Planning Commission Paperless Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21, 2020 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting AGENDA 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. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Planning Commission Meeting for September 21, 2020 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 the meeting as a Panelist. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION City of Dover Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2020 Dial: 1-408-418-9388 Event number/Access code: 129 747 8098 Event password: DoverPC Event Address: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php?MTID=e23439e81839328d4a18bdc16fd 18c74f If you are new to WebEx get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736- 7196. WELCOME to Virtual Meeting of Planning Commission PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Adoption of Minutes of August 17, 2020 Meeting 1

PLANNING COMMISSION - September 21, 2020 PAGE 2 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Meeting Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting date is October 19, 2020 at 7:00PM. Update on City Council Actions 2. Appointment to Planning Commission Department of Planning & Inspections Updates 3. Announcement of DRAFT City of Dover Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Available for Review 9/6/2020-10/4/2020 See www.cityofdover.com/walkbikedoverplan 4. Applications Summary Table 2020 OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATIONS OLD BUSINESS Request Extension of Planning Commission Approval - None Received NEW APPLICATIONS 5. SB-20-02 Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC - Minor Subdivision: Eden Hill Farm TND in the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District - Public Hearing and Review of a proposed Subdivision Plan for property located south of W. North Street and on the east and west sides of Banning Street in the Professional Office, Medical and Financial District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project known as Eden Hill Farm. The portion to be subdivided consists of 14.119 acres +/- to be split into three new parcels plus the residual. Lot 1 is an unimproved lot measuring 2.538 acres +/-. Lot 2 is open space consisting of pedestrian connections, a flag pole and landscaping and measures 1.615 acres +/-. Lot 3 measuring 2.633 acres +/- consists of The Center at Eden Hill, a skilled nursing facility and its associated parking. The residual is an unimproved lot measuring 7.333 acres +/-. The owner of record is Dover Medical Properties, LLC. The property area includes 300 Banning Street and unaddressed areas. Tax Parcel number ED-05-076.00-01-13.05-000. Council District 2. The subject property was previously created by the approval of a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan MI-19-07 Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC on October 22, 2019. The Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD is the subject of Implementation Plan S-06-26 and associated Administrative Site Plans. NEW BUSINESS 6. Nomination and Election of Officer (Vice-Chairman) for Planning Commission (Annual Meeting Item): Deferred from July 20, 2020 and August 17, 2020 Meetings 7. Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28): Follow-up Report on Membership ADJOURN 2

PLANNING COMMISSION - September 21, 2020 PAGE 3 Posted Agenda: September 11, 2020 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 17, 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. The Meeting Session was conducted with Acting Chair (Vice Chair) Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Welsh, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher. Mrs. Malone was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Doug Liberman, Mr. Ed Gilmore, Mr. Mike Riemann, Mr. Jonathan Street, Mr. Bill Krapf, Mr. Steven Spence, Mr. Roderick Morris and Mr. Alex D’Alessandro. Speaking from the public were Mrs. Abigail Blair, Ms. Paris Mano and Mrs. Jean Benzin. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Adams moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mrs. Malone absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2020 Mr. Hartman moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2020, second by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mrs. Malone absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mr. Hugg stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2020. Mr. Hugg provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on July 27 & 28, 2020 and August 10 & 11, 2020. Mr. Hugg stated that they are in the midst of interviews to hopefully fill one or more of the Code Enforcement positions. They have a number of them vacant and we have a couple of employees who are still out for various medical leave situations. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that parts of our Planning and Inspections Department for the last week and a half and probably continuing, have been involved in the storm response. Some of our Planning Commission members may have seen our Fire Marshals and Code Enforcement Staff out in the field as their neighborhoods were impacted. They continue to work with people as they regather their lives. There has been a lot of kudos expressed with the various City Departments over the last few weeks, including the Electric Department, the Police Department and the Dover Fire Department. Team Dover certainly rose to the occasion to help our community and those in our electric service territory. 1 4

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is a training and education opportunity. They always try to present these to the Commission members. There is one that you have the opportunity to attend this week. It is one of those training sessions that is put on by the Institute for Public Administration at the University of Delaware. This one focuses on housing needs in the community during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Planning Staff did participate with a housing one that they put on a couple of weeks ago. Some of the same speakers will be on this one. It is free and it is a Zoom Webinar. If you are available on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at lunch time, certainly take the opportunity to join in with that. You do have to register ahead of time and they will send you the direct link to that Zoom Meeting. SPECIAL RECOGNITION 1) Resolution honoring the Service of Deborah Edwards on the Planning Commission. Resolution Whereas, Deborah Edwards became a member of the City of Dover Planning Commission on June 26, 2017 and has served with diligence and distinction in this capacity as an advocate for sound land use planning in the public interest; and, Whereas, Deborah Edwards has played a key role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the planning and development of the Capital City through her service on the Planning Commission; and, Whereas, Deborah Edwards has influenced the pattern and appearance of development in Dover through her contributions to the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project; her efforts to ensure compliance with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended); her participation in the development of amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance regarding various zoning districts and development design requirements; her eagerness to learn; and her advocacy for local businesses and her passion for Economic Development; and, Whereas, Deborah Edwards completed her term of service on the City of Dover Planning Commission on July 13, 2020. Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Planning Commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Deborah Edwards for her faithful and exemplary service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as an active member of the City of Dover Planning Commission and extends its very best wishes to Deborah Edwards for a bright and prosperous future. Mr. Adams moved to approve the Resolution for the Service of Deborah Edwards, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the virtual meeting using the WebEx system. 2 5

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None 2) Revisions to Applications: S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road: Update on Revisions to Site Development 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. Revisions involve site access/entrance improvements to Saulsbury Road and interconnection to adjoining properties at 987-991 Forest Street (Subway Restaurant site). 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 and accepted an update report on Revisions on May 18, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Doug Liberman; Larson Engineering, Mr. Ed Gilmore, Developer Mrs. Melson-Williams that this application was originally presented to the Planning Commission back in October of 2019 and a public hearing was held at that time. Since October 2019, the application has been working to what they call “complete the Check Print Review process” to move towards Final Site Plan approval. This is for the development of a series of parcels of land into a Car Wash facility with some other areas that would remain for future potential development. Back in May of this year, they actually looked at an updated revision which dated to March and that dealt with a series of design refinements that were related to the consolidation of lots on the property and also to enlarge what would be the stormwater management facility in the southeast corner of the property near Carver Road. Since that time, the applicant has continued to work with agencies and in particular tonight, they bring a second update revision to you. That deals with the site access from Saulsbury Road. In working with DelDOT in designing this entrance, there have been a couple of things that DelDOT is requesting. One is the need for a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site and in constructing that potential turn lane, DelDOT has recommended that the direct site access onto what is known as the Subway Restaurant parcels be closed and then an alternative means from Saulsbury Road be established for that access to that restaurant parcel. The restaurant parcels are separate from the piece that is to be developed as the Car Wash. Tonight, they are basically showing you the entrance to the site from Saulsbury Road. That has pretty much remained in the same location as it was presented back in October 2019. The only thing that is new is that now there is a connecting drive aisle that goes from that entrance drive to the south to then connect with the parking lot area for the Subway Restaurant. With that, there is some slight curb work and parking revisions on the Subway site 3 6

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 that will be part of the implementation in closing off their direct access to Saulsbury Road. The Site Plan shows this access entrance change from Saulsbury Road and the connecting drive aisle. With the project, they will actually have to work on stormwater management to service those areas and they are planning to accommodate that in their stormwater planning for the overall Car Wash property. Then there are some obvious changes to landscape planning for the project area in where trees and other shrubbery will be located. They submitted to us for reference tonight, a Revised Site Plan that shows that entrance and then also a Landscaping Plan. This is really just brought to the Planning Commission as an informational item. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the Check Print Review process, ensuring that even with these changes that it continues to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. They did include in the packet, a letter that introduced this concept to you as well. We do have project representatives with us this evening that can add any additional information. As stated before, it’s really just an informational update that Staff felt was important to share with the Commission. It is not subject to public hearing as that was completed with its initial Site Plan Review process. Mr. Liberman stated (through the Chat option) that the biggest change for the project really is a change in the number of entrances along Saulsbury Road from what is currently existing conditions with the site, a change of going from three entrances down to one. There are two parcels in addition to the restaurant parcel of the Subway that have access currently to Saulsbury Road. So with this project design, they are going down from three existing to one entrance that will be shared amongst multiple properties. They are also working to accommodate the future DelDOT safety project that’s in the works for that intersection of Route 8 and Saulsbury Road. The existing Subway entrance was too close to the intersection so the new entrance has better safety for all patrons using both sites. As part of this, the Subway site will actually be able to gain five parking spaces and better flow for traffic on their site with this new entrance and drive aisle connection scenario. Mr. Hartman questioned if with the interconnectivity of the Subway now, do we expect the traffic on the east side of the site to increase at that exit near the schools? He knows that when they first approved this, there was concern about when school let out and the children that would be in that area. The applicant even went so far as to say that they would have people out there to direct traffic at those times. He is just wondering if the interconnectivity of the Subway, which seems like a very good idea, if that is going to increase traffic on the east side. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it could certainly change access points but Mr. Liberman is noting that they expect the Subway traffic to use the Saulsbury Road entrance primarily. The Subway Restaurant continues to have a rights-in entrance off of Forest Street so that entrance to the Subway site is not going away. Mr. Liberman is also noting that they would likely follow their existing usage patterns. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-19-22 Tommy Express Car Wash at Carver Road to accept the updated revision to the parking and entrance for the project, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she believes that the change to the entrance is much safer and it will work much better with the traffic and to remove the second entrance on the Subway site from close to Forest Street and provide much more safety off of that road. Dr. Jones voting yes; the revision appears to address some of their concerns of the traffic patterns. Mr. Adams voting yes; for the reasons previously 4 7

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; he thinks that it’s a great addition to the Site Plan and he hopes that everything works out. Mr. Hartman voting yes; it appears that it will improve the safety on Saulsbury Road. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; this new design appears to improve efficiency and safety of both properties. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. 3) Pending Development Application: Continued Review Pending Submission Update C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road (Commercial) at 600 Bay Road: Continued Review of a portion of the Conditional Use Site Plan Application to revise the Phase 2 area of the site. The initial plan proposed replacing a 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 Planning Commission on July 20, 2020 denied the Conditional Use to establish the 80-unit Apartment Building and then deferred action on the remaining site development revisions. 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 Kent County Levy Court Administration Building. 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. Items for Consideration (Denied with Conditional Use): 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 Approval on March 6, 2020. Representatives: Mr. Mike Riemann, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. Bill Krapf, Owner’s representative; Mr. Steven Spence Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is not subject to public hearing. The public hearing with this is application was completed at last month’s meeting. As noted, the Commission took action to deny the Conditional Use portion of this application which was for an 80-unit apartment building and then in a separate motion, deferred action on the remainder of the Site Plan which was for this Phase II area consisting of an office building, two restaurant sites and also the development of the balance of the property with parking and landscaping. Mrs. Bulkilvish stated that this is the Revised Plan that was submitted last week and the apartments have been removed as that Conditional Use was denied at the previous meeting. Basically, the remainder of the buildings are the same in their layout. There is an almost 20,000 SF office building to the north and two restaurants fronting on Bay Road; a large restaurant to the north and a smaller restaurant to the south. The remainder is pretty much parking and nothing too much has changed with that accept where there was an apartment building, there is now just parking. The sidewalk network is the same, placement of dumpsters is the same and they have not received an updated Landscape Plan so right now that is also the same as what was submitted with the Conditional Use Application. 5 8

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with this application, they did receive a series of four Revised Plan sheets dated August 7, 2020. In response to that, Planning Commission members received a Memo Update last week that Planning Staff did once they had an opportunity to look at this Revised Plan update. That was a Memo dated August 13, 2020 that highlights some of the things that they noticed with the Revised Site Plan. There is a lot coverage that they have concerns about. This project originally started with a plan from 2017 that was approved for development in July 2017. With that application, there was a total impervious of 88.9%. About that same time, there were changes in our Code that then established a maximum impervious cover for properties in the C-4 at 75%. Because that project was in process, it was allowed to basically be established at that nonconforming level of impervious surface coverage. The 2017 Plan basically got approved and within a month of its Final Plan Approval, there was a new application filed. S-19- 20 for this project established the Phase I Building on the far western portion of the site as an office building rather than a grocery store with multi-tenant retail. With that S-19-20 Plan, it basically revised the site and ended up with an impervious surface coverage of 77.9% and ultimately in adopting the plan, that’s what the Planning Commission saw. Then when S-19-20 achieved Final Plan Approval, it superseded the previous Site Plan from 2017. Staff interpreted it to reset basically, the allowable impervious surface coverage at 77.9%. With the Revised Plan to C-20-02, they are showing a slight increase in that lot coverage percentage so Staff has identified that they basically have a couple of options. If they would like to continue the percentage of impervious cover at the 80.8%, then they would require action by the City’s Board of Adjustment. Or the Plan can be revised through the Check Print Review process to have a lot coverage of the 77.9% or less which is what Staff interpreted that the site would be eligible for. You could continue review of the Site Plan this evening; however, in order to achieve Final Plan approval, the Plan could resolve the site impervious surface issue as part of the Check Print process. They do note that they re-presented the parking calculation for the site now that we have some slightly different combinations of uses. Our Memo includes a table that shows based on the uses, the total number of parking spaces required is 444. Their site proposes 881 parking spaces. There is no longer a maximum number of parking spaces that a project can have but Staff has some concerns about that overall number. Staff believes that the changeover of some of those parking spaces to green space allows them to meet their impervious surface coverage of that 77.9% that was previously established for the site. There is also a couple of places where the current parking layout requires parking in a particular location to potentially have to back out into a main circulation aisle on the site. They think there could be some improvements to eliminate that type of situation. They also note what the dumpster calculations would be for this type of (use) scenario. There appears to be enough dumpsters on the site; there may just need to be some placement juggling. Regarding objectives for looking at Site Plans, this is clearly a site that has opportunities for multi-modal and we think that it should be taken full advantage of. Even for an office setting, they do think there are some opportunities for making it more enjoyable for those that may visit or work there. That may include additional green space or site amenities to take that break outside during the normal work day. For other elements of the Site Plan, as Mrs. Bulkilvish noted, they did not receive an updated Plan but obviously through any kind of Check Print Review process, they would be having to review that anyway for required tree planting compliance. The architecture of the building was previously presented to the Planning Commission. They do note that a lot of the content of the DAC Report would remain as relevant 6 9

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 to the Site Plan aspects of this Phase 2 area; both comments from the Planning Office and the other regulatory agencies. There are a number of comments that relate specifically to the residential use that can be disregarded because that type of use on the property was previously denied. They do want to note for the Planning Commission that there are a couple of waivers that they will need to take action on this evening with the Site Plan. The first is the reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer. The previous plans have reduced that Street Buffer from thirty feet to twenty feet. That waiver was previously approved by the Planning Commission but should be reconfirmed with any action taken on the Site Plan this evening. In addition, there is Tree Mitigation Plan which in the case of this project, allows for tree plantings to occur just to the south of the subject property on the adjacent property in order to create more of a tree lined entrance on the Bay Court entrance drive that this location shares. While there is some open space on the north side of that property line it is impacted by utilities in that area. This would still achieve tree planting in that general vicinity but it just happens to be located on the adjacent property. That was previously approved with earlier plans and we would look for reconfirmation of that this evening. The two other items of waivers for consideration that were associated with this plan C-20-02 are related to the residential area that was proposed. That was the Recreation Area Plan and the Cash-in-Lieu; so, those are no longer necessary to be considered since the project does not include the residential component. Mr. Street stated that the application before you is not a whole lot different than the one that we saw last month. One thing that he wants to point out is with the change from the first plan. This has been three years of constant updates to the development. It started out as a grocery store and a retail space and it’s kind of transformed into offices with some leftover restaurant pads out front. This is new to the developer of changing hands with his leasees and getting firm long term leasees now for both of these buildings. The main difference between this plan and the previously approved plan is the 24,000 SF retail space where the office is now. That building shrunk at the top of that site where they were able to gain fifty or so parking spaces. In addition to that, they removed the building that was denied last month and they infilled that with parking as well. As previously discussed last month, the two end users who are the long term leasees of these buildings, one of them is the State Police. Some of their admin offices are going there and they have their own parking requirements for their building and for their employees and what they are going to do out of that building. The State Police are also going to be in the other 20,000 SF building and they have parking requirements as well. He knows that they have shot up at least one hundred parking spaces since the last plan. Building Staff comments about the previously approved 77.9% versus the 88.9% which is where they were with the maximum coverage previously. He thinks that they would argue that the 88.9% expired with the previous plan and right now they are at 80.8% he believes. We are talking about 1 SF here and they would really like to move forward with the 20,000 SF building option because they have a long term leaser. The Landscape Plan, of course with whatever Final Plan they come up with between themselves and Staff, will be updated to reflect the appropriate and Code compliant tree plantings, cross access easements, and the like. Mr. Riemann stated that essentially where this plan is, is very similar to the DSP Plan that has already been approved but for the fact that the building has reduced in size to 20,000 SF. As it relates to the Staff Report, they reviewed it and they don’t have any major concerns. They do have a slight disagreement on the validity of the impervious coverage and there is a little bit of 7 10

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 history associated with that. With this site, one of the first approvals that was gained a number of years ago as part of the start of developing this property was a Tree Mitigation Project. It actually reforested about five acres of ground within the City. That was associated with the original plan for development. That was one of the first steps. The original of what they call the Shop Rite Plan is also referred to as the 2017 Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. It had a lot of square footage on that plan and that plan was 88.9%. And while that plan was in the works, the City changed the Code to limit the maximum impervious coverage to 75%. During that same time frame, the State Police had come along as a tenant there; they are consolidating a lot of their facilities in that building. It’s already under construction. So it’s great for the City in terms of locating some jobs in the City and great for the State Police on consolidating those users. That plan did have an impervious coverage of 77.9%. It’s important to point out that on that plan that was approved in March 2019, there was a Note #12 that was added to the plan. The note basically says that project S-17-20 was granted conditional approval by the City of Dover Planning Commission in July 2017 which grandfathered the total impervious coverage of 88.9% which they understood. They think it was important that the note was added to what he calls the State Police Plan because it was important that they maintain the grandfathered status of the impervious coverage for the project. That being said, it’s really important that we move forward this evening with the new tenant that we have which is the GSA Fleet Services. We have a great tenant there; it’s already an executed long term lease so they do need to move forward on that. This plan shows about 80.8% compared to the 77.9%. In our interpretation, we are under the 88.9% which is what they were grandfathered to have and therefore we think we are on solid ground. That being said, we are comfortable moving forward working with Staff but we do believe that the 88.9% is the target. They are clearly not trying to get to the 88.9% at this point but they do believe that it is valid. As it relates to the comments about green space and those things for employees, they worked closely with the tenants. This is a particular case because they have tenants that are on board as part of the development and design process. They have worked closely with them in terms of the amenities and things that they believe they need to support their staff and they have signed off on the plans that are seen here. Again, we are comfortable moving forward and working with Staff on the 77.9% coverage, but they do believe that the project in total still remains as a grandfathered status up to the 88.9% coverage. Mr. Adams questioned if Mrs. Melson-Williams could provide the City’s position as it relates to the fact that there needs to be conformity with the current guidelines of the plan, not the pre- existed or the approvals that pre-date this current Site Plan? Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that a little bit of that is actually in the Memo that they distributed this week with their review. Even if you go into the DAC Initial Report from early July for C-20-02, they are noting what the lot coverage established for the site would be. This property, as Mr. Riemann mentioned, has been through a number of plan reviews and approvals over the years. In recent history, there was S-17-20 that was a plan that came forward, went to the Planning Commission and ultimately achieved Final Site Plan approval with a maximum coverage of 88.9%. Staff allowed that impervious coverage to be at that amount because at the time of initial start of review for application S-17-20, there was no maximum impervious coverage requirement or limitation in the Zoning Ordinance. At the same time as their project was moving through, there were Code changes that were adopted into the Zoning Ordinance that for the C-4 zoning district established a maximum lot coverage of 75%. Staff at that time, interpreted them to have a grandfathered status and allowed that nonconforming maximum impervious surface coverage to 8 11

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 be the 88.9%. That plan got Final Plan Approval and then come July 2019 there was a new Site Development Plan that was presented. That is the one that they refer to as the Delaware State Police Building and it really focused on their key thing of getting approvals for what is Phase I of this project that you now see under construction. Their Site Plan revised a number of things and established an impervious surface coverage of 77.9%. Yes, while it was under a previous grandfathered amount of the 88.9%, this went through a Planning Commission hearing and then ultimately achieved Final Site Plan approval with an impervious surface coverage of 77.9%. When the plan from 2019 achieved Plan Approval, our Final Plan Approval letter noted that impervious surface coverage amount and also noted that the plan superseded S-17-20. With that, Staff interprets that the maximum impervious surface for the site was reset at 77.9%. Still nonconforming to what the Code says today but closer to what the Code says today. Mr. Riemann stated that everything that Mrs. Melson-Williams just stated is completely accurate in terms of the timing and the sequence of events. He thinks that where the disconnect is, is that when they got the DSP Plan approved, they did reduce the impervious coverage from 88.9% to 77.9% which did not seem like a big deal at the time. The note was added; however, talking about the grandfathering revision of 88.9% on the plan as Note #12. In the data column of that approved plan, it specifically references the previously approved 88.9%. It was their understanding at the time of that Plan approval that the 88.9% was still the benchmark even though they weren’t necessarily trying to achieve that. They thought that it was documented as such. Had they not realized that, it may be that the plan would have been created at the 88.9% to ensure that we could maintain that grandfathered level that existed before the Code had changed. Moving forward tonight, they are okay with working on this plan at 77.9% which is what he believes Mrs. Melson-Williams has stated in her Memo. They do believe though that they still have rights to the 88.9% coverage if things for whatever reason need to change but they are happy to work with Staff towards the 77.9%. The plan that is before the Commission is only at 80% so they are not that far off. The other point that he wanted to make is that their stormwater system is designed for the 88.9% so they are good there. What’s important for them is that they have GSA as a tenant; a great tenant and they need to deliver this building to them. They had a curve ball last month and they are back here to finish up this piece of it. They are happy to work with Staff on 77.9% but they do believe that they do still have that grandfathering right to the 88.9% and they just really wanted that noted for the record. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff has made an interpretation on. How the Zoning Ordinance looks at things where there is a disagreement on interpretation by an Administrative Official, the Zoning Ordinance specifically in that type of manner, (notes) the appeal of an interpretation of an Administrative Officer is to the Board of Adjustment. There is a process should they ultimately disagree with Staff’s finding that the 77.9% is what Staff is interpreting as their maximum impervious coverage. We are happy to continue to work with them to assist in review of plans that would ultimately achieve that to keep their project moving. Mr. Roach stated that Mr. Street spoke about the tenant basically having their own requirements as it pertains to parking spaces versus the requirements that the City has. If you all are able to work with City Staff to reach that 77.9% and that reduced amount of parking spaces, would that 9 12

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 be in compliance with what your tenants would need versus want at this point in time? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Street stated that obviously if we are going to be reducing square footage they will have to go to both tenants about it but they would be happy to work with Staff on it. They have history of working with Staff and they would just have to work with their tenants on what they need versus what they want. Mrs. Maucher questioned how long the long term lease is? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Krapf stated that he is on the developing side and not on the leasing side so unfortunately he cannot answer that. He believes that they are ten year leases with four five year extensions. He can text his Director of leasing to see if he can get an answer in the next few minutes. Mrs. Maucher further questioned if that was for both tenants? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Krapf stated yes, they are standard State of Delaware leases. Mr. Adams moved to approve C-20-02 Landing Square Bay Road Commercial for the office construction as presented to include the Arterial Street Buffer and the Tree Mitigation waivers and to include reconfirming the waiver request that we detailed. He would make that motion contingent upon the applicant agreeing to the 77.9% impervious coverage cap as discussed tonight and moving forward from there with any objection going to the Board of Adjustment, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Adams voting yes; he is excited for the redevelopment of this property and he feels as though the developer and their engineering firm has done a nice job at putting together a site that intends to conform with the City’s overall plans. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Hartman voting yes; he would also like to thank the developer and the engineers for this recent submission. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes, for the reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. NEW APPLICATIONS C-20-03 Love Drives Child Daycare at 151 Greenhill Avenue: Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Application to permit the establishment of a Large Family Daycare Home (not in an occupied residence) in an existing one-story building at 151 Greenhill Avenue to serve 12 children, to be known as Love Drives (Capital Campus). The subject property consists of 0.16 +/- acres and is zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Adam D’Alessandro and the applicants (lessees) are Melodie and Roderick Morris. Location Address: 151 Greenhill Ave. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.18-02-10.01-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Sidewalk, Elimination of Bicycle Parking, and Elimination of Curbing. Representatives: Mr. Roderick Morris and Mrs. Melodie Morris of Love Drives Child Daycare; Mr. Alex D’Alessandro, property owner Mrs. Harvey stated the Conditional Use Site Plan Review is to permit the establishment of a Large Family Day Care Home not in an occupied residence, in an existing 1,000 square foot building at 151 Greenhill Avenue to be known as Love Drives Child Daycare Capital Campus. The property for the proposed development is zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone). The 10 13

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 property is located on the east side of Greenhill Avenue. The owner of record is Adam D’Alessandro and the lessees are Melodie and Roderick Morris. The project proposal for twelve children at the day care would be classified as a Large Family Day Care Home by the Zoning Ordinance as it provides care for more than six children but less than thirteen children. The Plan shows an outdoor play area on the east side of the site to the rear of the existing building and fencing for the play area is also identified on the plan. The Plan shows a total of four existing parking spaces. The number of required spaces shown on the Plan is based on the requirements for child day care facilities in Article 5, Section 14.3 which requires one space per ten children plus one space per adult attendant. This facility proposes twelve children and two adult attendants so the parking complies with this requirement. The site is required to provide bicycle parking and the bicycle calculation is one per every twenty parking spaces. Based on the number of parking spaces, one bicycle parking space is required. Bicycle parking is not identified on the Site Plan. A written waiver request for the elimination of bicycle parking has been submitted to the Planning Office for consideration by the Planning Commission. Sidewalk is required along all street frontages. There is not a frontage sidewalk along Greenhill Avenue. A written waiver request for the elimination of sidewalk on the street frontage along Greenhill Avenue has been submitted to the Planning Office for consideration by the Planning Commission. The parking areas and access drives are required to be curbed as outlined in Article 6, Section 3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. All permanent parking areas shall be composed of upright curing at least six inches in height. Road curbing is provided along Greenhill Avenue. A written waiver request for the elimination of curbing has been submitted to the Planning Office. Staff recommends approval for the three waiver requests submitted for the reasons outlined in the DAC Report. Mr. Morris stated that he is here with the property owner Mr. D’Alessandro and his wife Melodie Morris who is a co-owner of the Day Care. They are requesting to open a Large Family Day Care at 151 Greenhill Avenue in Dover. The Large Family Day Care will consist of twelve children. They do have another Large Family Day Care that they had to go through the same approval for in Sussex County in Lincoln. They also have a Day Care that they ran out of their home which was located in a neighborhood. They started that Day Care in 2015. To date, they have never had any complaints from any neighbors about any of our facilities. They have never caused any commotion in our neighborhoods that they are in that would warrant anyone being upset about a Day Care being there. As it pertains to the Day Care, they are just requesting to have twelve children from 7AM to 5:30PM. They are not open on weekends, only Monday through Friday. If there are any other questions or statements that he needs to make he will do so as this call progresses. Mr. Hartman stated that he lives in a neighborhood and they have at least four day care centers and they have never caused a problem at all but some of them actually have parking in the alley rather than in the front of the building. He was wondering if that was something that has been considered. Mr. Morris stated that is something that they have considered and they are actually making preparations to have parking in the back alleyway. Mr. Hartman stated that he thinks that would go a long way in relieving some traffic on that street because that street is pretty narrow. Some of your neighbors have been concerned about it. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that when they started planning out the fencing, originally that were going to try to bring it to the back but instead they kind of pulled it 11 14

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 up a little bit. So this way they could actually have that be for some of the parking and maybe even some pick-up and drop-off. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to start with some public comments that they received in writing and some of them may actually be callers that we have here tonight. These public comments were received in writing as of 2PM this afternoon. Staff did attempt to distribute them to the Planning Commission by email. The first is an Email dated August 13, 2020 that comes from Betty Anne Chapman and her comment states that “she opposes this as traffic would increase and any entity other than residential would decrease property values.” The second item of written comment that they received earlier today was from Mrs. Paris Mano who resides at 146 Greenhill Avenue. The Letter is about five pages so she is going to quickly summarize it. She (Mrs. Mano) notes that she is an original home owner that is across the street from this location and one of her concerns is devaluing her property, noting that not many people would want to buy a home next to a Day Care. It’s been a residential area since its inception in the 1950’s and she would be disappointed that the City of Dover would approve a business into a residential area, especially a Day Care. She goes on to talk about four areas of concern. Those being traffic and with that she notes that the street is narrow and there is parking that is limited to one side. What happens if there is a car coming and there is someone parked, you will have to wait your turn. The street has also become a cut-through short cut from White Oak Road when it gets congested. There is some concern that she has about speeding. She is also concerned about dropping off children even though there is “no parking” signage on that side of the street. It’s likely if the driveway is full, people will continue to park on the street to try to off load their children. She also notes the other types of normal traffic in the neighborhood from garbage trucks to recycle trucks, street cleaners and school buses. The next item that she has concern about is noise. She notes that children could be playing outside during the day and there might be people in the neighborhood who work nights and sleep during the day. The third concern is signage and she is concerned about a large sign. If it’s permitted to be in the yard that it could be an eye sore and deterrent to any potential buyer or renter in the area. She notes that four square feet for a sign is quite large. Her last concern is related to the limitation on the number of children. She does recognize the limitation to twelve children but there might be this constant flow of children coming and going as three leave, three new ones then appear and what that impact on traffic would be. Her closing statement is that she is very opposed to having a Day Care across the street from her and again notes her property value concern and that the area has been zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) for at least seventy years and that she doesn’t see why a business would be permitted. She does go on to note that Adam D’Alessandro, the owner property, at one point used it as his residence but has also rented it out. She does note that he is a realtor and that he does have the right to try to do something else, use wise, with this property. Her main concerns are really related to traffic and preserving the integrity of the area. She does note a thank you for taking the time to read her objections and take them into consideration. Mrs. Abigail Blair – 150 Greenhill Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Blair stated that she lives directly across the street from where the Day Care is going to be placed. She has had problems in the past with Mr. D’Alessandro parking on the wrong side of the street and blocking the road. You tell him that there is no parking on that side and he has to 12 15

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 park on the other side and he doesn’t. So if he as a property owner cannot park property, how is she supposed to expect his current residents to park properly? They are going to be parking directly in front of her house. Children are going to be getting out and running on her lawn and it is going to cause chaos in the mornings and the evenings. This also causes a problem with emergency vehicles. Her husband got injured and the ambulance couldn’t make it down the street because the street is blocked off by people parking on the east and west sides of the street when only the west side of the street is for parking. Her concern is with all of these kids being dropped off in the morning and if they are going to block her driveway then she and her husband will not be able to leave for work. Mr. D’Alessandro said that he was going to turn it into a Day Care and she expressed how she was not ecstatic about it. The next door neighbor to the south side of him works night shift and comes home at 7AM and needs to go to sleep. Now this Day Care will be right next to her bedroom and she is going to have trouble getting to sleep because children are going to be playing in the yard being kids and being noisy. She will have sleep deprivation which is going to cause problems with her work. He started remodeling the house getting ready for the Day Care to come in without even waiting for the approval. He just automatically assumed that he was going to get his way and that the house would get approved as a Day Care. If this turns into a commercial property, eventually you are just going to keep approving down the street and the next thing you know, her house is going to be across from a shopping center. How much of a property value loss is she going to have with commercial properties all along the opposite side of her street? If the property owner cannot park on the right side of the street how is she supposed to expect twelve potential sets of parents to do it? This is going to cause a lot of issues down her street and it seems like no one on this street wants this to happen. Mr. Alessandro was not considerate and did not ask the neighbors how this would affect them. They already had an issue with him not mowing the grass on time and if he has his brother come down to fix the house, people coming in and out. One of the vehicles backed up out of his driveway and slammed into her car that was parked on the street. She got a dent in her car and she has to deal with that. She understands that the business is going to be running Monday through Friday but what happens when they back into her car again. It’s just a guess of which one of twenty-four people that drop off these twelve children slammed into her vehicle. Ms. Paris Mano – 146 Greenhill Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Mano stated that she appreciates her written comments being read for the record. She does have one comment to make. In the letter that was sent out for the notice of the hearing, the access code was incorrect so there could be others that wanted to call in. She tried for fifteen minutes and her neighbor came over and found out the correct code. There is no sidewalk that goes to the front door for this property. She thinks that he does have stepping stones that are overgrown with grass and you can’t see them. But as far as being able to walk into the property without being in the mud, there is none. To her, it should have a sidewalk to get to the entrance of the home. Mrs. Jean Benzin – 150 Greenhill Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Benzin stated that when she purchased this home in 1984, she and her husand and one child lived there. They had to relocate over to his parents’ home to do elderly care for both of his senior parents so that is why they no longer reside in that home. Before the house was built at 151 Greenhill Avenue, the property was a vacant lot. The builder during the development did not build a cape-cod style home; he decided to put a ranch type of home on that property. It did not have a driveway that went next door to his property. The driveway was a single lane from the 13 16

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 street to the house. They went by there this evening and noticed that the person that is sending in this application as since doubled that driveway and they were not notified of these changes. They were also not notified of any changes to fencing. The porch had never been an enclosed porch. She noticed that there are new railings all around the front porch. When that house was built it was a three bedroom, one bath house with a living room and a kitchen. In her opinion, that property is too small to have twelve children occupying it as a Day Care center. The sizes of the rooms are too small. If you try to segregate the children by age groups, she really doesn’t see it happening. She also wants to make notice that her daughter-in-law Mrs. Blair spoke about the parking issue. They have been borrowing her vehicle and someone had backed out of the driveway and hit the door of her car. She has a great concern because it is a very narrow road and it allows parking on the west side. If you want to go south on Greenhill Avenue and there is someone coming north on Greenhill Avenue, you have to try to find an open area to a park to allow the other car to pass. There is not enough space for two way traffic and parking. There is no way that three vehicles could fit through that paved area. The condition of the street is such that there is no drop-off type of curb like you see in other developments. It’s more like a gully that goes from the property to the street. There is no sidewalk on either side of Greenhill Avenue. It’s a very big concern of hers since her son was three years old when they moved here. You had to walk in the street and when traffic is coming, people have to walk onto your property in order to avoid getting hit. She really is very concerned about the population that they are proposing for that small of a house. Summer is coming to an end and they aren’t going to have those children outside all day, they will be in the house. She doesn’t see how you could possibly cramp twelve children into that home along the Day Care provider and an assistant. She does feel very concerned about the fact that the setback of that house from the street is not even fifty feet. With a narrow property and then you have this house that is closer to the street than any other home of Greenhill Avenue, which is going to create more of an avenue for the consequence of having accidents. God forbid a child gets hit by a car. They had a small fire at their property at one time back in the 1990’s and the fire trucks had difficulty finding an area where they could fit the fire truck in and hook up to the fire hydrant. When they knew the previous property owners, everything was great. Now that it is being changed into a commercial use, she has a big problem with that. Her husband feels the same way. It’s not a conducive location for a Day Care. She agrees with what everyone else has said tonight. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman asked the applicant to go into a little more detail on the parking at the rear of the property. That seems to be a big concern of the adjacent neighbors. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that they pulled the fence back fourteen feet in width so therefore you can park cars right there alongside the fence and people will still be able to get through the alleyway. There will also be a gate back there so people can walk back and forth. Mr. Hartman questioned if they anticipated people dropping off their children back there? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Morris stated that what he was proposing was that the staff members would use that space since their cars will stay stationary and that is a smaller road space. The drop-off points would be in the front where the four parking spaces are located. He would like to mention that although they will be approved for up to twelve children, three of those children could be from the same family and out of the same car. It will not be twelve 14 17

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 different cars and it will not be like a rotating schedule of parents coming in and out all day. The way child care works is that they will have up to twelve students enrolled and they will normally be dropped-off and picked up once a day. It’s not like three kids will be picked up and then three more kids will be dropped off. That is not how a Day Care runs and he just wanted to make that note. Mr. Hartman questioned if they have considered trying to educate the parents about the parking restrictions? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Morris stated that they have a Parent Handbook that the State of Delaware Office of Child Care Licensing requires them to have after they plan this Day Care and get the required approvals from the City. Basically whatever guidance you have, they are not opposed to. Whatever you tell us that you think we should do, that is what they will do. Their Handbook will describe all of their drop-off measures and whatever they are asking the parents to do. He just wants to mention that they are not trying to come into this neighborhood and cause chaos. They are not millionaires trying to come and buy a property. They are Delaware born and raised and they are just trying to come into the neighborhood. Mr. D’Alessandro has already started to update the outside of the property. It is not going to appear to be a daycare; there is not going to be any large sign that people are referencing. It is going to look like a nice home and they are coming just to enhance the neighborhood. They are not coming to be loud or annoying neighbors. Like he was saying, the Parent Handbook will have all of that information in there for the parents and they will set that expectation because they know how the road is. They understand the conditions of the road and will try their best to stay out of everyone’s way as they have at their other sites. Dr. Jones questioned if it is possible to only have rear drop off? Is there adequate space for rear drop-off since this is going to be traffic that is moving and perhaps they could have the Staff park in the front? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Morris stated yes, that is possible. Dr. Jones questioned if the signage had been addressed yet? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the DAC Report does make a reference to signage. For any installation of signage, they first have to have appropriate address numbers on the building to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal but that doesn’t count towards their regular signage. Because it is a type of Large Family Day Care Home, the Ordinance actually limits them to a wall mounted sign that is limited to two square feet is size. That provisions is within the day care regulations. Normally, our Sign Regulations do allow for certain types of signs that don’t need a permit like things that involve hours of operation and things like that. They tend to see those more on commercial retail or office type of establishments and not necessarily a day care facility. Under Code, they are allowed two square feet in size that is subject to a Sign Permit application process. Dr. Jones questioned if in fact rear drop-off is possible for your clients, would this necessitate a change in the appearance of the rear to welcome parents? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that honestly as a rental, cutting down all of the trees and making sure all of the vines were down wasn’t really as important to him but now that it is going to be a Day Care, it’s been a lot more important so he has been trying to pretty up the property. They have had a couple of trees that have been growing vines and stuff like that and it’s been all over the neighbor’s fences. Now he has been trying to get permission from everyone to clean everything 15 18

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 up. Ultimately, the appearance is definitely going to be a lot better. Dr. Jones stated that she was speaking of an entryway. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that with that back part there, there is going to be a gate so they will probably just make that really nice and they will have the start of stepping stones. They will probably do decorative stones that go across through the backyard and go around to the end and then go around so that you can get to the side door. Mrs. Welsh questioned if there are other improvements that are going to be made to the property other than the parking and the entrance? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. D’Alessandro stated that they are redoing the deck; the rails were pretty old. His brother actually helped him out and tore them down and put new ones up. They will be re-staining the deck and pressure washing the house. There is a stump from the tree that he cut down at one point and they are going to grind that out so that the front yard looks a little bit cleaner. The walking path that they said was covered in grass is going to get cleaned up and it’s going to look a lot nicer. There’s a fence going around the house and they are going to be planting trees; basically, a lot of curb appeal. They are remodeling the inside of the house and making it really nice. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with a number of improvements to the building itself, in order to establish this type of child care facility, it is subject to a Building Permit application process should it achieve Conditional Use Approval. That involves ensuring adequate means of access and egress to and from the building and anything that the Building Code and Fire Code would deem necessary for this building to serve as a child care facility. There may be the need to have those sidewalks for access. There is one that appears to travel from the driveway to the front porch of the house and possibly something along the side of the house. Likewise, the changes to the fence would be subject to a permit and if they intend on paving any additional areas for parking, that is subject to a permit review process as well. Overall, there are some limitations to how much of the property can be paved hard surface being building, parking, any detached accessory structures and that is all reviewed through a permit process. Mr. Hartman stated that on the title page of the data sheet, the property is listed as 51 Greenhill (instead of 151) Avenue and he just wants to point out that typo for the record. Mr. Hartman moved to approve C-20-03 Love Drives Child Daycare at 151 Greenhill Avenue to permit the establishment of a Large Family Day Care Home with the waiver requests also approved for the elimination of the street frontage sidewalk along Greenhill Avenue, the elimination of the bicycle parking and the elimination of upright curbing. He encourages the applicant and the property owner to continue working with the residents when resolving any traffic concerns. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adams and it was carried 6-1 with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on previous statements. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous statements. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she believes that there is a need for good child care and since it is a Conditional Use situation, there would be opportunities for the review of the property should the applicant not be compliant with the Conditional Use and there be issues that can be addressed at that point. Dr. Jones voting yes; she concurs with Mrs. Welsh’s statements. Mr. Adams voting yes; he does believe that there is tremendous value in in- home day cares. Mr. Roach voting yes; at this point in time in-home day cares are definitely a 16 19

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 necessity and he feels as though it would be a great addition to that area. He would just suggest to the property owner and the owner of the day care to maybe go around to your neighbors and see if they can try to rectify some of the issues that were heard tonight because there seemed to be some concerns. As Mrs. Welsh said, with this being a Conditional Use they will be able to discuss those things later on in a review but he hopes that they work diligently with the neighbors to make sure that everything works well and good luck. Mrs. Maucher voting no; she understands that there is a need for additional child care services in the area but twelve children in that area will create twelve different vehicles and an in-home care center might be more (appropriate) where someone is residing and there is a secure number of children. Because there are no sidewalks and the roads are very narrow, access is always an issue. NEW BUSINESS Nomination and Election of Officers (Chairman and Vice-Chairman) due to Vacancy and Annual Meeting of Planning Commission: Deferred from July 20, 2020 Meeting Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they postponed action on establishing a new Chair and Vice- Chair at our last meeting which is typically the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission. You were provided a copy of the By-laws the Commission members themselves elect a Chair and Vice-Chair for their Commission; they serve in that office for a one-year term. Typically, the voting procedure is ballot type process but we are in a virtual mode. At this point, there is still one seat on the Planning Commission that has not been filled yet. Her understanding is that the Mayor is working on that. Once he has a candidate, it has to be reviewed and approved by City Council. Tonight, you certainly have the ability to elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. Currently, Mrs. Maucher is the Vice-Chair who is acting as the Chair, following Dr. Jones who left the Chair position to just retain her seat as a regular member. Mrs. Maucher asked if it was an option to wait until the vacancy was filled. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, that is entirely up to the Commission. Mrs. Welsh stated that she thinks it will be beneficial to wait until the vacancy is filled before electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. Mrs. Roach stated that if we did get another Commission member, how likely would it be that they would be voted into one of those positions being new? Has that happened before? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is not sure that has happened before. Most of the Chair and Vice-Chair members that she can remember had either been on the Commission for some time before they were elected as Chair or it was where they were Vice- Chair and moved up to Chair. She doesn’t recall someone being elected and then immediately thrusted into one of those positions. Mr. Roach stated that yes, it would be nice to have that person included in the voting process but he doesn’t think they should keep pushing off the elections each month. But it can be at the pleasure of this group. Mr. Adams stated that he agrees with Mr. Roach. He thinks Mrs. Maucher has done a great job as Acting Chair and he wonders if there would be some willingness on her part to remove the 17 20

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Acting from the Chair in front of her name and then perhaps they could just try to find themselves a Vice-Chair rather than both. Responding to Mr. Adams, Mrs. Maucher stated that she is certainly willing to continue unless someone else would like to serve as Chair. Mr. Roach moved to elect Mrs. Maucher as the Chair for the Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Adams. Mrs. Welsh moved that nominations for Chair be closed, seconded by Mr. Hartman. Motion to elect Mrs. Maucher as the Chair was carried 7-0 by roll call with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Roach voting yes; she has been doing a great job. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she has been doing an exemplarily job. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mr. Adams voting yes; thank you for your leadership. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. Mr. Hartman questioned if they could postpone the election for Vice-Chair until Mrs. Malone was back? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes. Mr. Hartman motioned to postpone the nominations and election of a Vice-Chair until Mrs. Malone returns, seconded by Mr. Adams and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28): Deferred from July 20, 2020 Meeting Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff has given you the Code that establishes this Subcommittee and currently as of the annual meeting last summer, Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Maucher are the Planning Commission members along with the Mayor or his designee at that time and then the members of that Subcommittee also include two design professional members. Previously, that has been Ms. Sarah Keiffer and Dr. Chandler. At the last meeting, you asked Staff to reach out to those members to discuss their availability. She did reach out to Dr. Chandler and he did agree to continue his service should this committee need to meet and Mr. Hugg reached out to Ms. Keiffer and she is not sure if he heard back from her or not. Mrs. Maucher stated that she is willing to still serve on this Subcommittee. Mr. Roach asked if Mrs. Welsh was still willing to serve on this Subcommittee? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Welsh stated yes, and she would be happy to have him join her. Mr. Roach stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams said that it’s something that they are not called upon often. He feels as though some of these they can try to take care of and rectify now so it’s less things that we have to take care of later. If Mrs. Maucher would step down from that position and put me in, then he is all for it. Mrs. Welsh stated that she has done it one time in six years. Mrs. Maucher nominated Mr. Roach for the position on the Architectural Review Oversight 18 21

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2020 Subcommittee and accept that Mrs. Welsh and Dr. Chandler continue to serve as well. If Ms. Keiffer concurs that she is willing to serve then she accepts that pending her confirmation, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone absent. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes. Meeting adjourned at 9:30PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 19 22

Item 3. 23

Item 4. City of Dover, Delaware Summary of Applications 2019 2020 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Application Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Total Board of Adjustment 18 25 38 20 15 15 13 15 17 14 15 16 17 12 3 2 4 0 9 3 1 0 4 Annexations 6 10 4 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 Conditional Use 9 8 7 14 8 5 7 6 11 6 4 5 6 5 0 2 5 1 8 1 0 2 3 Site Plans 39 49 66 43 29 33 23 20 21 24 16 24 33 12 8 4 8 5 25 1 3 3 7 Subdivisions 8 7 7 2 7 5 2 2 6 5 2 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 Rezoning 7 13 10 11 5 8 6 2 3 4 4 7 5 3 4 2 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 Miscellaneous 17 17 23 20 15 20 17 24 22 14 14 18 8 13 2 2 4 0 8 2 3 0 5 Unified Sign 1 0 1 3 1 0 2 2 3 1 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Historic District 3 9 7 4 4 11 5 7 5 6 8 6 4 3 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 1 Commission TOTAL 108 138 163 120 85 97 75 79 91 74 66 83 77 54 19 13 24 6 62 12 8 6 26 *Summary of Applications through the September 2020 Meetings of the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Historic District Commission and including Administrative Plan Reviews. 24

Item 5. City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF September 9, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF September 21, 2020 Plan Title: Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC – Minor Subdivision: Eden Hill Farm TND: Professional Office, Medical & Financial District, SB-20-02 Plan Type: Minor Subdivision Plan Associated Plans: Eden Hill Farm TND, Z-05-03 Professional Office, Medical and Financial District Implementation Plan, S-06-26 POMF District Administrative Site Plan Phase 1: Buildings 1 and 2, S-06-42 POMF District Administrative Site Plan Phase 2: Building 4 – Eden Hill Skilled Nursing Facility, S-16-16 Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan: Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC, MI-19-07 Applicant/Owner: Dover Medical Properties, LLC Property Location: South of W. North Street and on east and west sides of Banning Street Property Addresses: 300 Banning Street and unaddressed areas Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.00-01-13.05-000 Area of TND: 272.04 acres +/- Area of POMF District: 25.47 acres +/- Existing Parcel Area: 14.119 acres +/- Parcels to be Created: Lot 1: 2.538 acres +/- Lot 2: 1.615 acres +/- Lot 3: 2.633 acres +/- Residual: 7.33 acres +/- Zoning: TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone) Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 25 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item 5. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: September 9, 2020 APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC in Eden Hill Farm TND Professional Office, Medical & Financial District FILE #: SB-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY This application is the review of a proposed Minor Subdivision Plan for property located south of W. North Street and on the east and west sides of Banning Street in the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project known as Eden Hill Farm. The portion to be subdivided consists of 14.119 acres +/- to be split into three new parcels plus the residual. Lot 1 is an unimproved lot measuring 2.538 acres +/-. Lot 2 is open space consisting of pedestrian connections, a flag pole and landscaping and measures 1.615 acres +/-. Lot 3 measuring 2.633 acres +/- consists of the Center at Eden Hill, a skilled nursing facility and its associated parking. The residual is an unimproved lot measuring 7.333 acres +/-. The owner of record is Dover Medical Properties, LLC. The property area includes 300 Banning Street and unaddressed areas. Tax Parcel number ED-05-076.00-01-13.05- 000. Council District 2. Eden Hill Farm TND: Previous Application Reviews and Plan Approvals The Eden Hill Farm TND: Professional Office Medical & Financial District is the subject of Implementation Plan S-06-26 and associated Administrative Site Plans. The Implementation Plan (S-06-26) was reviewed with the Planning Commission granting conditional approval on August 22, 2006 and Final Plan approved granted on October 2, 2007. The parcel area subject to this application was previously created by the approval of a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan MI-19-07 Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC on October 22, 2019. The following Chart of Application Reviews and Approvals provides a summary of the project review process to date for the Eden Hill Farm TND and the Professional Office Medical & Financial District of the TND. Date Application Plan Type Action Description Number June 20, 2005 Z-05-03 Rezoning Application Planning Rezoning to TND including Commission acceptance of the General Overall recommendation Master Plan and the Master of approval for Comprehensive Development rezoning to TND Standards Manual (Pattern Book) 26

Item 5. SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC at Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD DAC Report of September 9, 2020 Page 2 with its Addendum of 6/9/05 for the project in accordance with the conditions of approval outlined in the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) comments July 22, 2005 Z-05-03 Rezoning Application City Council Property rezoned to TND with approval of General Overall Master Plan and rezoning to TND Pattern Book August 22, S-06-26 Implementation Plan DAC: Planning Implementation Plan and Pattern 2006 – POMF District Commission Book Amendments Approval 2007 S-06-26 Record Plan – POMF Staff Approval; Record Plan District Record Plan recorded 9/11/07 October 2, S-06-42 Administrative Site Staff and Agency Phase 1 of District: Construction of 2007 Plan: Phase 1 Review and Eden Hill Medical Center Building approval (Building 1 and Building 2 with shared entrance) – Buildings constructed; Banning Street constructed and dedicated as City Street October 2, S-06-42 Pattern Book Approved POMF District Pattern Book – 5th 2007 10/2/2007 Edition dated 8/6/2007 2008-2009 S-08-33 Administrative Site Staff and Agency Phase 2 of District: Proposed Plan: Phase 2 Review and Building 4 – No action taken to approval 4/20/09 construct; superseded by S-16-16 2016 S-16-16 Administrative Site Staff and Agency Phase 2 of District: Proposed Plan: Phase 2 (new) Review and Building 4 as Skilled Nursing Approval; Facility; The Center at Eden Hill Planning constructed Commission Review May 2017 S-17-16 Revised DAC May-June Revised Implementation Plan – Sheet Implementation Plan 2017; Planning Submission of Concept Plan: –POMF District Commission Revisions to area on east side of conditional Banning Street and Pattern Book Approval June Amendment pg. 26; No action to 2017 finalize October 2019 MI-19-01 Minor Lot Line Staff Review and Record Plan (MLLA) to adjust Adjustment Plan – Approval: Record property line between two parcels in POMF District Plan recorded POMF District 10/25/2019 Current SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision DAC September Proposal to subdivide a portion of the Application Plan 2020; Planning POMF District Commission Review pending II. POMF DISTRICT SUMMARY The Professional Office, Medical and Financial District is a component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm. It is located in the northeast portion of the overall TND site and consists of a series of multi-story buildings and is linked to the overall internal street network and pedestrian network. The Implementation Plan for the POMF District consists of buildings, parking areas, open space areas, and the street layout. Previously, there were revisions to the street layout from the original layout presented in the Rezoning Master Plan. (See Site Plan Sheet SP-1 from Application S-06-42 for the current POMF District 27

Item 5. SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC at Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD DAC Report of September 9, 2020 Page 3 Implementation Plan). The Implementation Plan for the POMF District received Planning Commission approval on August 22, 2006 and Final Plan approval October 2, 2007. The District has a main street known as Banning Street, sidewalks, pedestrian network, parking options, and landscaping. This POMF District area is connected to the existing road network via the West North Street intersection with Banning Street and via a roundabout from West North Street known as the Garrett House Circle. The POMF District Plan proposed a series of nine buildings totaling 359,883 S.F. and a possible parking garage (with 300 spaces). The buildings are limited to a maximum footprint of 40,000 S.F. The Phasing Plan for the Professional Office, Medical, and Financial District depicts a series of six phases. Phase 1 of the project consisting of two buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) with a central connection building element was constructed in 2007-2008; it is known as Eden Hill Medical Center. A previous Administrative Site Plan was submitted for Phase 2 as application S-08-33 for a medical office building; however, it was not constructed and was later superseded by Administrative Site Plan S-16-16 for construction of Skilled Nursing Facility (Building 4). This Phase 2 Building of a three-story Skilled Nursing Facility of 65,000 SF is complete; it is known as the Center at Eden Hill. Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Pattern Book) The approved Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Final Pattern Book) for the Eden Hill Farm Professional Office, Medical and Financial District was approved in October 2007. This document is entitled Eden Hill Farm Professional Office, Medical, and Financial District Pattern Book 5th Edition dated August 6, 2007. Copies of this document are on file in the Planning Office. The Implementation Comprehensive Development Standards Manual (Pattern Book) consists of a written and graphic description of the owner/developer’s proposed approach to each of the items listed in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.84. The purpose of the Pattern Book is to set the standards and guidelines for the design, construction, and maintenance of the land and buildings specifically in the POMF District acting as a portion of the code requirements for physical character of the development. Any development within the POMF District must comply with the Pattern Book. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Minor Subdivision This Minor Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide the eastern portion of the POMF District into separate lots all with frontage on Banning Street. See the following Table for summary of the lots. Site Proposed Acreage Building/Area Use Lot 1 2.538 acres Vacant Land Lot 2 1.615 acres Open Space Lot 3 2.633 acres Skilled Nursing Facility Residual 7.333 acres Vacant Land & Part of Community Walking Trail TOTAL 14.119 acres 28

Item 5. SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC at Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD DAC Report of September 9, 2020 Page 4 IV. ZONING REVIEW TND Zoning District The property is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone). The Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 28 outlines the requirements for the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone (TND) including the development criteria and procedure. The first step of the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone is an application for rezoning to TND which includes review of a Master Plan. The subject property Eden Hill Farm has achieved the zoning classification of TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) and approval of the General Overall Master Plan. Next reviews of the Implementation Plans for each District of the TND for compliance with the approved General Overall Master Plan occur. Then is review of Administrative Site Plans for individual building development or Subdivision Plans for recordation of lots. The Administrative Site Plan review is intended to ensure compliance of each phase with the overall Implementation Plan. This request for a Minor Subdivision since it was not a component of the original plan is a type of Amendment to an Implementation Plan as described in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.43. The TND zone does not have minimum lot size requirements or setbacks prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance; these types of bulk standards can be established in the Comprehensive Design Standards Manual (Pattern Book) for the specific district. In Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.76 Design and development principals and standards do include limits on building footprint size, number of stories, and building height. There is a thirty (30) foot Landscape Buffer along the frontage of W. North Street as a major roadway that serves like a building setback (on Lot 1 and the Residual). V. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Site Access The proposed Lots 1-3 and the Residual are to be served by Banning Street. Banning Street begins at the signalized intersection with W. North Street (and Clarence Street). There is no direct access to W. North Street from parcels having frontage on that roadway. About mid-block of Banning Street is a one-way circulation system of drive aisles that flank the Lot 2: Open Space area that serve as access to Lot 1 and Lot 3 and in addition serve as the access to the parcel to the west where the Eden Hill Medical Center is located. There is an existing access easement for these drive aisles. Sidewalk Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18 requires the installation of sidewalks along the public street frontage of a property whenever such property involves a development proposal which is subject to Planning Commission review and approval. For the lands involved in this Subdivision Plan, there are existing sidewalks along Banning Street and a multi-use path/trail along W. North Street. VI. OPEN SPACE and LANDSCAPE PLANNING The overall Eden Hill Farm TND exceeds the required minimum of 25% open space by creating a Community Walking Trail area, parks, and greens throughout the site and large open space/park area in the southwest portion of the site. The existing historic house of Eden Hill Farm and its tree allees (entrance drives) are preserved within a large public open space area. Focusing on the POMF District area, an open space area known as Charles Ridgely Green is 29

Item 5. SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC at Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD DAC Report of September 9, 2020 Page 5 central to the District on the west side of Banning Street; this is to be encompassed on Lot 2 of this Minor Subdivision Plan. On the eastern portion of the POMF District (in the Residual area) near the railroad corridor is part of the overall Community Walking Trail system. The Pattern Book also outlines landscaping guidelines for buffer areas adjacent to North Street and requirements for plantings near buildings. When site development of the individual parcels occurs, the development will be required to meet the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for Landscape Guidelines and Tree Planting and Preservation (Article 5 §11 and 15) at a minimum. Therefore, the POMF District of 25.47 acres will require a minimum of 370 trees to meet the Tree Density requirements of one tree per 3000 square feet of development area. Some of these tree plantings have already been planted during the construction activities of Phases 1 and 2. The currently approved Implementation Plan for the POMF District shows new tree plantings (exceeding the minimum requirement) as a mix of deciduous, evergreen, and ornamental trees to be located as street trees, within open spaces area, and as part of individual building and parking lot area development. Each Phase’s Administrative Site Plan will need to provide the details of the landscape and tree plantings for that phase. VII. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with this agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) In the Data Column: a. Item 1: Also list address of 300 Banning Street. 2) Sheet 1: On the plan drawing complete the following corrections: a. Label “Existing Access Easement” that continues onto the adjacent parcel to the west (Parcel 13.02); only a width is labeled. b. Label Lot 2 as Charles Ridgely Green. Add a note to ensure that it’s use is limited to Open Space only. c. Mark the end of the dedicated right-of-way area of Banning Street and note date. d. Label Clarence Street to the north of North Street. e. Check and relocate the tie line for DelDOT Easement label near the northeast corner of Banning Street. It is confusing with the Utility Easement that also crosses that area. f. Add name/title of signer on behalf of Dover Medical Properties, LLC. 3) The Record Plan Sheet must document and identify any easements for cross access, utilities, drainage, etc. associated with the subdivision of these lots; these appear to be shown. 4) The Final Record Plat submission must include requirements described in Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article IV, C. Plat and any additional requirements of the Planning Commission. 5) Provide any information on any agreements established regarding responsibilities for construction, dedication, maintenance, etc. for areas with the TND project such as circulation aisles, walking paths, open spaces, landscaping, stormwater management, etc. Add notes to the Record Plan sheet as necessary for reference. 30

Item 5. SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC at Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD DAC Report of September 9, 2020 Page 6 VIII. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: The Land Subdivision Regulations, Article I. Purpose, indicates that the regulations are adopted in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare; ensure the orderly growth and development of the City, the conservation, protection and proper use of land, and adequate provision for housing, recreation, circulation, utilities and services; and safeguard the City from undue future expenditure for the maintenance of streets and public spaces. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.1 Purpose and Intent of the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) zone and Article 3 §28.433, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon major amendments to Plans for a TND 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 listed in subsections Article 10 §2.21 to 2.28. 1) This Minor Subdivision Plan creates four (4) lots out of the one parcel in the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District; the areas remain zoned TND. The Subdivision Plan complies with the Land Subdivision Regulations. 2) The proposed Minor Subdivision Plan for the POMF District was evaluated for compliance with the intent of the Eden Hill TND Master Plan and Comprehensive Design Standards Manual (Pattern Book). The subdivision of this District into individual lots does not impede the plan to develop a walkable and pedestrian friendly, economically viable professional and commercial development in proximity to where people live. This District is to provide a range of professional, medical, and financial office space (with an opportunity to incorporate residential uses). Development activity within the POMF District continues to be subject the currently approved Implementation Plan and associated Pattern Book. 3) Improvements at Banning Street Intersection: Planning Staff notes that there is an anticipated future project to design and implement designated turn lanes for Banning Street traffic approaching the West North Street intersection. If additional right-of-way is necessary for the transportation improvement project, then the adjacent lots may be impacted. Other agencies may recommend additional conditions and safeguards in accordance with their areas of expertise. The Recommended Additional Considerations to Meet Code Objectives are offered for consideration by the Planning Commission. IX. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Minor Subdivision Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies making recommendations in regard to the plan. 31

Item 5. SB-20-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC at Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD DAC Report of September 9, 2020 Page 7 2) Following Planning Commission approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan must be submitted for final endorsement prior to recordation at the Kent County Recorder of Deeds Office. 3) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 4) Staff notes that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Agreements are in place to address topics such as responsibilities for construction, dedication, and maintenance of specific components of the Eden Hill Farm TND. a) There is a Stormwater Management Agreement signed January 23, 2007 between DelDOT and Dover Medical Properties, LLC. b) An Infrastructure Improvement Agreement dated June 2007 pertaining to the TND Residential District also outlines a number of items related to the overall Eden Hill Farm TND development that will require participation by the owners of the POMF District including nearby road segments. 5) Each Phase of the POMF District is subject to review through the Administrative Review of Site Development Plans in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §28.43 and referenced sections. Prior to the submission of plans for each project phase, a Pre- Application meeting with the Planning Office will be required. 6) The following additional information is to be provided with future plan set submissions for development within the POMF District: a) Administrative Site Plans for each Phase. b) Provide Entrance Plans/details of street connection improvements for the turn lane improvements at the Banning Street intersection with West North Street. c) Provide entrance designs for shared/central site entrance on the east side of Banning Street. 4) The applicant shall be aware that Minor Subdivision Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit, Sign Permit, and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible. 32

Item 5. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 20202 APPLICATION: Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC: Eden Hill TND FILE #: SB-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. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all water, sewer, and storm sewer lines. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department. 33

Minor Subdivision Plan Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC: Eden Hill TND Item 5. File #: SB-20-02 September 2, 2020 Page 2 of 2 WATER / WASTEWATER 1. No objection to the subdivision of this property. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: http://www.cityofdover.com/departments/electric/documents/. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. Easements may need to be completed again due to parcel ID changes from this application. WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Each property shall be served by a single water service line which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner when developed. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed two (2) times per year during system wide flushing operations. The applicant must call the Department of Public Works directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Impact fees may be required for this project when developed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation that there were existing dwellings on this site connected to the City’s sanitary sewer and water system. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Each property shall be served by a single sanitary sewer lateral which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner when developed. 3. Impact fees may be required for this project when developed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation that there were pervious dwellings existing on this site connected to the City’s sanitary sewer and water system. 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 . 34

Item 5. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 APPLICATION: Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC – Minor Subdivision: Eden Hill TND in the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District FILE #: SB-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 / STREETS / SANITATION / GENERAL 1. The Department of Public Works has no objection to the proposed minor subdivision. Additional comments would be provided in association with future site development plans. 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 . 35

C F SB-20-02 Item 5. I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 09/02/20 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Dover Medical Properties LLC- Minor Subdivision: Eden Hill TND in the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District FILE #: SB-20-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. This office has no objections 2. Street width shall be in accordance with City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article VII, Section A. 13, Residential areas 24 feet wide with no parking, 30 feet wide with parking on one side, or 36 feet wide with parking on both sides Commercial areas 26 feet wide with no parking, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides Alley 12 feet wide Any dead-end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turnaround or cul-de-sac as outlined in the 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, chapter 5, 2.3. 3. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 36

Item 5. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, 37

Item 5. property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) 7. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 8. Full building and fire plan review is required. 9. Separate building permits/plans submission will be required for each building and/or tenant fit out. If the permit submission is for a “shell” a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Separate plans and permits submissions will be required for each “tenant fit out” at which time a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued upon compliance/completion of each “tenant fit out”. Each “shell” will require a fire permit for sprinkler and fire alarm if applicable. Those systems (for the “shell”) must be accepted into service prior to any “tenant fit out” fire permits being issued. 10. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 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. 38

Item 5. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC FILE#: SB-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. As the lots develop, DelDOT shall analyze the intersection of West North Street and Banning Street (City -maintained ) based on the proposed development.. 39

Item 5. GENERAL NOTES 11. SETBACKS: FRONT - SEE PATTERN BOOK* 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS: BANNING STREET SIDE - SEE PATTERN BOOK* DOVER, DE 19904 REAR - SEE PATTERN BOOK* RD DOVER MEDICAL PROPERTIES, LLC. URY 2. PROPERTY LOCATION: LATITUDE (NORTH) 39°09'13.36" 12. SURVEY DATUM: NGS MONUMENTATION LONGITUDE (WEST) 75°32'04.81" VERTICAL NAVD88 LSB HORIZONTAL NAD83 SAU 3. CURRENT OWNER: DOVER MEDICAL PROPERTIES, LLC 200 BANNING ST, SUITE 330 13. SURVEY UNIT: LINEAR - US SURVEY FOOT DOVER, DE 19904 ANGULAR - DEGREES MINUTES SECONDS (DMS) N EN QUE 4. ENGINEER/SURVEYOR: RAUCH INC 14. SURVEY CLASSIFICATION: TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PREPARED FOR: DOVER MEDICAL PROPERTIES, LLC. 106 N. HARRISON STREET EASTON, MD 21601 15.MONUMENTATION: EXISTING 0 ST. 3/91 PROPOSED 4 ST. ORTH CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 5. MAP NUMBER: 2-05-07600-01-1305 W. N NAD 16.ROAD CLASSIFICATION: BANNING STREET IS A LOCAL STREET S. W TAX MAP NUMBER 2-02-07600-01-1305 8 T. ER S 6. DEED REFERENCE: BOOK 9839, PAGE 279 WAT ST. N 7. TOTAL EXISTING SITE AREA: 14.119 ACRES ± 17.UTILITIES PROVIDER: WATER - SEWER - ELECTRIC - CITY OF DOVER CITY OF DOVER CITY OF DOVER EST MINOR SUBDIVISION ON THE LANDS OF 8. STATE INVESTMENT LEVEL 1 18.USE: EXISTING - MEDICAL SITE NORTH STREET 0 50' 100' 9. NUMBER OF PARCELS EXISTING PROPOSED 1 3, PLUS RESIDUAL PROPOSED - MEDICAL VARIABLE WIDTH * PATTERN BOOK DENOTES "COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MANUAL STATE PUBLIC 10. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: (PATTERN BOOK, 5TH EDITION DATED AUGUST 6, 2007) FOR THE PROFESSIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY OFFICE, MEDICAL & FINANCIAL DISTRICT EXISTING - TND (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN ZONE, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, MEDICAL & FINANCIAL PERMANENT PERMANENT DELDOT DISTRICT) DELDOT EASEMENT L4 PER PLAT 96/16 EASEMENT PER PLAT 96/16 PROPOSED - TND (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN ZONE, NON-EXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, MEDICAL & FINANCIAL UTILITY EASEMENT 20.0' DISTRICT) 15.0' C2 30' LANDSCAP E BUFFER 30' LANDSCAP E BUFFER L14 VICINITY MAP NON-EXCLUSIVE UTILITY SCALE: 1" = 2,000' EASEMENT PER PLAT 96/16 L3 LOT 1 AREA = 110,555.3 S.F.± / 2.538 ACRES± L1 PARCEL 2-05-07600-01-1301 UNIMPROVED LOT N/F LANDS OF STATE OF DELAWARE office: 410.770.9081 | fax: 410.770.3667 481/37 LEGEND MAGS DENOTES MAGNETIC NAIL SET RAUCH engineering design & DENOTES COMPUTED POINT inc. email: design@raucheng.com | web: www.raucheng.com DENOTES EXISTING PROPERTY LINE T EN L1 DENOTES EASEMENT LINE M 5 SE /16 DENOTES LANDSCAPE BUFFER LINE PARCEL 2-05-07600-01-1302 EA 96 E T N/F LANDS OF G LA DENOTES ADJOINER PROPERTY LINE INA R P DOVER MEDICAL A E DENOTES PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE DR P Maryland Office: 106 N. Harrison St - Easton, MD 21601 PROPERTIES, LLC development services STORMWATER 2152/280 MANAGEMENT EASEMENT PER PLAT 96/16 L2 Virginia Office: 8229 Boone Blvd, Suite 625 - Vienna, VA 22182 MAGS MAGS EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT PER PLAT 96/16 PER PLAT 96/16 AREA CALCULATIONS L16 60' WIDE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION: 14.119 ACRES ± BANNING STREET RESULTING: LOT 1: 2.538 ACRES ± LOT 2 LOT 2: 1.615 ACRES ± AREA = 70,349.4S.F.± / 1.615 ACRES± 24.0' OPEN SPACE LOT 3: 2.633 ACRES ± L7 L5 RESIDUAL RESIDUAL: 7.333 ACRES ± AREA = 319,414.60 S.F.± / 7.333 ACRES± L13 10/29/2019 UNIMPROVED LOT LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 16°59'52" E 292.80' L2 S 73°00'08" W 360.89' L11 L3 N 16°59'15" W 317.03' EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT L4 N 76°50'40" E 361.64' SEAL DATE PER PLAT 96/16 PER PLAT 96/16 MAGS L6 MAGS L5 S 16°59'52" E 194.00' L6 S 73°00'08" W 360.92' L7 N 16°59'15" W 194.00' DRAINAGE EASEMENT L8 S 16°59'52" E 318.71' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER PLAT 96/16 L9 S 73°45'16" W 361.01' PER PLAT 96/16 L10 N 16°59'15" W 313.97' L11 S 17°36'35" E 246.22' L12 S 73°45'16" W 482.70' L13 N 16°59'52" W 802.23' DESCRIPTION L14 S 10°43'06" E 98.06' L15 S 68°24'56" E 334.99' STORMWATER L16 N 81°08'26" E 48.65' MANAGEMENT REVISIONS LOT 3 EASEMENT PER PLAT 96/16 AREA = 114,693.5 S.F.± / 2.633 ACRES± 300 BANNING STREET PARCEL 2-05-07600-01-1303 CURVE TABLE N/F LANDS OF STATE OF DELAWARE CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA ANGLE 2375/327 C1 2728.43' 232.79' 232.72' S 15°09'56" E 4°53'19" L10 L8 C2 5674.45' 188.90' 188.89' N 78°00'37" E 1°54'26" C1 OWNERS CERTIFICATION WE, DOVER MEDICAL PROPERTIES, LLC, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE DATE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN HEREON, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT OUR DIRECTION, AND THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO BE OUR ACT AND DESIRE THAT THE PLAN TO RECORDED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. REV. # DOVER MEDICAL PROPERTIES, LLC DATE DATE: JULY 2020 L9 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION L12 SCALE: 1" = 50' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE. THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD SURVEYING PRACTICES REQUIRED BY THE N. GREENBERRY LANE PARCEL 2-05-07600-01-1400 N/F LANDS OF APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. DRAWN BY: T.COCHRUN / W.BONNETT PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY APPROVED BY: STATE OF DELAWARE 666/219 WILLIAM M. EWALD, SR. DATE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #753 SHEET NO.: 1 OF 1 40

Item 6. By-Laws of the Planning Commission of the City of Dover Objectives Section 1 The objectives and purposes of the Planning Commission of the City of Dover, Delaware, are those set forth in Chapter 7, Title 22 of the Delaware Code annotated, and amendments, supplements, thereto, and those powers and duties delegated to the Planning Commission by the City Council of the City of Dover pursuant to state statute. Powers, Duties and Procedures Section 2 The duties, powers and procedures of the Planning Commission be as set forth in the following documents: (a) The resolution of the City Council establishing such Planning Commission; (b) The Building Zone Ordinance as to matters relating to amendments to site plan approval; (c) The Subdivision Regulations as to the review and approval of subdivision plats; (d) As to the regulations set forth herein for all other matters for which the Commission has the responsibility. Officers Section 3.1 The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Section 3.2 The Chairman shall preside at the meetings and hearings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties usually conferred upon a presiding officer. He shall continue to exercise the prerogatives of an individual member of the Commission while performing the duties of presiding officer. Section 3.3 The Vice Chairman shall be the presiding officer in the absence of the Chairman. Recording and Corresponding Secretary Section 4 The Commission shall appoint a Secretary who shall not be a member of the Commission or an officer, and shall have the following duties and responsibilities: (a) Prepare agenda for all meetings with the Chairman and provide notice of meetings to Commission members. (b) Keep minutes of all meetings, and record of the Commission. (c) Act as agent for the Commission in receiving submissions, applications, correspondence, etc. (d) Act as agent for the Commission in arranging for notice of public hearings and notifying interested parties of Commission actions as authorized by the Commission. Official Records 41

Item 6. Section 5 The City Clerk shall be the official custodian of the records of the Commission and shall make them available to the public as provided by law. He may designate the office of the Secretary of the Commission or the Planning Office as the place where such records shall be kept. Elections of Officers Section 6.1 The officers shall be elected by the Commission at the annual organization meeting which shall be the regular scheduled meeting in July of each year. Election of officers shall be held by secret ballot. Section 6.2 A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire membership of the Planning Commission shall be declared elected and shall serve for one year or until his or her successor shall take office. Section 6.3 Vacancies in offices shall be filled by the Commission at any scheduled or special meeting. Section 6.4 The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be limited to four consecutive one-year terms. A former Chairman or Vice Chairman who has held four consecutive terms in such position may be elected to that position after vacating the position for a period of one year. Meetings Section 7.1 The Commission shall hold one public meeting during each calendar month. Section 7.2 The monthly meeting date for the coming year shall be established by a majority of the Commission at its organization meeting of the year. The date of the public meeting can be changed during the year by a majority of the Commission Section 7.3 The Commission will receive all applications concerning matters within its jurisdiction only at its public meetings. All times to be submitted for consideration at any public meeting shall be submitted in complete and final form for Commission consideration not less than thirty days prior to said meeting. No items submitted subsequent to this time shall be placed upon the Agenda except by a majority vote of the Commission members present at such meeting. The official date of receipt of any matter presented to the Commission shall be the date of the first public meeting at which such matter is received for consideration. Any maximum time periods established by the Zoning Ordinance or other local laws limiting the time for consideration of any matter by the Planning Commission shall commence on such date of the receipt. Section 7.4 A majority of the membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. The Commission may act on any matter by a majority vote of such quorum. Section 7.5 All formal votes to record the decision of the Commission on any matter referred to it shall be taken only by a quorum at a public meeting. By a majority vote of those members present the Commission may convene in executive session. However, all formal votes to record the Commission’s decision shall only be taken during periods in which such meetings are open to the public. 42

Item 6. Section 7.6 Special meeting may be called by the Chairman or by a majority of the Commission, providing that not less than 24 hours notice by writing or telephone is given to each member of the Commission. Such meetings shall be executive sessions at which no formal votes shall be taken. Section 7.7 All public and special meetings shall be held in City Hall or other public facility with proper public notification. Agenda Section 8 The Secretary shall prepare the proposed Agenda for each public meeting, with the Chairman not less than ten days prior to the date of such meeting, and shall transmit a copy of the Agenda to each Commission member on such date of preparation. No items will appear on such proposed Agenda except those for which applications or written requests have been received not less than thirty days prior to the date of the public monthly meeting as set forth in Section 7 above. The Commission may amend the proposed Agenda by a majority vote of those members present. Section 9.1 The order of business at public meetings shall be as follows: (a) Roll Call. (b) Adoption of Minutes of previous meetings. (c) Approval of Agenda (d) Communications (e) Report of Officers and Committees (f) Old Business (g) New Business (h) Referrals, Administrative Reviews, Petitions, Applications and Other Matters presented by the public. Section 9.2 The order of business at special meetings shall be as determined by the Commission. Section 9.3 At all meetings and hearings attended by the public, the Chairman shall make a brief statement indicating the nature of each item on the Agenda, except that in the case of petitions, applications and other matters presented by the public, such statement shall be made by the person introducing the matter. Section 9.4 Minutes of all public and special meetings of the Commission shall form part of the records of the Commission and shall be available to the public when duly adopted by the Commission. Committees Section 10.1 There may be a Subdivision Committee appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission at the annual organization meeting. It shall consist of three members who shall serve until the next annual meeting. The Chairman may make appointments to bring the committee to full strength in the event of temporary absence of committee members. Section 10.2 Other Committees may be appointed by the Chairman from time to time with the approval of the Commission. 43

Item 6. Public Hearings Section 11.1 The Commission shall hold public hearings as required by statute and applicable ordinances of the City. In addition to those required by law, the Commission may at its discretion hold public hearing when it considers that such hearings will be in the public interest. Amendments Section 12 These By-Laws may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission. Adopted September 15, 1959 Amended November 17, 1975 Amended March 16, 1981 Amended March 19, 1981 Amended June 17, 1991 Amended January 25, 1995 Amended April 26, 1995 Amended August 16, 2010 Amended August 20, 2018 44

Item 7. 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 17, 2020 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 Kenneth Roach, Planning Commission member o Mayor or Mayor’s designee Following Planning Staff’s confirmation of availability, the Planning Commission at their August 17, 2020 acted regarding the appointment two Design Professional members to the Subcommittee. No other Design Professionals as Alternates were appointed. o Dr. R.J. Chandler, Faculty member of Architecture program at DelTech Community College, Design Professional (appointed as interest had been confirmed) o Ms. Sarah Keifer, Director of Planning Services for Kent County, Design Professional (appointment pending confirmation of interest) The initial action on appointments was deferred at the Planning Commission Annual Meeting of July 20, 2020. In August, the Planning Commission acted to appoint the membership of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee as noted above. • Planning Staff has contacted the remaining Design Professional member to discuss their availability and will report on their status at the September meeting. Selection for Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Summary for 9-2020 45