 6'-4" 51/2" 8'-4" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 5'-0" 7'-1" 51/2" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 5'-0" 7'-1" 51/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 3,336 sq ft D D 8'-7" 51/2" D 51/2" D 51/2" D 1'-5" 1'-5" 1'-5" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-5" W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 51/2" 3'-6" 31/2" LIN. LIN. 51/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 51/2" 51/2" 31/2" LIN. LIN. KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. 7'-0" RE RE KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN RE RE 7'-0" 11'-7" 11'-7" 11'-7" 11'-7" 10'-6" 30" VAN. 3'-71/2" 31/2" 3'-71/2" 31/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 3'-71/2" 31/2" 3'-71/2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 5'-2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 5'-2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" LIN. SB27 B30 B30 KITCHEN SB27 SB27 KITCHEN B30 LIN. SB27 B30 B30 SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 B30 B30 SB27 LIN. B30 KITCHEN SB27 SB27 KITCHEN B30 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 31/2" 5'-0" 5'-0" 6'-1" 5'-0" 6'-1" 31/2" 2'-1" 7'-3" 7'-3" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 7'-3" 7'-3" 31/2" DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. 6'-1" BATH 6'-1" BATH BATH 5'-0" 6'-1" BATH BATH 5'-0" 3'-4" B30 31/2" 31/2" B30 3'-4" 3'-4" B30 3'-4" B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 3'-4" 3'-4" B30 1/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 3'-4" B30 3'-4" 3'-4" B30 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 31/2" 3'-2" 3 51/2" 3'-2" 51/2" 3'-2" B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 W/D 19'-6" 3'-2" 31/2"W/D 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" 3'-2" W/D31/2" 3'-2" 31/2"W/D 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" 3'-2" W/D31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 31/2" 3'-51/2" 31/2" 3'-1" 51/2" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 51/2" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" BEDROOM 51/2" 51/2" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 11'-1" ELEVATOR ELEVATOR 7'-0" F W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. EQUIP. EQUIP. 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 12'-11" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 51/2" LIVING MASTER UP 12" LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING UP 12" 51/2" 12'-111/2" 12'-111/2" 12'-6" 12'-6" SPACE BEDROOM SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE 1/20 SLOPE 1/20 SLOPE DW 31/2" 21'-6" 21'-6" 21'-6" 21'-6" KITCHEN 7'-2" 22'-31/2" RE 1" 1" 1" 1" 51/2" 31/2" 9'-71/4" 31/2" 9'-71/4" 31/2" 51/2" 15'-2" 31/2" 12'-7" 51/2" 51/2" 12'-7" 31/2" 15'-2" 15'-2" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 15'-2" 31/2" 12'-7" 51/2" 51/2" 12'-7" 31/2" 15'-2" 51/2" 31/2" 9'-71/4" 31/2" 9'-71/4" 31/2" 51/2" UTILITY 31/2" 15'-1" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 15'-1" 51/2" 51/2" 15'-1" 15'-1" 51/2" 51/2" 15'-1" 51/2" 51/2" ROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM LIVING 31/2" 12'-10" SPACE UTILITY ROOM WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 9'-1" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-1" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 1" 51/2" 18'-61/2" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 31/2" 51/2" 20'-0" 31/2" 12'-101/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH 6" 6" 51/2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 51/2" 6" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 31,411 sq ft 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 8'-0" 45'-0" 13'-10" 21'-2" 14'-21/2" 10'-11/2" 7'-10" 10'-2" 40'-21/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-11/2" 51'-7" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 40'-21/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 14'-21/2" 15'-6" 12'-6" 7'-2" 32'-0" 420'-0 1/2" TOTAL (80 UNITS) OPTION 2 1st FLOOR 2nd-3rd FLOOR (ea.) 4th FLOOR OPTION 2 1BR: 13 16% 1BR: 4 UNITS 1BR: 3 UNITS 1BR: 3 UNITS 1BR STUDIO: 5 6% 1BR STUDIO: 2 UNITS 1BR STUDIO: 1 UNIT 1BR STUDIO: 1 UNIT 2BR: 52 65% 2BR: 12 UNITS 2BR: 12 UNITS 2BR: 10 UNITS 3BR: 10 13% 3BR: 1 UNITS 2BR ELEV: 2 UNITS 2BR ELEV. 2 UNITS COMMUNITY USES 2 3BR 3BR: 3 UNITS 3BR: 3 UNITS PATIO USES (2)2BR FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4'-11/2" 46'-51/2" 9'-5" 10'-2" 51'-61/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 51'-61/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 40'-81/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 51'-61/2" 10'-2" 4'-11/2" 51/2" 1/2" 5 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 51/2" 51/2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" MECH MECH 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" MECH MECH 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" MECH 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 14'-3" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" MECH 51/2" MECH 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" MECH 51/2" MECH1/2" 51/2" 14'-51/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 31/2" 14'-11/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 5 10'-2" 51/2" 14'-11/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 31/2" 6'-81/2" 1/2" 7'-2" PATIO 6'-8 PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" PATIO 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 6'-81/2" 7'-2" 7'-2" 6'-81/2" PATIO 7'-2" 7'-1" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" PATIO PATIO 7'-0" 7'-0" PATIO 7'-0" 7'-1" 7'-2" 7'-2" 3'-21/2" 6" 3'-21/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 3'-21/2" 3'-21/2" 4'-2" 6" 3'-21/2" WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 12'-41/2" BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #2 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" 15'-1" BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 31/2" 51/2" 1" 1" 1/2" 5 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 13'-6" 51/2" 31/2" 8'-8" 31/2" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 28'-61/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 31/2" 8'-8" 31/2" 5'-0" 5'-0" 31/2" 31/2" LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING 31/2" BATH BATH 21'-6" 21'-6" SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE 14'-91/2" 1/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 4'-5" 4'-5" 14'-9 6" 9'-6" 31/2" 31/2" 5'-7" 42" VAN. 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 42" VAN. 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-7" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-7" 31/2" 3'-2" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 5'-1" 51/2" 5'-1" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 8'-61/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 5'-1" 8'-1" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 8'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 8'-61/2" 31/2" 3'-81/2" 31/2" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 2'-0" STAIR #2 STAIR #2 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-6 1/2" 51/2" 3'-8" 3'-4" B12 B12 3'-4" 3'-4" B12 B12 3'-4" B12 3'-4" 3'-4" B12 B12 3'-4" 3'-8" 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. AREA OF REFUGE AREA OF REFUGE 31/2" 1/2" 31/2" B30 B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 B30 31/2" 31/2" B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" BATH 6'-1" 5'-0" BATH BATH 6'-1" 5'-0" BATH 5'-0" BATH BATH 6'-1" 5'-0" BATH DW DW DW DW DW DW DW 3 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 42" VAN. 5'-0" 6'-1" 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 5'-0" 6'-1" 42" VAN. 6'-1" 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 5'-0" 6'-1" 42" VAN. DW B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 B30 DW SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 LIN. SB27 SB27 LIN. LIN. SB27 51/2" 51/2" SB27 B12 B12 SB27 12'-1" W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 10'-10" W3018 W3018 10'-10" W3018 BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #2 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 31/2" 3'-101/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN 4'-0" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 1/2" 3'-5" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 4'-0" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" D5 D5 D5 D5 6'-1" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 7'-1" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 6'-91/2" D 51/2" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 51/2" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 6'-91/2" D 51/2" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 2'-01/2" 3 1/2" 16'-10" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 9'-11/2" 31/2" 5'-7" 5'-7" 31/2" 9'-11/2" 3 1/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY W W W W 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 1" 5'-0" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" B21 W/D B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" B21 W B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" B21 W B21 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 31/2" 51/2" 5'-2" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. PAN. 2'-51/2" PAN. REF REF REF REF REF 31/2" REF REF 31/2" REF REF 2'-11" 2'-11" 2'-11" CL. CL. CL. CL. CL. CL. W3318 W3318 2'-1" W3318 W3318 2'-1" 2'-1" W3318 W3318 W3318 2'-1" W3318 W3318 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 2'-61/2" 2'-61/2" 51/2" 74'-2" 5 6'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 1/2" 5 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" CL 2'-51/2" 51/2" 2'-11" W3318 W3318 1/2" W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 W3318 31/2" W3318 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" 2'-51/2" CL. 2'-1" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" CL. 2'-1" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 91/2" 51/2" 5'-61/2" 5'-61/2" 51/2" 91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 2'-1" CL. 51/2" 5'-2" 51/2" 31/2" 5'-0" PAN. REF REF PAN. 2'-5 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" PAN. REF PAN. REF REF PAN. REF PAN. 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-21/2" 31/2" PAN. REF REF PAN. 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" 5'-91/2" B21 B15 B15 B21 B21 B15 B15 W W 5'-7" 5'-7" 5'-7" 5'-7" 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. LAUNDRY BATH BATH LAUNDRY LAUNDRY W BATH BATH 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" 3'-5" 31/2" BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC 31/2" 8'-4" 51/2" 6'-4" 3'-41/2" 31/2" 31/2" 5'-51/2" CL. 10'-41/2" 51/2" 10'-1" CL. 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 3'-1" 31/2" 6'-4" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 6'-4" 3'-41/2" 31/2" 31/2" 5'-51/2" CL. 10'-41/2" 51/2" 10'-1" CL. 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 3'-1" 31/2" 6'-4" 51/2" 8'-4" 6'-01/2" 31/2" 9'-11/2" 31/2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-91/2" 31/2" 5'-0" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 6'-1" 6'-1" 31/2" 6'-10" 31/2" 2'-01/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 31/2" 5'-0" 7'-1" 5 1/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" 10'-10" D 8'-7" 51/2" D 51/2" D 1'-5" 1'-5" 1'-5" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 1'-5" 4'-0" W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 W3018 51/2" 3'-6" 31/2" LIN. LIN. 51/2" 3'-6" 3'-6" 51/2" 51/2" 31/2" LIN. LIN. KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. 7'-0" RE RE KITCHEN RE BATH W.I.C. W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN RE RE 7'-0" W.I.C. BATH RE KITCHEN 11'-7" 11'-7" 11'-7" 11'-7" BEDROOM #2 30" VAN. 3'-71/2" 31/2" 3'-71/2" 31/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 4'-2" 31/2" 1'-71/2" 31/2" 3'-71/2" 31/2" 3'-71/2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 5'-2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" 5'-2" 5'-2" 31/2" 7'-11/2" 31/2" B12 SB27 LIN. SB27 B30 B30 KITCHEN SB27 SB27 KITCHEN B30 LIN. SB27 B30 B30 SB27 LIN. B30 KITCHEN SB27 SB27 KITCHEN B30 B30 DW 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 42" VAN. 31/2" 5'-0" 5'-0" 6'-1" 31/2" 2'-1" 7'-3" 7'-3" 31/2" 2'-1" 2'-1" 31/2" 7'-3" 7'-3" 31/2" DW DW DW DW DW DW DW 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. 60" VAN. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. 6'-1" BATH 6'-1" BATH BATH 5'-0" 3'-4" B30 31/2" 31/2" B30 3'-4" 3'-4" B30 3'-4" B30 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" B30 3'-4" B30 3'-4" 3'-4" B30 31/2" 3'-8" 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" 12'-1" 12'-1" 12'-1" 31/2" 3'-2" 51/2" 3'-2" 51/2" 3'-2" B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 W/D 19'-6" 31/2"W/D 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" W/D31/2" 3'-2" 31/2"W/D 3'-2" 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-8" 31/2" W/D31/2" 3'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 51/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 3'-2" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3 1/2" 3'-5 1/2" 3 1/2" 3'-1" 5 1/2" 8'-1" 3 1/2" 3'-8 1/2" 3 1/2" 8'-1" 3 1/2" 3'-8 1/2" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3'-8 1/2" 3 1/2" 8'-1" 4TH FLOOR DECK BEDROOM 51/2" 51/2" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 11'-1" F W.I.C. W.I.C. W.I.C. 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 2,610 sq ft 31/2" 3'-101/2" 3'-2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 31/2" 42" VAN. 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 14'-91/2" 51/2" 4'-5" LIVING MASTER LIVING MASTER MASTER LIVING MASTER LIVING BATH 12'-111/2" 12'-111/2" 12'-6" 12'-6" SPACE BEDROOM SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM SPACE BEDROOM SPACE 31/2" DW 31/2" 21'-6" 21'-6" 21'-6" 21'-6" KITCHEN 5'-0" RE 1" 1" 51/2" 31/2" 19'-6" 31/2" 51/2" 15'-2" 31/2" 12'-7" 51/2" 51/2" 12'-7" 31/2" 15'-2" 15'-2" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 6" 79'-11/2" 6" 12'-1" 31/2" 14'-71/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 15'-2" 31/2" 12'-7" 51/2" 51/2" 12'-7" 31/2" 15'-2" 20'-4" 31/2" 31/2" 15'-1" BEDROOM 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 15'-1" BEDROOM 51/2" 51/2" BEDROOM 15'-1" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" LIVING 12'-10" BEDROOM #2 SPACE WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 4'-2" 7'-2" 7'-51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 7'-0" 7'-2" 7'-0" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-2" 7'-2" 7'-0" 7'-51/2" 7'-1" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO 6'-81/2" 6'-81/2" 51/2" 18'-61/2" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 12'-1" 31/2" 12'-81/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 3'-21/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 12'-81/2" 31/2" 12'-1" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 31/2" 51/2" 10'-2" 51/2" 14'-11/2" 31/2" 2'-1" 31/2" MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH 6" 6" 51/2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 51/2" 6" 51/2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 51/2" 45'-0" 13'-10" 21'-2" 14'-21/2" 10'-11/2" 7'-10" 10'-2" 40'-21/2" 10'-2" 87'-51/2" 10'-2" 40'-21/2" 10'-2" 7'-91/2" 10'-2" 14'-21/2" 21'-2" 46'-0" 420'-01/2" FOURTH FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission As part of the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission, one of the responsibilities of the Planning Commission is to appoint the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee. The following excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance is provided. Appendix B: Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2. Site development plan approval. 2.28 Consideration shall be given to the physical orientation and architectural characteristics of proposed buildings, the relationship of proposed buildings to existing buildings and to other proposed buildings, and their contributions to the overall image of the immediate vicinity by considering the building and architectural design guidelines as set forth in article 5, section 19. Design characteristics of proposed buildings and building additions shall not detract or devalue existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. (A) If the planning commission determines that the proposed physical orientation and architectural characteristics of the proposed buildings do not meet the intent and objectives of this section, then the planning commission shall refer the proposal to the architectural review oversight subcommittee for review and comment. (B) The subcommittee shall meet and review the proposal with the applicant, and return its comments to the planning commission by the next regularly scheduled meeting. (C) The architectural review oversight subcommittee shall be appointed by the commission at its annual meeting, and membership shall consist of two planning commission members, and two design professionals with experience in construction, and the mayor or the mayor's designee. Two alternate design professionals with experience in construction shall also be appointed. At the August 19, 2019 Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission, the following individuals were appointed to the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission. o Kathleen Welsh, Planning Commission member o Andrea Maucher, Planning Commission member o Mayor or Mayor’s designee Following Planning Staff’s confirmation of availability, the Planning Commission at their October 21, 2019 acted to appoint the following two Design Professional members to the Subcommittee. No other Design Professionals as Alternates were appointed. o Ms. Sarah Keifer, Director of Planning Services for Kent County, Design Professional o Dr. R.J. Chandler, Faculty member of Architecture program at DelTech Community College, Design Professional As part of the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission shall appoint the membership of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee. This is an opportunity to consider individuals to serve on this subcommittee. Selection for Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Summary for 7-2020