CCW PACKET REVISED

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA THIS PAPERLESS PACKET HAS BEEN REVISED BY ADDING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ITEM #1 – PRIORITIZATION OF CITY OF DOVER STATE CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (CTP) PROJECTS (DAVID S. HUGG, III, CITY MANAGER) Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at the appropriate time. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (302-736-7008 or email at cityclerk@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://rb.gy/0berp1 Event number: 2535 588 1111 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. CALL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO ORDER PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Review of Active Recreation Area Plan - Walker Road Apartments at Guinn Property on Walker Road (Property of 6.83 acres +/- located on the north side of Walker Road and west of Independence Boulevard. Planning Reference: Site Plan S-23-22) (Dawn Melson- Williams, Principal Planner) (Staff Recommendation: Approval of the active recreation area plan with the comments and conditions provided.) 1

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - December 12, 2023 PAGE 2 2. Silver Lake Dam – Annual Inspection Review (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) (Staff Recommendation: To accept the Silver Lake Dam 2023 Dam Safety Inspection Report and the FY 2024 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Updated Memorandum.) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Council President Hare First District Second District Third District Fourth District At-Large Mayor Christiansen ADJOURNMENT OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) (Staff Recommendation: Approval of 2024 Transportation Priorities) 2. Request for Waiver – Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A – Streets: Subdivision Waiver of Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street as associated with Site Plan for Windward Ridge Apartments. (Property Owners: George L. Craig and Deborah J. Craig; Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller; and Bruce A. Burkett. Equitable Owner: Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC. Property Addresses: 57 Rocky Road, 4085 West Denneys Road, and unaddressed parcel on West Denny’s Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-056.00-01- 02.00-000, ED-05-056.00-01-03.00-000, and ED-05-056.00-01-04.00-000. Planning Reference: S-23-19) (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) (Planning Commission Recommendation: The Site Development Plan Application S-23-19 was represented by the developer/equitable owner of Jack Lingo Asset Management LLC, the applicant’s engineering firm Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., the applicant’s traffic engineering firm The Traffic Group, and their attorney from Saul Ewing. A Public Hearing was conducted on October 16, 2023, where five members of the public spoke, and two written comments were received. The Planning Commission deferred action on the Site Plan seeking additional information. The Planning Commission received the additional information and continued the review on November 20, 2023 and then moved by vote of 5-4 to grant conditional approval of 2

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - December 12, 2023 PAGE 3 the Site Development Plan and including a recommendation of approval of the Subdivision Waiver allowing for one connection to the Public Street.) ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Evaluation of Proposals – Water Street Flooding Improvements Design (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) (Staff Recommendation: Award contract to Century Engineering, LLC for the engineering design of Water Street Flooding Improvements, RFP #24-0003WW, for $115,000.) 2. Civilian Pension Committee Report regarding COLA (Bob Gedney, General Employee Pension Chair) Committee Action Not Required. 3. Sanitation Enterprise Fund Discussion (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager / Mark Nowak, Public Works Director) (Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to include the Sanitation Enterprise Fund in the FY25 Budget.) 4. Discussion on Recruitment and Retention (Councilman David Anderson, David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Committee Action Not Required. ADJOURNMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 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 DATA SHEET FOR RECREATION PLAN REVIEW Review of Active Recreation Area Plan PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF December 12, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 2023 Plan Title: Walker Road Apartments, S-23-22 Plan Type: Site Development Plan and Active Recreation Area Plan Location: North side of Walker Road and west of Independence Boulevard Address: Unaddressed off Walker Road Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.18-01-71.00-000 Owner: Arthur Guinn Estate Equitable Owner/Developer: Tyrone Pierre Site Area: 6.83 acres +/- Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) Current Use: Vacant Land (Open Land, Woodland, and Stormwater Pond Area) Proposed Use: Garden Style Apartments (Multi-family Community) Dwelling Units: 48 units Parking: Required: 115 spaces Proposed: 119 spaces Water and Sewer: City of Dover For Consideration: Active Recreation Area Plan Recreation Area: Required – 10,000 SF Provided – 11,663 SF P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 4 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item 1. S-23-22: Walker Road Apartments Active Recreation Area Plan Review for Parks and Recreation Meeting December 12, 2023 Page 2 of 6 I. PROJECT SUMMARY: This application is for Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the construction of two (2) 3-story garden style 24-unit apartment buildings with a Clubhouse and active recreation areas. Also proposed are 119 parking spaces, landscaping, recreation areas, and other site improvements. The project area of 6.83 +/- acres is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The property is located on the north side of Walker Road and west of Independence Boulevard. The owner of record is Arthur Guinn Estate and equitable owner/developer is Tyrone Pierre. Property is currently unaddressed on Walker Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.18-01-71.00- 000. Council District 4. For Consideration: Active Recreation Area Plan. II. ACTIVE RECREATION AREA PLAN SUMMARY: The Site Development Plan as submitted by the applicant for the Apartment Complex notes four Active Recreation features consisting of a basketball court, a volleyball court, a Clubhouse and an Active Recreation area. This project qualifies for consideration as a “small development” and its exemption option for recreation area calculations found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 10.514. This subject property is less than 10 acres in size and has a density of 7.02 dwelling units per acre. The Active Recreation Area is required at a rate of 150 SF per unit or 10,000 SF (0.23 acres), whichever is greater. With this project of forty-eight (48) units, the Active Recreation Area requirement calculates to 7,200 SF which is less than the 10,000 SF. The Active Recreation Areas proposed are shown on the overall Site Plan, and the calculations are provided in the Data Column on page C-1. See Summary Table below of Active Recreation Areas. Active Recreation Area (Article 5 §10.514) Required Provided on Plan 150 S.F. per dwelling unit or 0.23 • Basketball half court (2,500 SF) acre (10,000 SF) whichever is • Volleyball Court (1,800 SF) greater to be provided on site. • Unspecified Recreation Area (3,750 SF) • Clubhouse (3,613 SF)* subject to area future 48 DU = 7,200 SF (0.23 +/- ac) adjustment as part of building is to be the Leasing Required = 10,000 SF Office Provided: 11,663 SF* • *Need detailed size of office area in the Clubhouse to confirm 5

Item 1. S-23-22: Walker Road Apartments Active Recreation Area Plan Review for Parks and Recreation Meeting December 12, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Article 5 Accessible There are sidewalks connecting the Clubhouse to the §10.151 sidewalk system for the rest of the property. There is also a connection from the sidewalk network to the Basketball Court. There should be a connection to the other 2 recreation areas outlined on the plan. 10.152 Pedestrian oriented Other than the sidewalks around the parking lot, there are not any recreational walking paths. 10.153 Age Oriented The four types of recreation areas are outlined in the plans. The activity specifics are not listed for the Clubhouse or the Active Recreation open area. There are not any child aged playgrounds shown on the plan. 10.154 Parking Parking is provided for the buildings on an outer loop perimeter of the drive aisle through the property. The recreation is shown all on the west side of the property. There are parking spaces adjacent to recreation areas and Clubhouse. 10.155 Walking, jogging There are 2 bike racks on the site plan, each can hold 4 bikes. and biking trails The requirement is 1 bike space for every 20 car spaces (Article 6, Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance). 6 minimum bike spaces should be provided in total. There are a total of 8 bike spaces provided. 10.156 Setbacks The recreation areas on these site plans will need to be moved inward to conform to the 30’ setback requirement for game courts. 10.157 Landscaping The site requires 67 trees and there is an appropriate number listed on the plan data column. Specific tree species will need to be identified on the plans and signed off by a Landscape Architect as per Zoning Ordinance. • The woodland areas to remain are shown. • There is no Landscape Plan provided for the new tree planting. A placement map of the Landscape Plan will be required. 10.158 Area The breakdown of the allotted recreation areas is listed on the site plans. We will need clarification on the Clubhouse building interior and the area used for recreation versus that for leasing office area. III. REVIEW PROCESS The Planning Office has prepared this Active Recreation Area Report outlining the Recreation Area proposal. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will need to consider the proposed Active Recreation Area and make a recommendation. The Planning Commission must act to accept the Recreation Area Plan as part of the Site Plan review process. 6

Item 1. S-23-22: Walker Road Apartments Active Recreation Area Plan Review for Parks and Recreation Meeting December 12, 2023 Page 4 of 6 The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will review the Recreation Area Plan at their meeting on December 12, 2023. The Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review of the Site Development Plan S-23-22 is scheduled for December 18, 2023. IV. CODE CITATIONS: Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 – Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities (select excerpts). Article 5 Section 10 Section 10. - Open space, recreation, and other public facilities. The City of Dover shall require the reservation of open space, recreation, and other public facilities in accordance with the provisions of this section as a condition of approval for all one-family dwelling, two-family dwelling and multiple-family dwelling residential developments requiring conditional use approval, site development plan approval, or land subdivision approval by the City of Dover Planning Commission. 10.1 Recreation areas. 10.11 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that active recreation areas are provided as an integral design element within residential developments and that such facilities are of an adequate scale in relation to the size of the residential development and which provide residents with a variety of active recreational pursuits. 10.12 Dedication required. The commission shall require the dedication or reservation of recreation areas, and the subsequent construction of recreation facilities of a character, extent and location suitable to the needs created by a development for recreation facilities as defined and in accordance with the design guidelines set forth. 10.13 Definition. The following are illustrative of the types of recreation areas and subsequent facilities that shall be deemed to serve active recreational needs and therefore to count toward satisfaction of the recreation area requirements of this section: tennis courts, handball courts, racquetball courts, swimming pools, saunas and exercise rooms, meeting or activity rooms within clubhouses, baseball and soccer fields, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swings, slides and play apparatus, and developed walking, jogging or biking trails. 10.14 Recreation area review…. 10.15 Design guidelines… 10.16 Area required. All residential developments shall provide recreational areas in a size equal to 275 square feet per dwelling unit or one-half acre of land, whichever is greater. In no case shall the commission require that more than ten percent of the gross area of the development be so dedicated or reserved when the gross area is greater than five acres. 10.5 Exemption to recreation and open space dedication. 10.514 Residential developments of ten (10) or fewer acres with a density over six units per acre. These developments shall be exempt from the area requirements set forth in section 10.16, but shall be required to provide 150 square feet of active recreation area per dwelling unit or 10,000 square feet of active recreation area, whichever is greater. If the commission determines that the construction of some or all of the required active recreation area is not practical or desirable, the commission shall require a cash-in-lieu donation for the active recreation area determined as not practical or desirable. Cash-in-lieu amount shall be in accordance with subsection 10.173 of this article. 7

Item 1. S-23-22: Walker Road Apartments Active Recreation Area Plan Review for Parks and Recreation Meeting December 12, 2023 Page 5 of 6 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The following are comments and recommendations from staff of the Planning Office following review of the Active Recreation Area Plan. 1) Recreation Areas: As a residential development, there is a requirement for Active Recreation area(s). Staff Recommends the following regarding these Recreation Areas: a) Sport Courts: i. The recreation areas outlined for specific sports should indicate the materials used for court areas. ii. Adjust location of court surfaces to ensure 30 feet setback is complied with. b) Clubhouse: i. There should be specifics on what recreation or activities can transpire in the Clubhouse. ii. List size of areas with clubhouse as Leasing Office area does not count. iii. Connecting these areas to the walking paths would allow for wheelchair and stroller access. c) Active Recreation Area: i. Provide details for the unspecified active recreation area as to if it will be open lawn area or have amenities. 2) Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking should be located at every one of the Apartment Buildings. If any Bike Parking facilities are proposed internal to the buildings, then the Plans should note as such. i) Staff recommend adding bike racks near each recreation amenity. 3) Pedestrian Connectivity: Staff notes that the sidewalk system should be extended specifically to all recreation areas where necessary near handicapped parking. Sidewalk intersections, etc. a) Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the entrance drive to the complex. The current plan only provides sidewalks on the west side of the entrance. b) Sidewalks should be added to the Volleyball Court and the Active Recreation area. c) Sitting benches could also be added to the recreation areas. 4) Sidewalk Curb Cuts: No curb cuts or ramps are shown on sidewalks or near street crossings; add accessible ramps. 5) Adequate Lighting for the Site: It appears in the plan that light fixtures are present around the parking areas. There should be light fixtures added to sufficiently light the recreation areas. Please detail the light fixtures to be used. 6) Landscaping: Provide a landscape plan. Specific tree species will need to be identified on the plans and signed off by a Landscape Architect as per Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it appears that the parking islands may be counted towards the woodlands areas not to be cleared. It will be difficult for construction crews to avoid these areas given their location and 8

Item 1. S-23-22: Walker Road Apartments Active Recreation Area Plan Review for Parks and Recreation Meeting December 12, 2023 Page 6 of 6 proximity to the development area. It would be better for these areas to be used for tree planting and landscaping requirements. VI. ADVISORY COMMENTS 1) This Site Development Plan set depicting the Recreational Areas are to include appropriate improvements, plans, and details of the Active Recreation Area as approved. 2) There shall be provisions which ensure that the community space (all areas under consideration for Active Recreation Areas) shall continue as such and be properly managed and maintained. The developer shall either retain ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the common use areas or provide for and establish one (1) or more organizations for the ownership and maintenance of all common space i.e., a Homeowners Association or other property management entity. The organization shall be responsible for maintenance, insurance, and taxes on the community space. 3) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Planning Office. Examples include reorientation of buildings, relocation of site components, changes in floor area or unit count, or design revisions impacting Active Recreation Areas. These changes may require resubmission for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regard to the plan. 4) The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee shall submit to the Planning Commission a report detailing the recommendations as to the Recreation Area Plan. Attachments: • Site Plan S-23-22 Walker Road Apartments Sheet C-1 • Building Rendering 9

Item 1. 10

Item 1. A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WALKER ROAD APARTMENTS DOVER, DE N.T.S. 11

Item 1. A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WALKER ROAD APARTMENTS CLUBHOUSE DOVER, DE N.T.S. 12

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Water & Wastewater SUBMITTED ON: December 1, 2023 PREPARED BY: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services REVIEWED BY: Dave S. Hugg III, City Manager and Lori Peddicord, Controller / Treasurer SUBJECT: Silver Lake Dam – Annual Inspection Review TIMETABLE: In accordance with the 2023 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum RELATED PROJECT: n/a REFERENCE: n/a EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To accept the Silver Lake Dam 2023 Dam Safety Inspection Report and the FY 2024 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Department of Water & Wastewater (DWW) utilizes a consultant to perform an annual inspection of the Silver Lake Dam. The annual inspection is required by the State of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) as well as our insurance carrier. The 2023 above water inspection and underwater inspection was performed on July 6, 2023. The final report was fully executed on August 11, 2023. The next inspection will occur in the summer of 2024. Silver Lake Dam 2023 Dam Safety Inspection Report provides the results of the field observations of the embankment dam, concrete spillway and drop inlet including the sluice gate. The report also includes recommendations for repair and maintenance. The 2023 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum provides a summary of the recommendations provided in the report. Action items are assigned to either the Parks & Recreation (P&R) Department’s Ground Division or the DWW Engineering Division. The plan of action and/or status for the recommendations are included within the memorandum. The breakdown of the twenty-eight (28) action items contained in the report is as follows:  P&R Grounds Division – Annual Maintenance Checklist – 10  P&R Grounds Division – Evaluate / Monitor – 12  DWW Engineering Division – Future CIP Proposal –5  DPW Streets Division – Maintenance Action - 1 13

Item 2. 14

Item 2. MEMORANDUM Department of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7025 Fax: (302) 736-7092 E-mail: jlyon@dover.de.us TO: David S. Hugg III, City Manager Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Assistant City Manager CC: Robin Eaton, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Nowak, GISP, Public Works Director FROM: Jason A Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services DATE: December 1, 2023 SUBJECT: 2023 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Due to the projected cost of the project, a Request for Quotes to perform the 2023 Silver Lake Dam Inspection was sent out on April 10, 2023, to twenty (20) consulting firms. Three firms submitted an quote, Remington & Vernick Engineers was ultimately awarded the project. The Silver Lake Dam Inspection Report was finalized on August 11, 2023, and contains various recommendations necessary to maintain the dam in good working order. The tables below provide a summary of the recommendations as well as a status update of each. It should be noted that the report did not provide any repairs that needed to be immediately addressed. A Silver Lake Dam Annual Maintenance Checklist for the Parks & Recreation Department Grounds Division was developed in January 2020. Since that time, annual maintenance activities have been performed and will continue to be performed. Some of the recommendations below added additional activities to the Annual Maintenance Checklist. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Earth All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance Embankment controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year Upstream The trash that has accumulated along the water Grounds Annual Maintenance Slope line at the west end of the left embankment Checklist – 1x Per Year should be removed. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and Grounds Annual Maintenance right embankments. Checklist – 2x Per Year The small stump by the signs near the boat ramp Grounds Annual Maintenance can be left in place provided they are no longer Checklist – 3x Per Year alive and should be monitored periodically. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right Grounds Annual Maintenance upstream slope can remain provided it is no Checklist – 3x Per Year longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 1|Page 15

Item 2. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Earth A depression that was holding water was noted in Grounds Evaluate Embankment the left portion of the crest of the left Upstream embankment. Depressions in the crest should be Slope monitored periodically. (Continued) Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right Grounds Evaluate upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. The missing rip rap where the right upstream Grounds Evaluate wing wall meets the water should be replaced Repair the crack noted on the right side of the Engineering Future CIP proposal. boat ramp. Dam Crest The crest appears to be in good condition. The Grounds Continue to Monitor crest should continue to be monitored for any depressions as indicated in previous inspections. Consideration should be given to repair the cracks Streets Evaluate and depressed asphalt pavement. Earth All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance Embankment controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year Downstream The bare spots on left side of the spillway should Grounds Annual Maintenance Slope be covered with new grass. Checklist – 2x Per Year The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent Grounds Evaluate to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted Grounds Annual Maintenance growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom Checklist – 2x Per Year of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Remediate the eroded area adjacent to the upper Grounds Continue to Monitor parking lot. 2|Page 16

Item 2. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Earth The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground Grounds Evaluate Embankment cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder Downstream is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be Slope removed and controlled with herbicide. (Continued) Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. The undermined fence post at the southern end Grounds Evaluate of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. Concrete Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence Engineering Future CIP proposal. Spillway – extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent Upstream rotation. (195 LF) Face and Wing Clean and tighten the railing base plate hardware. Engineering Future CIP proposal. Walls Replace any damaged pieces (40 EA) Fish Ladder Remove the growing vegetation Grounds Evaluate Pedestrian Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and Engineering Future CIP proposal. Walkway between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. (3 Ea.) Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced Engineering Future CIP proposal. if missing on the railing system. Outlet Works Continue to monitor the condition of the Grounds Evaluate hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. Exit Channel The rip rap, other smaller stone and the two Grounds Evaluate bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. Bushes and woody weeds should be removed and Grounds Annual Maintenance controlled with herbicide. Checklist – Quarterly. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be Grounds Annual Maintenance remediated with rip rap or seeded. Checklist – 2x Per Year Refasten end rub rail at NE side. (4 LF) Grounds Evaluate 3|Page 17

Item 2. 2023 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update December 1, 2023 Page 4 of 4 TASK TOTALS 28 P&R Grounds Division – Annual Maintenance Checklist 10 P&R Grounds Division – Evaluate / Monitor 12 DWW Engineering Division – Future CIP proposal 5 DPW Streets Division – Maintenance Action 1 4|Page 18

Item 2. August 11, 2023 City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Attention: Mr. Paul Thompson Project Manager Reference: Silver Lake Dam 2023 Inspection Final Report Dover, Delaware RVE Job No.: DKDR-T-006 Dear Mr. Thompson: Remington and Vernick Engineers (RVE) is pleased to submit the final results of our visual dam safety inspection of the Silver Lake Dam. This report contains the results of the dam safety inspection and a discussion of our observations and recommendations for remedial repairs for the existing dam. The following scope of work was performed: (1) Review previous dam safety inspection reports and available plans. (2) Perform field observations by geotechnical and structural engineers to determine the conditions of the crest, upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment dam and concrete spillway per DDSD’s checklist. (3) Perform underwater condition survey of the submerged portions of the concrete spillway and drop inlet including the sluice gate. (4) Prepare a written report to provide the results of the field observations of the embankment dam concrete spillway and drop inlet and recommendations for repairs and maintenance items that should be performed. Should you have any questions or comments or if we can be of service to you in the future, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, REMINGTON & VERNICK ENGINEERS Kim Charles Westen, PE Christopher J. Fazio Associate PrincipĂů 19

Item 2. Dam Inspection Report Silver Lake Dam; City of Dover, DE August 11, 2023 Prepared for: City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Prepared by: Remington & Vernick Engineers 262 Chapman Road, Suite 105 Newark, DE 19702 Contact: Kim Charles Westen, PE Office Phone: (ϯϬϮͿϮϲϲͲϬϮϭϮ RVE ____________________________ Project Number: DKDRT006 Signature ƵŐƵƐƚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ ____________________________ Date 20

Item 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 DAM INFORMATION 4 2.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Embankment Dam............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Concrete Spillway ................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Outlet Works ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Pedestrian Walkway ............................................................................................................ 6 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 7 3.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Earth Embankment ............................................................................................................. 7 3.2.1 Upstream Slope ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Dam Crest ............................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Downstream Slope ................................................................................................. 8 3.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls ...................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Upstream Spillway Face and Wing Walls................................................................ 9 3.3.2 Downstream Spillway Face and Wing Walls ........................................................... 9 3.3.3 Fish Ladder ........................................................................................................... 10 3.3.4 Spillway................................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Pedestrian Walkway .......................................................................................................... 10 3.5 Outlet Works ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.6 Exit Channel....................................................................................................................... 12 3.7 Boat Dock .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.8 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad .................................................................................................. 12 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13 4.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 13 4.2 Earth Embankment ........................................................................................................... 13 4.2.1 Upstream Slope .................................................................................................... 13 4.2.2 Dam Crest ............................................................................................................. 13 4.2.3 Downstream Slope ............................................................................................... 13 4.3 Concrete Spillway .............................................................................................................. 14 4.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls ............................................................................ 14 4.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls ....................................................................... 14 4.3.3 Fish Ladder ........................................................................................................... 15 4.3.4 Spillway................................................................................................................. 15 4.4 Pedestrian Walkway .......................................................................................................... 15 4.5 Outlet Works ..................................................................................................................... 15 4.6 Exit Channel....................................................................................................................... 15 4.7 Boat Dock .......................................................................................................................... 15 4.8 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad .................................................................................................. 15 5.0 CLOSING 16 21

Item 2. APPENDICES Appendix A - Site Location Map Appendix B - Inspection Photos Appendix C - Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist Appendix D – Cost Estimate 22

Item 2. 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Originally constructed in 1944, the Silver Lake Dam is an earthen embankment type dam with a concrete spillway located near its center. In order to drain the reservoir in emergency situations, a riser structure with a sluice gate and 24-inch pipe that outlets through the downstream face of the concrete spillways is located towards the western side of the concrete spillway. The base flow is controlled by a concrete chute that is located on the western side of the emergency spillway. Due to the failure implications and state guidelines, the Silver Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard dam. Failure of this dam has the high probability to cause loss of human life in addition to other consequences. As such, the City has requested RVE to perform an inspection of the dam and report our findings herein. RVE performed an above water inspection of the Silver Lake Dam on July 6, 2023. W.J. Castle & Associates (WJC) was also on site to perform an underwater inspection of the dam structure also on July 6, 2023. The inspections were performed to assess the functionality of the dam and identify deficiencies and the need for remedial repairs. Our underwater inspections included the concrete spillway, and the drop-inlet outlet works while visual observations of the above water components included the earth embankment, concrete spillway and wing walls, pedestrian walkway, and the exit channel. Observations of the dam’s condition and recommendations made herein are intended to assist the City of Dover in programming the dam repairs in order to maintain safe operations of the dam. Direction indicators right and left are based on facing downstream. The following is a summary of our observations and recommendations: OBSERVATIONS: x Upstream Slope of Earthen Dam o Visual inspection indicates the upstream slope is in generally good condition. o All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. o All gaps within the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled in with additional rip rap. o Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right upstream slopes. o Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. x Dam Crest o Visual inspection indicates the crest is in generally good condition, but crest should be monitored for any depressions as noted in previous inspections. x Downstream Slope of Earthen Dam o Visual inspection indicates the downstream slope is in generally good condition. o All weeds noted within the rip rap and in the area where No. 57 stone is being used as ground cover near the fish ladder should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. o Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. o The undermined sidewalk exposing bare ground near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. o The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 1 August 11, 2023 23

Item 2. and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. o A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be placed in areas along the right downstream wing wall and where it appears to be sparce or infilled at the toe of the right downstream wing wall and adjacent to the fish ladder near the left downstream wing wall. o Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. x Upstream Face and Wing Walls o Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy. o Repair the random pop-outs throughout with non-shrink grout. o Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing wall with concrete patching material. o The upstream right-wing wall from where the section loss starts into the water should be repaired with epoxy concrete. o Repair all rotated railing extensions and replace/check/tighten all bolts, washers and nuts on the railing extensions and railing post baseplates. x Downstream Face and Wing Walls o Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy. o The source of water possibly associated with the recurring rust stain should be investigated to determine the appropriate repair. x Fish Ladder o Repair the leaking joints. o Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north. o Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware. x Spillway o No repairs required. x Pedestrian Walkway o Repair the isolated spalls with non-shrink grout. o Repair the isolated cracks with pressure injected epoxy. o Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. o Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. x Outlet Works o Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels. x Exit Channel o Rip rap and other smaller stone near the bottom of the fish ladder should be removed. o Bushes and woody weed should be removed from the rip rap, and any bare spots should be remediated. x Boat Dock o Repair the northwest dock pile that exhibits 40% section loss x Concrete Slab o No repairs required. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 2 August 11, 2023 24

Item 2. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report contains observations and recommendations in accordance with dam safety regulations and standard inspection techniques for such facilities. Overall, results indicate that the dam is considered in good condition without the need for immediate remedial actions. However, RVE has identified several non-emergency remedial actions that we recommend become prioritized and programmed for action over the next two years. These remedial actions are summarized below and included in Section 4 of this report. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 3 August 11, 2023 25

Item 2. 2.1 DAM INFORMATION 2.2 General The Silver Lake Dam is located within Silver Lake Park and is at the terminus of Lewis Mill Drive in Dover, Delaware as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A of this report. The City of Dover requested RVE to perform an inspection of the dam based on Delaware state guidelines and sound engineering principles. The inspection of the dam occurred on July 6, 2023 and included both an above ground inspection performed by RVE and an underwater inspection performed by WJC. Due to the lack of existing dam drawings, some dimensions mentioned in this report were estimated. Figure 1. Silver Lake Dam Location The Silver Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard dam in accordance with the Delaware Dam Safety guidelines. Based on its definition, a high hazard dam has the potential to cause probable loss of human life in the event of a dam failure or faulty operations. In addition, failure would cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns. The dam is located along the St. Jones River and is an earthen embankment dam with a length of approximately 630 feet. The dam’s western (left) abutment is located near its intersection with the sandy beach. The dam consists of a concrete gravity dam spillway approximately 150 feet in length, which is located near the middle of the earthen dam. A boat ramp is located about 85 feet east of the east wall of the spillway. The dam’s outlet works consists of a wood riser structure with a 24-inch diameter cast iron pipe that exits the dam through the downstream toe of the concrete spillway on the eastern side. Figure 2 highlights the critical components of the dam. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 4 August 11, 2023 26

Item 2. Figure 2. Silver Lake Dam Inspection Components 2.3 Embankment Dam Based on measurements from the staff gauge located on the east wall of the concrete spillway, the dam’s top elevation is at about EL 20.0 and the downstream toe is at about EL 5.0, resulting in an overall dam height of approximately 15 feet. The crest width of the dam is about 20 feet at its narrowest point. The side slopes of the upstream face of the dam are roughly 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The downstream slopes of the dam are 2:1, where the slopes are more gradual near the earthen portions of the dam at the east and west abutments, they are in the range of 5:1 or flatter. 2.4 Concrete Spillway The concrete dam spillway serves as both the principal and emergency spillways. The entrance and exit channels to the spillway consist of concrete gravity retaining walls. A concrete chute measuring about 2.5 feet wide (W) by 1.5 feet deep (D) is located on the east side of the spillway and is believed to have been designed to carry the base flow over the spillway. Flash boards are located in the upstream end of the concrete chute which can be removed to lower the lake about 1.5 feet below the top of the concrete spillway. A fish ladder is located between the east wing wall of the spillway and the base flow concrete chute. 2.5 Outlet Works The riser structure for the outlet works is located about 50 feet out into the lake from the top of the concrete spillway. The riser structure is constructed with timber materials and measures approximately 10 feet by 10 feet in plan dimensions. A 24-inch cast iron pipe extends from the downstream side of the riser structure and exits through the downstream side of the concrete spillway. A sluice gate is located on the upstream side of the riser structure and is believed to be used for reservoir drawdown in emergency situations. The sluice gate consists of a flat metal plate and stem. The stem can be accessed through a trap door in the top of the riser structure to raise and lower the sluice gate. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 5 August 11, 2023 27

Item 2. 2.6 Pedestrian Walkway A pedestrian walkway is located on the top of the concrete spillway. The walkway measures 3 feet wide and was constructed with reinforced concrete. The walkway is supported by concrete piers fixed to the top of the concrete spillway. A chain link fence is located on each side of the walkway to act as a railing and fall protection. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 6 August 11, 2023 28

Item 2. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 General The Silver Lake Dam consists of an earthen embankment dam with a concrete spillway. RVE performed visual observations of the dam on July 6, 2023. In addition to ground inspections, WJC performed underwater inspections of the dam. These inspections were performed simultaneously under the supervision of RVE and WJC engineers. Included in Appendix B are photographs taken during the inspection that represent the observations that are summarized below for the various dam components. During the inspection deficiencies noted in the previous dam safety inspection performed in 2022 were observed to verify their condition and if they were repaired and are identified on the Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist, which is included in Appendix C. Please note that all references regarding direction (i.e. left or right) are referenced as if the observer was facing downstream. Therefore, left was noted to be in the general east direction and right was noted to be in the general west direction. 3.2 Earth Embankment 3.2.1 Upstream Slope 1. Overall view of left upstream slope and crest. (Photo 1) 2. Overall view of right upstream slope and crest. (Photo 2) 3. There is a small amount of debris along the left upstream embankment rip rap. (Photo 3) 4. Riprap between the wing wall and the boat ramp on the left embankment is in generally good condition with some weeds noted. (Photo 4) 5. A few isolated bare spots were noted above the rip rap to the left of the boat ramp, while larger areas of bare ground were noted uphill of the rip rap between the wing wall and the boat ramp. (Photo 5, Photo 6) 6. The previously observed 2-inch stump adjacent to the boat ramp sign has been removed. (Photo 7) 7. Asphalt patch has been placed on the upper right and left sides of the boat ramp to fill in & prevent erosion. (Photo 8, Photo 9) 8. There is a shallow crack in the left upstream embankment boat ramp, +/- 6 feet long. (Photo 9) 9. The previously placed rip rap on the left upstream wing wall is in good condition, though some weeds were noted. (Photo 10) 10. The right upstream embankment is generally in good condition. Areas of bare ground were observed adjacent to the top area of the rip rap along the slope towards the right end of the embankment. Additionally, some missing rip rap was noted. (Photo 11, Photo 12) 11. Some weeds and vegetation were noted in the right upstream rip rap. An old stump was noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope. 12. Previously placed rip rap on the right upstream wingwall is in good condition, though some weeds were noted. Additionally, some rip rap appears to be missing where the right upstream wing wall meets the water. (Photo 13, Photo 14) 13. A concrete slab measuring 10x8 feet was observed in the right upstream crest. (Photo 15) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 7 August 11, 2023 29

Item 2. 3.2.2 Dam Crest 1. The dam crest is in overall good condition. 2. Evidence of ponding was observed throughout the asphalt sections of the left crest. 3. Alligator cracking was observed in the left crest asphalt sections (Photo 16) 3.2.3 Downstream Slope 1. The downstream slope is in satisfactory condition. 2. Moderate alligator cracking and a shoving failure was noted in the asphalt roadway leading up to and down from the upper parking area/left slope crest. (Photo 17, Photo 19) 3. Isolated minor erosion and exposed roots and some mower disturbances around trees were noted at the extreme left of the left downstream embankment. (Photo 18) 4. Bare ground was noted around the bollards adjacent to the drive lane up to and down from the upper parking lot, and some mower disturbance was noted along the slope downhill of the bollards along the same drive lane. (Photo 19, Photo 20) 5. Some evidence of ponding water was noted at the toe of the left downstream slope near the lower parking lot. It appears that the ponded water may be sheet flow from the lower parking lot area that has collected in the area shown in the photo. (Photo 21) 6. The repair of the previous erosion and exposed roots south of the upper parking area on the left downstream slope looks good, but there is still a slight erosion channel noted, some bare ground noted near the wooden bollards, exposed roots and the upper portion of the reinforcing net is exposed and has been damaged. (Photo 22, Photo 23) 7. Light vegetation and weeds were noted in the rip rap at the left downstream slope adjacent to the fish ladder. The rip rap appears to be sparce and infilled. (Photo 24) 8. There is a large area of no. 57 stone placed above the rip rap on the left downstream slope. Weeds are growing on the slope. (Photo 25) 9. Some three-inch diameter stumps were noted in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and some bushes near the fish ladder sign at the left downstream slope. (Photo 26, Photo 27) 10. The sidewalk adjacent to the chain link fence that cordons off the fish ladder has been undermined, and some bare ground/mower disturbance was noted between the sidewalk and the roadway in the same area. (Photo 28) 11. There is moderate erosion adjacent to the southern portion of the fence cordoning off the fish ladder on the left downstream slope. The erosion is undermining the south fence post. Erosion and exposed roots were noted above the rip rap and extends south toward the exit channel. (Photo 30) 12. Some erosion is still occurring around newer rip rap adjacent to the right downstream wing wall, and some bare spots/mower disturbance was noted uphill of this area near the chain link fence and sidewalk. (Photo 30) 13. Light weeds, vegetation and stumps were noted in the right downstream rip rap. The rip rap looks sparce or may have been infilled. (Photo 31) 14. Erosion and exposed roots extend south toward the exit channel. (Photo 32) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 8 August 11, 2023 30

Item 2. 3.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls 3.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Overall view of right wingwall (Photo 33) 2. Overall view of left wingwall (Photo 34) 3. The upstream left concrete wing wall is in good condition with abrasion (eroded cement and exposed aggregate) up to ½” depth (D) throughout. (Photo 33, Photo 35, Photo 36). 4. There is a 4.0’ long (L) up to 1.0” wide (W) horizontal crack 5.0’ south of the north end of the left wingwall, 1.4’ above the mudline. 5. Both wingwalls have random pop-outs up to 3.0”D throughout (Photo 35) 6. The left and right wingwalls exhibits abrasion up to ½”D at the waterline and a 3.5’L fine vertical crack 10.0’ south of the north end. 7. The crack repair at the top of the left wingwall at midspan exhibits a 2.0’L fine vertical crack. (Photo 33) Also, the crack repair under the walkway on the left wingwall exhibits a 3’L fine vertical crack with efflorescence. 8. The right wingwall exhibits a 6.0”H x 2.0’L x 1.0”D area of heavy abrasion with exposed aggregate 1.0’ above the mudline and 10.0’ south of the north end of the right wingwall. 9. The upstream face of the spillway is protected by 1.0 to 1.5 foot nominal size stone riprap for the full length of the spillway with parts of the riprap being silted over. 10. The left wingwall exhibits a 0.6’H x full length x ¼”D band of abrasion at the waterline. 11. The right upstream concrete wall exhibits light edge spalling at the extreme upstream end. 12. The railing extension that was added to extend the height of the railing is in good condition, although some sections are starting to twist. 13. The bent plate to help reinforce the last railing post has been damaged making the plate bow. (Photo 36) 3.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Overall view of right wingwall. (Photo 37) 2. Overall view of left wingwall. (Photo 38) 3. The downstream right wingwall was previously repaired with both epoxy injection crack repairs and concrete patching. Some of these repairs are exhibiting hairline cracking with adjacent efflorescence and rust staining. Additionally, a small delamination at the downstream end is forming. (Photo 37, Photo 39). 4. The downstream left wingwall exhibits several failed crack repairs along the top of the wall with three vertical cracks up to 3.0’L x 1/8”W and one 2.0’L hairline horizontal crack. (Photo 40, Photo 41) 5. Both wingwalls downstream of the spillway exhibit abrasion up to ¼”D throughout with algae. 6. The 5th railing post from the downstream end of the right wingwall is missing a top cap (Photo 42). 7. On the right downstream wing wall, the bolts on the base plates are showing a slight amount of rusting. 8. The new railing extension is in good condition on both sides of the downstream walls. 9. The right downstream wing wall railing extension has started to twist at the bottom end. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 9 August 11, 2023 31

Item 2. 10. On the top of the right downstream wing wall between the 2nd and 3rd rail post, a previously reopened crack has been repaired. (Photo 43) 11. Joints in the wall appear to be in good condition. 3.3.3 Fish Ladder 1. Overall view of fish ladder (Photo 38) 2. The stainless-steel fish ladder was noted to be in fair condition. The top and side seem to be starting to rust. (Photo 40) 3. The fish ladder steel support members and hardware exhibit slight corrosion with up to 10% section loss. 4. The fish ladder is leaking from most of the joints. 5. The third fish ladder steel brace from north exhibits a 2.0”L x ¼”W broken weld splice. (Photo 46, Photo 47) 6. The left bottom bolt is missing from the plate fourth down to the south side. 7. The horizontal beams at the bottom of the ladder are in good condition and painted. There is algae on the bottom vertical columns 8. On the top of the fish ladder, two nuts are missing on the west side and one bolt is missing on the east side. (Photo 44) 9. Vegetation growing on top and side of middle section of the fish ladder. (Photo 45) 10. Concrete flow chute, next to fish ladder spillway has minor abrasion. (Photo 44) 3.3.4 Spillway Overall view of spillway (Photo 48) 1. The downstream toe of the spillway is in satisfactory condition with abrasion up to 1.0”D throughout. The toe is exposed the entire length with a vertical exposure of 0.5’H to 1.3’H. There is no undermining. 2. There is 0.7’ to 1.0’ diameter riprap in the downstream channel along the base of the exposed toe. 3. All the concrete surfaces of the spillway exhibit ¼”D abrasion throughout, with localized areas in Span 10 at the top of the spillway which exhibit up to 1.0”D abrasion. (Photo 49, Photo 50) 3.4 Pedestrian Walkway (spans numbered from right to left) 1. The concrete surfaces below water exhibit abrasion up to ½”D with exposed aggregate on all piers. 2. The underside of the deck in Span 1 exhibits a 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 2.0”D spall with exposed and corroded rebar at midspan. (Photo 56) 3. The east face of Pier 1 exhibits several fine vertical cracks within the repaired area. (Photo 57) 4. The underside of the deck in Span 2 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 6.0’L x 1/8”W with rust staining and efflorescence. (Photo 57) 5. The east face of Pier 2 exhibits a shallow spall 0.3’H x 3.0’L x 0.08’D along the underside of the deck and within the failed repair area. 6. The underside of the deck in Span 3 exhibits several 6.0’L x 1/8”W longitudinal cracks with efflorescence in the failed repair area. (Photo 58) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 10 August 11, 2023 32

Item 2. 7. The underside of the deck in Span 3 exhibits minor honeycombing. (Photo 58) 8. The underside of the deck in Span 4 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 10.0’L x 1/8”W with efflorescence. (Photo 59) 9. The underside of the deck at the east end of Span 5 exhibits a 4.0’L fine longitudinal crack with efflorescence. (Photo 60) 10. The repair on the north nose of Pier 5 exhibits corner abrasion. 11. The underside of the deck in Span 6 exhibits several fine to 1/16”W longitudinal cracks up to 3.0’L with efflorescence. 12. The underside of the deck in Span 7 exhibits minor map cracking with efflorescence (Photo 61) 13. The northeast corner of Pier 7 exhibits 0.42’H x 0.17’ x 0.83’D edge abrasion. 14. The west end of the underside of the deck in Span 9 exhibits map cracking with efflorescence. (Photo 62) 15. The underside of the deck in Span 10 exhibits abrasion with exposed aggregate for 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 0.13’D. (Photo 63) 16. Posts and railings have lost galvanization and have section loss in sections of rails. The downstream top railing tee is rusted through at Pier 4 and between Pier 9 and the end wingwall. At Pier 2 on the downstream side top railing, there is a bolt extruding out. There is also a bolt missing on the downstream top railing side. The previous repaired spalls on the topside of the walkway appear to be in good condition. (Photo 53) 17. The downstream side of the walkway has hairline cracks at the West end, on Span 1, 1.5’L, and a crack 2’L on Span 2 with a spall starting to form, and a 2’L crack from a previous repair that water has seeped through onto the side of the walkway. 18. On the topside of the walkway near Span 1, a previously reported crack has been sealed. (Photo 51) 19. On the topside of the walkway at Span 1, the previously repaired crack has failed on the north side, 1.5’L. 20. On the side of the walkway at pier 2 the backer rod seems to be exposed and joint failing and previous patch failing. There is a 1’x1’ spall at Pier 2, on the downstream side of the walkway. (Photo 53) 21. The previously repaired areas in the top of the walkway appear to be in good condition (Photo 52, Photo 54, Photo 55) 22. There is a 1’x1’ spall at Pier 8 at the joint, on the downstream side of the walkway. 23. The Joint at Pier 8 is failing and starting to peal up. 3.5 Outlet Works 1. The trash racks around the perimeter of the outlet works and the lack of water clarity prevented the diver from inspecting the interior portions of outlet works. 2. The sluice gate was successfully opened and closed by personnel with the City of Dover. (Photo 64) 3. The outlet works trash rack on the north face exhibit an opening between the two panels for 0.17’H x 5.0’L. 4. The wooden outlet structure is in fair condition. There is a light covering of soft marine growth and moderate checks with isolated areas of timber section loss at the waterline. (Photo 65, Photo 66, Photo 67) 5. The timber structure’s galvanized hardware is in poor condition below the waterline with up to 30% section loss. (Photo 67) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 11 August 11, 2023 33

Item 2. 6. The floor slab exhibits minor abrasion with exposed aggregate and was covered with silt up to 0.17’H at the time of inspection. 7. The outlet work piles exhibit 1/8”W checking. The previously identified 50% section loss in the downstream pile could not be confirmed due to the lack of access, but evidence of section loss was observed through the trash rack fence openings. (Photo 66) 8. The outlet works is armored with riprap around its perimeter, and the riprap is covered with silt up to 0.25’H. 3.6 Exit Channel 1. Water was flowing through the exit channel; therefore, it was not possible to visually observe the bottom of the exit channel. However, no areas of depressions were noted when divers walked in the exit channel downstream of the spillway. 2. Riprap and smaller stone was noted above the waterline on the fish ladder side of the stilling basin. (Photo 68) 3. Two bushes were located centrally in the exit channel downstream of the spillway. 4. The right side of the exit channel embankment exhibits minor to moderate shear face erosion along the bank. (Photo 32) 3.6 Boat Dock 1. The boat dock timbers have been replaced since the previous inspection. (Photo 69). 3.7 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad 1. The concrete pad on the NW side of the park is in good condition. It is 9’-7” long by 7’-4” wide and grass has started to grow over the pad on the edges. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 12 August 11, 2023 34

Item 2. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 General Based on our observations, we consider the dam in good condition and not in danger of failure. The results of our observations indicated that there are various components of the dam that need remedial repair. These repairs are not considered critical and do not require immediate attention. However, we recommend that these repairs be prioritized and programmed to be addressed in the next one to two years to prevent further problems that could lead to failure or safety concerns. The following parts of this section detail recommendations for specific remedial actions categorized by its location. The remedial repairs are also outlined in the Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist is included in Appendix C. 4.2 Earth Embankment 4.2.1 Upstream Slope 1. Continue to control the vegetative growth in the rip rap with herbicide. 2. Continue to remove any debris and trash that collects along the shoreline, especially in the extreme left end of the left embankment. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. 4. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. 5. Continue to monitor the embankments for any depressions. 6. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. 7. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope can remain provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 8. The missing rip rap where the right upstream wing wall meets the water should be replaced. 4.2.2 Dam Crest 1. The crest appears to be in good condition. The crest should continue to be monitored for any depressions as indicated in previous inspections. 2. Consideration should be given to repave the asphalt roadway on the dam crest. 4.2.3 Downstream Slope 1. Continue to control and remove any weeds in the rip rap with herbicide. 2. Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. 3. The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. 4. Consideration should be given to repave the asphalt roadway leading up to the dam crest. 5. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 6. The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. 7. The rip rap appears to be sparce or may have been filled in the areas adjacent to the fish ladder on the left downstream slope. Additionally, rip rap has been placed only along a Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 13 August 11, 2023 35

Item 2. portion of the right downstream wing wall and appears to be sparce at the toe of the right downstream wing wall. A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be added and/or replaced. 8. The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. 9. Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. 4.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls 4.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy (19 LF). 2. Repair the random pop-outs throughout with concrete patching material (4 SF). 3. Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (8 SF) 4. The area of moderate to severe scaling at the extreme upstream end of the right upstream wingwall should be patched with epoxy concrete. (25 CF) 5. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (195 LF) 6. On the right upstream wing wall move old railing system up, tighten the brackets so the new extended railing is aligned with post. 7. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 8. Rusted bolts in the baseplate should be cleaned and galvanized and rusted washers and nuts to be replaced. (32 Ea., 40 Ea.) 4.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (52 LF). 2. Repair the delaminations on the right downstream wingwall with concrete patching material. (2 SF) 3. The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the right downstream concrete wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2022 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking, and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Petrographic testing and a test pit behind the wing wall is highly recommended for the rust stain and water leakage at the noted crack/spall on the right wing wall. A reinforcement corrosion assessment is also recommended for the rebar that is rusting along the noted crack. 4. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (239 LF) 4.3.3 Fish Ladder 1. Repair the leaking joints. 2. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north (0.17 LF) 3. Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware. (2 Ea.; 2 Ea.) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 14 August 11, 2023 36

Item 2. 4. Remove the growing vegetation. 4.3.4 Spillway 1. None of the defects noted warrant repair. 4.4 Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair the spalls throughout with concrete patching material (5 SF). 2. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (85 LF). 3. Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. (3 Ea.) 4. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 5. Fix spalls at pier 2, 6 and 8, and cracks on south downstream side of walkway with concrete patching material. (3 SF; 10 LF) 6. Joints at piers 2, 4, 6 and 8 need rerouting down the sides of the walkway on both the upstream side and downstream side, to keep the backer rod in place. The joint at pier 8 sealant on top of walkway needs to be removed and replaced. (8 LF; 3 LF) 4.5 Outlet Works 1. Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels (5 LF). 2. Continue to monitor the condition of the timbers and hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. 4.6 Exit Channel 1. The two bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. 2. Bushes and woody weeds in the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide. 3. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be remediated with rip rap or seeded. 4.8 Boat Dock 1. No repairs are required. 4.9 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad 1. No repairs are required. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 15 August 11, 2023 37

Item 2. 5.0 CLOSING This report has been prepared to provide the City of Dover with the results of observations and recommendations for remedial repairs that should be performed on the dam. This report is intended to provide the City of Dover with the necessary information to program on going repairs and maintenance of the dam. The report scope is limited to recommendations pertaining to the specific scope of the project and the location described. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 16 August 11, 2023 38

Item 2. APPENDIX A Site Location Map 39

Item 2. SITE VICINTY MAP ` NORTH Extent of Silver Lake SILVER LAKE DAM DOVER, DELAWARE 40

Item 2. END OF APPENDIX A 41

Item 2. APPENDIX B Inspection Photos 42

Item 2. Photo 1. Overall view of left upstream slope Photo 2. Overall view of right upstream slope 43

Item 2. Photo 3. Debris and trash left upstream slope. Photo 4. Upstream slope between boat ramp and spillway. Weeds growing between the riprap. 44

Item 2. Photo 5. Left upstream embankment left of riprap. Isolated bare spots. Photo 6. Left upstream embankment between dock and spillway. Large areas of bare ground. 45

Item 2. Photo 7. Boat ramp sign. Work Done: Previous 2-inch stump has been removed. Photo 8. Boat ramp in left upstream embankment. Work Done: Asphalt has been laid on left side to address Minor erosion. 46

Item 2. Photo 9. Boat ramp in left upstream embankment. Work Done: Asphalt has been laid on the right side to address minor erosion. Minor cracking in the boat ramp in previous crack repairs. Photo 10. Left upstream embankment at wingwall. Previously noted weeds have been removed but some growth remains. 47

Item 2. Photo 11. Right upstream slope. Areas of missing rip rap and bare soil. Photo 12. Right upstream slope, right of rip rap area. Large area of bare soil. 48

Item 2. Photo 13. Weeds in rip rap adjacent to right upstream wing wall. Areas of bare soil. Photo 14. Missing rip rap where right upstream wing wall meets water. 49

Item 2. Photo 15. Concrete slab in crest of right embankment. General view Photo 16. Alligator cracking in asphalt leading up to upper parking lot, left crest. 50

Item 2. Photo 17. Alligator cracking in asphalt coming down from upper parking lot on left crest, bare ground around bollards. Photo 18. Minor erosion, exposed roots and some mower disturbances left downstream slope. 51

Item 2. Photo 19. Bare ground around bollards and alligator cracking in pavement, left downstream slope. Photo 20. Mower disturbance under tree on left downstream slope. 52

Item 2. Photo 21. Evidence of ponding at the toe of the left downstream slope near the lower parking lot. Photo 22. Previously repaired area of erosion in left downstream slope below the parking lot. 53

Item 2. Photo 23. Light erosion in the area of previous erosion repair in left downstream embankment near parking lot. Photo 24. Weeds in rip rap and areas of bare slope in left downstream slope near fish ladder. 54

Item 2. Photo 25. Left downstream slope adjacent to fish ladder area. Top of rip rap has no.57 stone with adjacent weeds and areas of bare soil. Photo 26. Left downstream slope adjacent to fish ladder area. Stumps in fence. 55

Item 2. Photo 27. Bush growing near fish ladder sign, left downstream slope. Photo 28. Sidewalk undermined and mower disturbance in slope above sidewalk, left downstream slope. 56

Item 2. Photo 29. Left downstream slope adjacent to fish ladder area. Areas of bare soil near the crest. Photo 30. Left downstream embankment near fish ladder. Fence post near fish ladder has become undermined. Note erosion and exposed roots. 57

Item 2. Photo 31. Light weeds, light vegitation and stumps noted in right downstream slope. Photo 32. Erosion and exposed roots extend south toward the right exit channel. 58

Item 2. Photo 33. Overall view of left upstream wing wall. There are several small spalls in the wall. Photo 34. Overall view of left upstream wing wall. 59

Item 2. Photo 35. Typical pop-out on left and right upstream wing walls. Waterline abrasion typical throughout both wingwalls. Photo 36. The previous ziptie connection on the left upstream wingwall railing extension has been removed. There is an old railing post and bent base plate still in place. 60

Item 2. Photo 37. Overall view of right downstream wingwall. Note the diagonal cracking with efflorescence throughout the wall as well as the small delamination at the downstream end. Photo 38. Overall view of left downstream wingwall and fish ladder. 61

Item 2. Photo 39. Cracking and efflorescence throughout lower portion of the downstream wingwall. Photo 40. Failed crack repairs on the left downstream wingwall. 62

Item 2. Photo 41. Vertical crack near the 3rd fence post of the left downstream wingwall. Incipient spall and rust below the crack. Photo 42. The cap is missing from the top of the 5th railing post from the bottom of the downstream right wingwall. 63

Item 2. Photo 43. Work Done: The previously reopened crack in the right wingwall top has been repatched. Photo 44. The fish ladder exhibits a few missing bolts throughout. The chute adjacent to the ladder exhibits minor abrasion. 64

Item 2. Photo 45. Vegetation is growing through the fish ladder further downstream. Photo 46. The fish ladder exhibits broken welds and is leaking at the 3rd brace from upstream. 65

Item 2. Photo 47. Close up view of fish ladder leaks seen in photo 47. Photo 48. Overall view of the dam spillway. 66

Item 2. Photo 49. Typical condition of the dam spillway. Light scaling and exposed aggregate typical throughout. Photo 50. Close up view of spillway concrete condition. 67

Item 2. Photo 51. Work Done: The previous crack in the walkway above the right wingwall has been patched. It is reopening. Photo 52. Previous delamination repair in the span 1 walkway appears sound. 68

Item 2. Photo 53. Spall and protruding joint material at joint between spans 2 and 3 in walkway deck. Photo 54. Previous delamination repair in span 4 appears sound. 69

Item 2. Photo 55. Previous repair above pier 6 appears in good condition. Photo 56. Spall with exposed reinforcement in span 1 deck walkway underside. 70

Item 2. Photo 57. Multiple longitudinal cracks with efflorescence in span 2 walkway underside. Repairs in the east face of pier 1 exhibit hairline cracks. Photo 58. Longitudinal cracking with efflorescence in the span 3 walkway underside. Spall in the previous repair area on pier 2 in the background. 71

Item 2. Photo 59. Longitudinal cracking with efflorescence in the span 4 walkway underside. Photo 60. Longitudinal cracking with efflorescence in the span 5 walkway underside. 72

Item 2. Photo 61. Map cracking and efflorescence in repair areas in the span 7 walkway underside. Photo 62. Map cracking and efflorescence in span 9 walkway underside and adjacent pier 8 east face. 73

Item 2. Photo 63. Shallow spall with adjacent scaling in the span 10 walkway underside, above the fish ladder and adjacent chute. Photo 64. Sluice gate was opened and shown to be operational by City workers. 74

Item 2. Photo 65. Dam outlet control platform, general view. Photo 66. West face of outlet control platform. Several of the timber pilings exhibit moderate corrosion. 75

Item 2. Photo 67. North face of the outlet control platform. Isolated areas of moderate timber deterioration at waterline timbers. Photo 68. Downstream channel rip rap at spillway outlet. Rip rap appears to be in good condition. 76

Item 2. Photo 69. Work Done: The dock timbers have been replaced. Plastic bumpers have been installed 77

Item 2. END OF APPENDIX B 78

Item 2. APPENDIX C Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist 79

Item 2. Delaware Dam Safety Program Visual Inspection Checklist This general checklist should be used as an aid when examining all dams. This checklist may not, however, include all features or conditions found at a specific dam that are relevant to the safety of that dam. All features integral to the safety of the dam being examined should be inspected and their condition reported. TYPE OF INSPECTION: (Regular, Formal or Informal): REGULAR DE INSPECTION YEAR: 2023 DAM NAME: Silver Lake Dam NID ID: S137 STATE ID: DE00031 LOCATION: St. Jones River, Dover DE OWNER: The City of Dover, DE OPERATOR: DATE OF INSPECTION: July 6, 2023 RESERVOIR INFORMATION Normal Reservoir Elevation (ft): N/A Reservoir Elevation at time of inspection (ft): N/A WEATHER CONDITIONS (including recent rainfall): Sunny, 85 degrees F Page | 1 80

INSPECTION PERSONNEL Item 2. Delaware Licensed Professional Engineer(s): Name Affiliation Kim Charles Westen, P.E. Remington & Vernick Engineers William Castle, PE WJ Castle & Associates Assisted By: Name Affiliation Christopher Gilbert, P.E. Remington & Vernick Engineers Christopher Keller, P.E. Remington & Vernick Engineers Richard Parisi, PE WJ Castle & Associates Austin Goldsteain WJ Castle & Associates DNREC Dam Safety Program Representative(s): Name Affiliation Janice Shute, P.E. DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship Dam Owner Representative(s): Name Affiliation Paul Thompson Dover DHSDUWPHQWRI:DWHU :DVWHZDWHU Others: Name Affiliation Page | 2 81

Item 2. 2008 DELAWARE DAM INVENTORY INFORMATION (provided by DNREC if available): HISTORY Date Constructed: 1944 Dates(s) Reconstructed: N/A Designer: Albright & Friel, Inc. Consulting Engineers Constructed By: N/A Owner & Address: The City of Dover, DE 19903 Owner/Operator present during inspection (yes or no): Yes PREVIOUSINSPECTIONS Last Inspection: May 19, 2022 Last Regular Inspection: June 9 & 16, 2021 Phase I Inspection: January 1978 Last Formal Inspection: May 19, 2022 List all recommendations from previous inspection reports and note whether those items have been completed: Completed Repairs: 1. The boat ramp dock timbers have been replaced. 2. The previously observed vegetative growth throughout the areas of embankment rip rap has been controlled, though growth is still occurring. 3. A previously observed tree stump adjacent to the boat ramp sign on the dam crest has been removed. 4. A previous crack in the top of the downstream right wingwall has been repaired. 5. A previous crack near Span 1 of the concrete walkway deck has been repaired. Immediate Repairs No immediate repairs required. Non-Immediate Repairs Upstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. Continue to monitor – most weeds were removed but some new growth has occurred. 2. The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment. Continue to monitor – some trash was noted during the inspection. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. Not completed. 4. The small stump near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Completed – Stump removed. 5. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. Not completed. 6. Asphalt should be placed along the lower right edge of the boat ramp in a similar fashion to other areas of the slab. Completed. 7. Depressions in the crest should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 8. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. Not completed. 9. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope can remain provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 10. The missing rip rap where the right upstream wing wall meets the water should be replaced. Not completed. Dam Crest 1. Depressions that were noted in previous inspections were not noted. Continue to monitor. 2. Consideration should be given to repair the cracks and depressed asphalt pavement. Not completed. Page | 3 82

Item 2. Downstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. Continue to monitor – most weeds were removed but some new growth has occurred. 2. Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. Not completed. 3. The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. Not completed. 4. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 5. The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. Continue to monitor. 6. The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. Not completed. 7. Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. Continue to monitor/not completed. Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy (27 LF). Not completed. 2. Repair the random pop-outs throughout with non-shrink grout (4 SF). Not completed. 3. Repair the area of moderate to severe scaling at the extreme upstream end of the right wingwall with epoxy concrete (25 CF) Not Completed 4. Field measure, cut and re-adjust the rotated fence extension on all wingwalls (195 LF) Not completed. 5. Clean and tighten the railing base plate hardware. Replace any damaged pieces (40 EA) Not completed Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (52 LF). Not completed. 2. Repair the delamination on the right downstream wingwall with concrete patching material. Not completed Fish Ladder 1. Repair the leaking joints. Not completed. 2. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north (0.17 LF) Not completed. 3. Replace the missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware (2 EA) Not completed 4. Remove the growing vegetation. Not completed. Spillway 1. None of the defects noted warrant repair. Continue to monitor. Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair the spalls throughout with non-shrink grout (8 SF). Not completed. 2. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (206 LF). Not completed. 3. Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. Not completed. 4. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. Not completed. Outlet Works 1. Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels (5 LF). Not completed. 2. Continue to monitor the condition of the t i m b e r s & hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. Not completed. Page | 4 83

Item 2. Exit Channel 1. The rip rap, other smaller stone and the two bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. Not completed. 2. Bushes and woody weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Not completed. 3. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be remediated with rip rap or seeded. Not completed. Boat Dock 1. Repair the northwest dock pile that exhibits 40% section loss. Completed – Dock Replaced. 2. Remove and replace rotted stringers that touch the concrete boat ramp and any rotten stringers that are hidden by the decking. Completed – Dock Replaced. EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN (Required for all High and Significant Hazard dams) Date of Approved Plan: N/A Date of Plan Revision: N/A Is the notification flowchart complete and current? (If the notification flow chart is not complete and current, all modifications, corrections, and additions must be made and replacement pages submitted with this report) Is inundation mapping or a description included? N/A Are emergency materials and equipment identified? N/A When was the plan last tested? N/A DOWNSTREAMHAZARD CLASSIFICATIONS Present Hazard Classification: High Changes in Downstream Land Use and Habitation: No Is present classification appropriate? Yes OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Date of Operation and Maintenance Plan: N/A Are instructions adequate? N/A Do operating personnel follow instructions? N/A What are operating personnel capabilities? N/A Page | 5 84

EXAMINATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS Item 2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE Embankment Material: Earth Cutoff Type: Unknown Impervious Core: Unknown Internal Drainage System: Drainage system outlets were not observed which may indicate one is not present. Movement (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment): None observed. Junctions with Abutments or Embankments: Miscellaneous: Good condition with some erosion around the previously placed rip rap along the wing walls. CREST Vertical Alignment: Good Horizontal Alignment: Good Surface Cracks: None observed Settlement: None observed. Unusual Conditions: None observed. UPSTREAMSLOPE Slope (Estimate) (H:V): 3H:1V Trees, Undesirable Growth or Debris, Animal Burrows: Upstream Slope in good to very good condition except as noted below. No animal burrows observed. 1. The riprap on both left and right slopes appeared to be in good condition, with some small to medium weeds noted. 2. Minor trash and debris accumulation was noted in the water at the end of the left upstream embankment. 3. Some small to moderate bare spots were noted in the upstream right embankment approximately 100 feet right of the wing wall. 4. New grass seed in areas adjacent to boat ramp should be monitored for growth Sloughing, Subsidence or Depressions: None observed. Slope Protection: Rip rap at water line was in good condition with some weeds growing between rip rap stones. Some rip rap was noted to be missing about 100 feet from the right wing wall and where the right wing wall meets the water. Surface Cracks or Movement at Toe: None Observed. Unusual Conditions: None Observed. DOWNSTREAM SLOPE Slope (Estimate) (H:V): Variable 2H:1V to flatter than 5H:1V Trees, Undesirable Growth or Debris, Animal Burrows: Downstream Slope in good condition except as noted below. No animal burrows observed. Page | 6 85

Item 2. 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap and No. 57 stone ground cover should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. Any bare spots on either side should be covered with new grass. 3. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Sloughing, Subsidence or Depressions: None Observed. Surface Cracks or Movement at Toe: None Observed. Seepage: None Observed. External Drainage System (Ditches, Trenches, Blanket): None Observed. Condition Around Outlet Structure: Stilling Basin at toe of concrete spillway is in good condition. No signs of seepage, boils or undermining of the concrete spillway. Unusual Conditions: None Observed. ABUTMENTS AND TOE AREA Erosion at Contract: None Observed. Seepage or Wet Area Along Contract: None Observed. Signs of Movement: None Observed. Depressions, Sinkholes: None Observed. Unusual Conditions: None Observed. SEEPAGE OR TOE DRAIN FLOW MEASUREMENTS Location Estimated Flow Color (Turbidity) OTHER CONDITIONS/OBSERVATIONS: NONE Page | 7 86

EXAMINATION OF SPILLWAYS AND OUTLET WORKS Item 2. TYPE(S) AND DESCRIPTION OF SPILLWAY(S) Primary: Concrete Dam Spillway with base flow chute with flash boards on west side of spillway Secondary (auxiliary): None Emergency: Combined with Primary Spillway Low Level Outlet (flashboards, operable gates, etc.): Wood riser structure with sluice gate Other: FOR EACH SPILLWAY THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS MUST BE EXAMINED WHERE APPROPRIATE ENTRANCECHANNEL Description: Cast in place concrete wing walls. Vegetation (Trees, Bushes): None observed. Debris: None observed. Channel Side-Slope Stability: Concrete Wing walls were observed to be vertical and in good to very good condition. Protection/Erosion: Minor erosion around existing rip rap along left and right wingwalls. Unusual Conditions: None observed. SPILLWAY CREST Description: Concrete Condition of Material: 1. Water was breaching overtop the crest of the spillway; therefore, could not clearly see the concrete surface. 2. 2. The mudline is protected with approximately 1’ to 1 ½’ nominal size stone rip rap except, between spans 2 through 4 in which the mudline is sand and silt. Signs of Movement: None observed. Joints: Good condition. Unusual Conditions: None observed. DROP BOX: N/A Description: N/A Condition of Material: N/A Signs of Movement: N/A Joints: N/A Floor: N/A Unusual Conditions: N/A Page | 8 87

Item 2. SPILLWAY WING WALLS Description: Concrete Condition of Material: 1. There is a 4.0’L up to 1.0”W horizontal crack 5.0’ south of the north end of the left wingwall, 1.4’ above the mudline. 2. Both wingwalls have random pop-outs up to 3.0”D throughout 3. The left and right wingwalls exhibits abrasion up to ½”D at the waterline and a 3.5’L fine vertical crack 10.0’ south of the north end. 4. The crack repair at the top of the left wingwall at midspan exhibits a 2.0’L fine vertical crack. Also, the crack repair under the walkway on the left wingwall exhibits a 2.53’L fine vertical crack with efflorescence. 5. The right wingwall exhibits a 6.0”H x 2.0’L x 1.0”D area of heavy abrasion with exposed aggregate 1.0’ above the mudline and 10.0’ south of the north end of the right wingwall. 6. The upstream face of the spillway is protected by 1.0 to 1.5’ nominal size stone riprap for the full length of the spillway with parts of the riprap being silted over. 7. The left wingwall exhibits a 0.6’H x full length x ¼”D band of abrasion at the waterline. 8. The upstream face is in good condition with areas of mild abrasion up to ¼” deep (D). Signs of Movement: None observed. Joints: See above Drains: See above Unusual Conditions: None observed. DOWNSTREAM APRON Description: Concrete Condition of Material: Apron was partially observable due to water flow and could not be fully observed. Signs of Movement: Could not be observed due to water flow. Unusual Conditions: Light scaling and exposed aggregate typical throughout. CULVERTS Description: 24-inch diameter cast iron pipe from low level outlet works penetrates downstream apron. Condition of Material: Observable portions appear to be in good condition. Joints: Could not observe. Recommend next inspection include video inspection of inside of the pipe. Signs of Movement: None observed. Seepage: None observed. Location Estimated Flow Turbidity Unusual Conditions: Light scaling at interface with spillway. Page | 9 88

Item 2. TRASH RACKS Description: N/A Condition of Material: N/A Unusual Conditions: N/A CHUTES Description: Base flow concrete chute located on west side of downstream apron with wood flash boards. Condition of Material: The chute appears to be in good condition. Signs of Movement: None observed. Unusual Conditions: The chute exhibits light abrasion/scaling with exposed aggregate, similar to the downstream apron. STILLING BASIN Description: 6 to 18-inch size stone riprap Condition of Material: Good with no signs of seepage and boils observed to be present. Signs of Movement: None observed. Erosion: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed. EXIT CHANNEL Vegetation (Trees, Bushes): Some minor vegetation was observed to be growing in riprap that lined the entrance channel at the end of the wing walls for the downstream apron. Debris: None observed. Channel Side-Slope Stability: Good Condition. No signs of stability problems. Erosion: Some shear erosion and bare spots noted. Larger areas of erosion were observed on the right bank. Unusual Conditions: None observed. LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description: Wood riser structure with sluice gate. Condition: 1. The trash racks around the perimeter of the outlet works and the lack of water clarity prevented the diver from inspecting the interior portions of outlet works. 2. The sluice gate was successfully opened and closed by personnel with the City of Dover. 3. The wooden outlet structure is in satisfactory condition. There is a light covering of soft marine growth and minor checks in the timber elements with up to 1/16”D penetration with an awl. Page | 10 89

Item 2. 4. The timber structure’s galvanized hardware is in poor condition below the waterline with up to 30% section loss. 5. The floor slab exhibits minor abrasion with exposed aggregate and was covered with silt up to 0.17’H at the time of inspection. 6. The outlet work piles exhibit 1/8”W checking. The diver was unable to verify the previously noted 50% section loss at the right downstream pile due to lack of access, but some evidence of pile section loss was observed through the gaps in the trash rack fencing. 7. The outlet works is armored with riprap around the perimeter and the riprap is covered with silt up to 0.25’H. Trash Rack: The outlet works trash rack on the north face exhibit an opening between the two panels for 0.17’H x 5.0’L. Leakage: None observed. Location Estimated Flow Unusual Conditions: None observed. Was the low-level outlet operated during the inspection? Sluice gate was opened and closed by the City of Dover. Were there difficulties operating the low-level outlet? No When was the low-level outlet last operated and did this conform with the Operation and Maintenance procedures? Unknown Miscellaneous: None STILLING BASIN FOR LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description: Combined with stilling basin for combined principal and emergency spillways. See description above. Condition of Material: 1. The exit channel was observed to be in good condition. 2. The banks of the channel were lined with 1 to 2-foot diameter size riprap observed to be in good condition. 3. Several bare spots and some weeds were noted in the landscape areas directly adjacent to the riprap along the banks of the channel. Signs of Movement: None observed. Erosion: None observed. Unusual Conditions: None observed. EXIT CHANNEL FOR LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description (Trees, Bushes): N/A Debris: N/A Channel Side-Slope Stability: N/A Slope Protection Erosion: N/A Unusual Conditions: N/A Page | 11 90

Item 2. EXAMINATION OF CONCRETE AND MASONRY DAMS DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE Type of Dam (Gravity, Arch, etc.): Internal Drainage System: Movement (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment): Miscellaneous: UPSTREAM FACE Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking: Location Orientation Length Width Type DOWNSTREAM FACE Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking: Location Orientation Length Width Type Leakage through Dam (Location and Estimated Flow): CREST Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking Location Orientation Length Width Type Signs of Movement: Differential Movement (Joint or Crack Separation or Offset): GALLERIES Cracking Location Orientation Length Width Type Differential Movement (Joint or Crack Separation): Leakage into Galleries (Location and Estimated Flow): Condition of Gallery Drains: Page | 12 91

Item 2. FOUNDATION Condition of Rock or Concrete Lining: Cracking: Signs of Movement: Seepage (Location and Estimated Flow): ABUTMENTS AND TOE AREA Seepage or Wet Areas: Signs of Movement: Cracking: Erosion: Unusual Conditions: Page | 13 92

Item 2. EXAMINATION OF OTHER FEATURES INSTRUMENTATION (Monumentation/Surveys, Observation Wells, Weirs, Piezometers, etc.) location, condition: No Instrumentations except for reservoir staff gauge was present. (A separate report including instrument readings, condition of instruments, observations, and conclusions based upon the collected data should be attached.) RESERVOIR Slopes: Good condition. Sedimentation: Could not be observed. Unusual Conditions Which Affect Dam: Non observed. Other Unusual Conditions: None observed. APPURTENANT STRUCTURES Description and Condition of Each: Fish Ladder 1. The stainless-steel fish ladder was in fair condition. The top and side seem to be starting to rust. 2. The fish ladder steel support members and hardware exhibit moderate corrosion with up to 10% section loss. 3. The fish ladder is leaking from most of the joints. 4. The third fish ladder steel brace from north exhibits a 2.0”L x ¼”W broken weld splice. 5. The horizontal beams at the bottom of the ladder are in good condition and painted. There is algae on the bottom vertical columns. 6. On the top of the fish ladder, two nuts are missing on the west side and one bolt is missing on the east side. 7. Moss growing on top and side of middle section of the fish ladder. Vegetation is growing through the ladder near the bottom. Pedestrian Walkway 1. The concrete surfaces below water exhibit abrasion up to ½”D with exposed aggregate on all piers. 2. The underside of the deck in span 1 exhibits a 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 2.0”D spall with exposed and corroded rebar and midspan. 3. The east face of pier 1 exhibits several fine vertical cracks within the repaired area. 4. The underside of the deck in span 2 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 6.0’L x 1/8”W with rust staining and efflorescence. 5. The east face of pier 2 exhibits a shallow spall 0.3’H x 3.0’L x 0.08’D along the underside of the deck and within the failed repair area. Page | 14 93

Item 2. 6. The underside of the deck in span 3 exhibits several 6.0’L x 1/8”W longitudinal cracks with efflorescence in the failed repair area. 7. The underside of the deck in span 3 exhibits minor honeycombing. 8. The underside of the deck in span 4 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 10.0’L x 1/8”W with efflorescence. 9. The underside of the deck at the east end of span 5 exhibits a 4.0’L fine longitudinal crack with efflorescence. 10. The repair on the north nose of pier 5 exhibits corner abrasion. 11. The underside of the deck in span 6 exhibits several fine to 1/16”W longitudinal cracks up to 3.0’L with efflorescence. 12. The underside of the deck in span 7 exhibits minor map cracking with efflorescence 13. The northeast corner of pier 7 exhibits 0.42’H x 0.17’ x 0.83’D edge abrasion. 14. The west end of the underside of the deck in span 9 exhibits map cracking with efflorescence. 15. The underside of the deck in span 10 exhibits abrasion with exposed aggregate for 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 0.13’D. 16. Posts and railings have lost galvanization and have section loss in sections of rails. The downstream top railing tee is rusted through at pier 4 and between pier 9 and the end wingwall. At pier 2 on the downstream side top railing, there is a bolt extruding out. There is also a bolt missing on the downstream top railing side. The previous repaired spalls on the topside of the walkway appear to be in good condition. 17. The downstream side of the walkway has hairline cracks at the West end, on span 1, 1.5’L, and a crack 2’L on span 2 with a spall starting to form, and a 2’L crack from a previous repair that water has seeped through onto the side of the walkway. 18. A previously reported crack in the span 1 walkway surface has been repaired. 19. On the topside of the walkway at span 1, the previously repaired crack has failed on the north side, 1.5’L. 20. On the side of the walkway at pier 2 the backer rod seems to be exposed and joint failing and previous patch failing. There is a 1’x1’ spall at pier 2, on the downstream side of the walkway. 21. There is a small hairline crack between pier 1 & 2 and previous cracks routed and sealed are in fair condition. 22. Joints at pier 2, 4 and 6 sealants are in good condition on the top side of the walkway. 23. Between pier 6 & 7 on the top side there is a crack in fair condition. 24. There is a 1’x1’ spall at pier 8 at the joint, on the downstream side of the walkway. 25. The Joint at pier 8 is failing and starting to peal up. Page | 15 94

Item 2. RECOMMENDATIONS THE FOLLOWING REPAIRS SHOULD BE MADE IMMEDIATELY: No immediate repairs required. THE FOLLOWING NON-IMMEDIATE REPAIRS/IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE: Upstream Slope 1. Continue to control the vegetative growth in the rip rap with herbicide. 2. Continue to remove trash and debris that accumulates at the waterline. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. 4. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. 5. Continue to monitor the embankments for any depressions. 6. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. 7. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope can remain provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 8. The missing rip rap where the right upstream wing wall meets the water should be replaced. Dam Crest 1. The crest appears to be in good condition. The crest should continue to be monitored for any depressions as indicated in previous inspections. 2. Consideration should be given to repave the asphalt roadway on the dam crest. Downstream Slope 1. Continue to control the vegetative growth in the rip rap with herbicide. 2. Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. 3. The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. 4. Consideration should be given to repave the asphalt roadway on the dam crest. 5. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 6. The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. 7. The rip rap appears to be sparce or may have been filled in the areas adjacent to the fish ladder on the left downstream slope. Additionally, rip rap has been placed only along a portion of the right downstream wing wall and appears to be sparce at the toe of the right downstream wing wall. A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be added and/or replaced. 8. The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. 9. Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy (19 LF). 2. Repair the random pop-outs throughout with concrete patching material (4 SF). 3. Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (8 SF) 4. The upstream right-wing wall from where the section loss starts into the water should be repaired with epoxy concrete. (25 CF) Page | 16 95

Item 2. 5. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (195 LF) 6. On the right upstream wing wall move old railing system up, tighten bracket so new extended railing is aligned with post. 7. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 8. Rusted bolts in the baseplate should be cleaned and galvanized and rusted washers and nuts to be replaced. (32 Ea., 40 Ea.) Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (52 LF). 2. Delamination location should be repaired on the right downstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (2 SF) 3. The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the SW concrete wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2021 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking, and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Petrographic testing and a test pit behind the wing wall is highly recommended for the rust stain and water leakage at the noted crack/spall on the right wing wall, as it appears to be getting worse. A reinforcement corrosion assessment is also recommended for the rebar that is rusting along the noted crack. 4. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (239 LF) Fish Ladder 1. Repair the leaking joints. 2. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north (0.17 LF) 3. Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware. 4. Remove the growing vegetation. Spillway 1. None of the defects noted warrant repair. Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair the spalls throughout with concrete patching material (5 SF). 2. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (85 LF). 3. Repair topside cracks on Span 1with concrete patching material. (4 LF) 4. Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. (3 Ea.) 5. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 6. Fix spalls at pier 2, 6 and 8, and cracks on south downstream side of walkway with concrete patching material. (3 SF; 10 LF) 7. Joints at piers 2, 4, 6 and 8 need rerouting down the sides of the walkway on both the upstream side and downstream side, to keep the backer rod in place. The joint at pier 8 sealant on top of walkway needs to be removed and replaced. (8 LF; 3 LF) Outlet Works 1. Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels (5 LF). 2. Continue to monitor the condition of the hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. Exit Channel 1. The rip rap, other smaller stone and the two bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. 2. Bushes and woody weeds in the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide. 3. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be remediated with rip rap or seeded. Page | 17 96

Item 2. Boat Dock 1. No repairs are required at this time. 2. Refasten end rub rail at NE side. (4 LF) Concrete Slab on Grade Pad 1. No repairs are required. THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS SHOULD BE COMPLETED: 1. Area where new grass seed has been planted should be monitored for growth 2. Weeds growing from the joints between the rip rap stones should be removed and maintained to prevent further growth. THE FOLLOWING ENGINEERING ANALYSIS/STUDIES SHOULD BE PERFORMED: (X) Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis YES (Currently being prepared by RVE) ( ) Embankment Stability Analysis (X) Dam Failure Analysis/Inundation Mapping YES (Currently being prepared by RVE) (X) Other: Structural design of concrete walkway over concrete spillway ( ) None Page | 18 97

Item 2. CONDITION ASSESSMENT Silver Lake Dam was personally inspected by me and was found to be in the following condition (select one only): Ƒ SATISFACTORY No existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions (static, hydrologic, seismic) in accordance with the applicable regulatory criteria or tolerable risk guidelines. X FAIR No existing dam safety deficiencies are recognized for normal loading conditions. Rare or extreme hydrologic and/or seismic events may result in a dam safety deficiency. Risk may be in the range to take further action. Ƒ POOR A dam safety deficiency is recognized for loading conditions which may realistically occur. Remedial action is necessary. POOR may also be used when uncertainties exist as to critical analysis parameters which identify a potential dam safety deficiency. Further investigations and studies are necessary. Ƒ UNSATISFACTORY A dam safety deficiency is recognized that requires immediate or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. Delaware Registered Professional Engineer Performing Condition Assessment: Name Kim Charles Westen DE PE License Number 22393 Affiliation gency (Agency/Company) Remington & Vernick Engineers Signature Date August 11, 2023 Delaware Dam Safety Program Concurrence with Condition Assessment: Name Janice L. Shute DE PE License Number 10600 Signature Date November 7, 2023 Dam Owner Acknowledgement of Condition Assessment: Name Jason A. y Lyon, P.E. Title Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services Signature Date 07 November 23 Page | 19 98

Item 2. END OF APPENDIX C 99

Item 2. APPENDIX D Cost Estimate 100

Item 2. Appendix D - Cost Estimate Item Description Estimated Cost Rip Rap Installation Clearing and Grubbing $ 1,750 Geotextiles $ 1,250 R-5 Rip Rap $ 10,000 Turbidity Curtain $ 8,750 Stabilize Slope Grading $ 3,500 Borrow, Type F $ 950 Topsoil (6" Depth) $ 4,500 Streambank Seed Mix, Seeding $ 2,900 Rehabilitate Piers and Walkway Shallow Concrete Spall/Delamination/Pop-out Repair $ 500 Epoxy Injection Crack Repair $ 4,000 Wing Walls Shallow Concrete Spall/Delamination/Pop-out Repair $ 1,600 Epoxy Injection Crack Repair $ 4,800 Repair Right Upstream Wing Wall Section Loss with Epoxy Concrete $ 8,550 Petrographic Testing $ 2,000 Test Pit $ 2,400 Rust Spot Repair* $ 5,000 Fish Ladder Repair Repair Leaking Joints $ 3,250 Repair Broken Weld at 3rd Brace From North $ 2,500 *It is assumed that the rust spot on the wing wall can be repaired by epoxy injection and that no repair to the rebar is necessary. If petrographic testing indicates otherwise, the cost to repair the rebar and to fill in the hole could be much higher. Pricing assumes all for the work will be completed together. Individual selections of work may increase cost. 101

Item 2. END OF APPENDIX D 102

Item 1. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole – Safety, Advisory & Transportation Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager DATE SUBMITTED: 11/21/2023 PREPARED BY: David Hugg SUBJECT: 2024 Transportation Priorities REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: David Hugg and Marilyn Smith (MPO) EXHIBITS: 2024 Transportation Priorities List EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a TIMETABLE: December 12, 2023, CCOW; January 8, 2024, Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of 2024 Transportation Priorities BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Each year the City of Dover prepares a prioritized list of transportation projects for consideration by DelDOT and the Dover/Kent County MPO. Projects are organized by category classification to better indicate how these projects address important needs in the city. The list includes 18 projects: 4 are primarily economic development projects; 7 are safety and capacity projects; 3 are transportation system enhancements; 1 is shown as completed, and 3 are recommended for deferral at this time. Two projects are new to the list this year: sidewalks on N. State Street and downtown strategic plan projects. The list and schedule dates were reviewed by the MPO Executive Director and by staff as appropriate. Following approval by the Committee and Council, the recommended 2024 Transportation Priorities will be sent to the Secretary of Transportation (DelDOT) and the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for consideration and ranking for funding. 103

Item 1. For consideration by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee CITY OF DOVER 2024 TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES DRAFT NOVEMBER 20, 2024 Approved by Committee on _________________ Each year the City of Dover prepares a prioritized list of transportation projects for consideration by DelDOT and the Dover/Kent County MPO. We employed a category classification format to indicate how these projects address important needs in the city. The first project in each grouping is our highest priority. The 2024 list follows. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES: Garrison Connector This is the City’s highest priority request, providing a direct connection between the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park and the Route 1 interchange at N. Little Creek Road (Route 8). A direct connection from the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center to the SR 1 Interchange at N. Little Creek Road has been Dover’s highest priority transportation project request for several years. The city is working with a number of business development opportunities at GOBTP that are dependent on alternatives to existing access which is not conducive to efficient freight transportation. Access to this business center involves using local roads for the movement of goods and materials and for employee access. The list of permissible uses of the GOBTC continues to be expanded to include warehousing, distribution and logistics support, and other uses, a rapidly growing cluster in the Central Delaware Region. The Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study (Dover/Kent County MPO, July 2021) reinforced the potential for significant employment growth in the Garrison Oak - Central Delaware Aviation Complex portion of the city. For these opportunities to be realized a complete business-to-business connector serving the area is essential. The Garrison Oak portion is recommended as Phase I of that program. The study outlined scope, existing conditions, primary alignments and design, and costs for a multi-phased project. This roadway system is consistent with and supportive of the future growth and development plans set forth in both the City and County Comprehensive Plans. The project is included in the FY 23-28 CTP. Preliminary engineering is scheduled for FY 2025 and FY 2026. As business activities are realized in GOBTP, the city will honor the original commitment with DelDOT for analyses and potential improvements to White Oak Road adjacent to the park. We are investigating the TIIF eligibility of this segment. 104

Item 1. Business-Business Connector Roads (N. Little Creek Road to Horsepond Road; Horsepond Road, Lafferty Lane and Starlifter Drive) These roads were priority requests to DelDOT and the Dover/Kent County MPO in 2022 reflecting the completion of regional freight movement and air cargo studies by the MPO. These roads are a continuation of the Garrison Oak Connector project, extending a business focused limited access connection from the SR1/N. Little Creek Road interchange south to S. Little creek Road (Phase II); improvements to Horsepond Road and Lafferty Lane to facilitate imminent business development (Phase III); and an extension of Starlifter Road (Phase IV) to facilitate the development of the East Dover Employment Center as outlined in City and County Comprehensive Plans. These improvements increase safety by taking industrial traffic off local streets, improve regional freight access, and support the long- term viability of the East Dover Industrial Center, the Kent County Aeropark and the Central Delaware Aviation Complex., The city urges that initial funding for these improvements, including planning, engineering, ROW, and construction. be approved as soon as possible. These phases are not currently in the CTP. Loockerman Street and Forest Avenue Intersection Improvements This project was requested by the city to help spur redevelopment activities in the Downtown Development District while improving traffic circulation and safety. It was identified as a needed improvement through the Restoring Central Dover Study and the Westside Redevelopment Study conducted in 2001. It is complementary to the Capital Gateway Study and would result in improved traffic circulation, a more pedestrian friendly zone at the railroad crossing, and create a new gateway into the Downtown. Work on this project has been deferred due to opposition to the design option (roundabout). It will be reviewed again as part of the DDP’s proposed “Capital City 2030” Downtown Master Plan. The DDP should request a study as part of the MPO’s FY2025 UPWP. It is not funded and not included in the current CTP. Downtown Strategic Plan Improvements (New Project) MOSAIC (Downtown Master Plan planning consultant) has recommended to the DDP a number of items for consideration. Many of the short-term recommendations involve painted crosswalks (2 have been completed), curb extensions, increased walkability, and signage improvements. Long term recommendations include physical changes to crosswalks and curbs, roadway modification, signalization, raised street beds, and possible connectivity/mobility improvements (subject of an ongoing MPO directed study). As the Downtown Master Plan evolves these projects will be more fully detailed and costed. Specific projects are not yet clearly defined. These improvements are not yet prioritized. SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITIES College Road – Kenton Road to McKee Road This high priority project consists of pavement rehabilitation, construction of shoulders and sidewalks on both sides of College Road, intersection and drainage improvements, bike safety improvements, utility relocations and complete pavement. This roadway serves as a critical east-west connector. The project addresses transportation and safety issues for all modes and users. It is very narrow, poorly drained, and 105

Item 1. unsafe for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. It is scheduled for design starting in FY 2023 with ROW acquisition in FY 2025 and FY 2026 and construction in FY2027. ROW acquisition will be difficult. Sidewalks within the Walk Zone of Dover High School Critical gaps in the sidewalk system near Dover High School remain, including along Mifflin Road and Route 8 on the south side of the roadway traveling west. This project incorporates recommendations from the Capital Gateway Study and Senator Bikeway Plan, as well as a more recent assessment completed by the MPO in July 2023. The city identifies this as a high priority safety concern in this area. The city urges funding through the statewide safety improvement program at the earliest opportunity. N. Governors/N. Bradford/Ross Street intersection (6-Way) This project resulted from several traffic accidents and related safety issues at what is a six-way intersection of local streets and N. Governors Avenue, a high-volume collector/minor arterial through the city. Traffic volumes, flow, safety, and design options were studied by DelDOT with a recommendation for construction of a roundabout being undertaken in 2024. CTF funds have been pledged to this project. Sidewalk Improvements to N. State Street from Division Street to N. Governor’s Avenue (New Project) State Street is one of the oldest developed portions of the city, with mature trees, stately homes on well landscaped lots, and a complete sidewalk and curb system. But the maturity of the trees and relative age of curbs and sidewalks bring problems associated with tree roots and lifted walks, crumbled curbs, ADA conflicts, etc. The city recently replaced a water line in N. State Street but was not able, due to funding requirements, to effectively assess and remedy these issues. We are proposing adding this project to the DelDOT TAP program to examine alternatives that would minimize tree removal while improving pedestrian safety. West Street Improvements from New Burton Road to the Transit Center This project widens West Street to urban collector standards and includes bike lanes and sidewalks connections to the Dover Transit Hub. The project was identified by the Dover/Kent County MPO as part of their pedestrian studies. West Street is an important connection for the DART transit services to the city. Improvements were made in 2018 with the completion of a multi-use path along West Street. The completion of the new Dover Post Office increases the importance of this project. Planning and engineering are scheduled to begin in FY 2025, ROW in FY 2026, and construction in FY 2027. McKee Road/Saulsbury Road Study The Dover/Kent County MPO completed in May 2023 a capacity study of the McKee/Saulsbury corridor from the US13/Scarborough Road intersection to the POW-MIA Parkway/US13 intersection. This initiative examined potential capacity expansion as a result of past and future development, as well the impact of improvements such as those at the Route 8/Route 15 intersection. Improvements under possible consideration include the addition of through traffic lanes and turn lanes. The city supports this proactive study to identify future growth-related impacts. Saulsbury Road/Route 8 Corridor Plan Improvements (SR8 & SR 15 Intersection) – Under Construction 106

Item 1. This project involved improvements at Route 8 and Route 15, including turn and through lane improvements to improve safety, better manage access, reduce congestion, and provide better traffic flow. Construction is nearing completion on these improvements. The City has also requested that the MPO further study the conditions along Route 8 west of Kenton Road to the City’s westerly limits. This study should be part of Phase 2 of the East/West Freight Route Study. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Kings Highway/White Oak Road and Route 13 Intersection The intersection of Kings Highway/White Oak Road/US 13 continues to need improvements to meet acceptable levels of service (now functioning at LOE “E”). Extensive adjacent commercial development, along with nearby recreational and institutional uses have added traffic and access burdens to this intersection. Nearby multi-use paths contribute to increased bike and pedestrian traffic as well. This intersection was identified in the DelDOT Transportation Operations Management Plan as a congestion hotspot in Kent County. Recommendations included adding a two-stage pedestrian crossing system and revising the intersection at White Oak Road and Centre Drive to provide additional access to US 13. The revised plans for Senator Bikeway include a crossing of US 13 at this intersection; this enhanced bicycle crossing must be included in the planning and engineering of this project. This intersection is also a gateway to downtown. This project is included in the FY-25-30 draft CTP spend plan with Project Development in FY 2027. Banning Street/Clarence Street/Forest Street Connector The Dover/Kent County MPO completed a study assessing the construction of a connector from North Street at the Banning Street signal running along Clarence Street, extending north to Forest Street. This study is an update to a study of the transportation needs in this area from about 2000. It includes consideration of flooding, traffic flow, and intersection alignments near Lincoln and Forest Streets. This new project is included as a placeholder pending completion of the Study and development of alignments and costs, and will to be included in the FY 25-30 draft CTP spend plan with Project Development in FY 2027 US 13 Sidewalk Construction Construction of multi-use paths and complete sidewalk systems continues to be a city priority. Construction of sidewalks is required when properties are developed or redeveloped but significant sections of the sidewalk system are either missing or in poor condition. This program is ongoing and funded through the state’s sidewalk safety improvement program and included in the FY2022-2028 CTP. The MPO conducted an inventory and assessment of the existing sidewalk system throughout the US13 commercial corridor. Design is complete on some crosswalks/curbs, ramps, and signal pedestals; construction has been completed in some areas and is ongoing. The MPO applied for the Reconnecting Communities & Neighborhoods grant, which includes design and engineering for US 13 from Scarborough Road to Puncheon Run Connector, as well as Bay Road from US 13 to Puncheon Run Connector. Grant announcements are expected in Spring 2024. COMPLETED PROJECTS (From 2023 List) Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades, Kenton Road to Chestnut Grove Road 107

Item 1. This project involved improvements to Kenton Road from Route 8 to Chestnut Grove Road, including drainage, shoulders, travel lanes, bike lanes, traffic calming, and related improvements. Construction is complete. PROJECTS TO BE DEFERRED OR REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension This project was part of a proposed series of service road recommendations serving the commercial activities on both sides of US13. As a result of concerns about the feasibility of the project expressed by DelDOT, the project has been removed from the DelDOT CTP, FY21-26 spending plan. The city encourages continued consideration of other service road improvement opportunities on both the west and east side of US 13 even if the original design is not achievable. Route 8/Hazelettville Connector (Commerce Way to SR8) A north/south connector from Route 8 to Commerce Way in the Enterprise Business Park was identified in the Route 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study to encourage economic development and provide traffic circulation options in this heavily traveled corridor. The project proposed a new connector road with 2 travel lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks or multi-use paths for pedestrians. Preliminary alignments had been determined as part of development activity on Route 8. A recent MPO study indicated that there was no immediate need for this connection suggesting its deferral until a later date. US 13 Service Roads/Scarborough Road C&D Roads This project examined the feasibility of construction of a collector and distribution system of service roads parallel to US 13 from Leipsic Road to Scarborough Road and a set of local access roads to the Dover Mall and adjacent commercial complex. These roads were recommended as part of the US Route 13 Circulation Study and the State’s Corridor Capacity Preservation Program intended to decrease traffic on the corridor by providing more use of service roads through the area. Changing economic considerations have stalled discussions of the commercial complex adjacent to the mall and any plans for the privately funded roadways. For these reasons the project has been moved toward the end of the priority listing. This project should be removed from the current CTP. DRAFT- D Hugg 108

Item 1. 109

Item 2. City of Dover CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST Review by Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Recommendation from Planning Commission Meetings of October 16th and November 20, 2023 with Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Plan Title: Windward Ridge Apartments, S-23-19 Plan Type: Site Development Plan and Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan Active Recreation Area Plan Location: North Side of West Denneys Road and west of but not adjacent to West Denneys Road Addresses: 57 Rocky Road 4085 West Denneys Road Unaddressed parcel on north side of West Denneys Road Tax Parcels: ED-05-056.00-01-02.00-000, ED-05-056.00-01-03.00-000, and ED-05-056.00-01-04.00-000 Owners: George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller Bruce A. Burkett Equitable Owner/Developer: Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC Site Area: Lot A: 3.5 acres +/- Lot B: 1.01 acres +/- Remaining Lot Area: 35.61 acres (Project Area) Total: 40.12 Acres +/- Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone and partially subject to SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Current Use: Two Single Family Detached Dwellings (to remain) and Woodland Proposed Use: Garden Style Apartments (Multi-family Community) Dwelling Units: 300 apartment units Parking for Apartments: Required: 675 spaces and 1 space for office Proposed: 724 spaces Water: Tidewater Utilities (in their CPCN) Sewer: City of Dover Recreation Area: Required – 83,050 SF (1.90 acres+/-) Provided – 97,360 SF (2.24 acres+/-) Waiver Request Granted: Partial Elimination of Sidewalk (Lots A and B) P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 110 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 2 of 15 Subdivision Waiver Requests Recommended: Subdivision Waiver of the Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street Planning Commission Recommendation: The Site Development Plan Application S-23-19 was represented by the developer/equitable owner of Jack Lingo Asset Management LLC, the applicant’s engineering firm Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., the applicant’s traffic engineering firm The Traffic Group, and their attorney from Saul Ewing. A Public Hearing was conducted on October 16, 2023 where five members of the public spoke, and two written comments were received. The Planning Commission deferred action on the Site Plan seeking additional information. The Planning Commission received the additional information and continued the review on November 20, 2023 and then moved by vote of 5-4 to grant conditional approval of the Site Development Plan and including a recommendation of approval of the Subdivision Waiver allowing for one connection to the Public Street. (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) This Subdivision Waiver Request is forwarded to the Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and City Council. The following is the Development Advisory Committee Report prepared for S-23-19 including the application review narrative and Department/Agency Review comments and related information. 111

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 3 of 15 CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: October 4, 2023 APPLICATION: Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road FILE #: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner PHONE #: (302) 736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY: This application is for Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the construction of a thirteen (13) garden apartment building complex to be known as Windward Ridge. It consists of eleven (11) buildings containing twenty-four (24) units and two (2) buildings containing (18) units for a total of 300 apartment units. Also proposed are twelve (12) garage buildings, a Club House with Pool, walking paths, parking, and other site improvements. Two (2) existing single family detached dwellings will remain on separate lots after a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan to reconfigure the three properties. The properties are zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The subject site consists of three parcels totaling 40.12 acres +/- located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of but not adjacent to Carlisle Drive. The owners of record are George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig; Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller; and Bruce A. Burkett and the equitable owner is Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC. Property Addresses: 57 Rocky Road, 4085 West Denneys Road, and an unaddressed parcel on West Denneys Road. Tax Parcels: ED- 05-056.00-01-02.00-000, ED-05-056.00-01-03.00-000, and ED-05-056.00-01-04.00-000. Council District 1. Review of Active Recreation Area. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Sidewalk and Subdivision Waiver of Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street. Existing Properties: The subject properties are located on the north side of West Denneys Road to the west of the residential subdivision known as Carlisle Village (Carlisle Village is not within the City). Adjacent areas to the south of West Denneys Road are within the City of Dover. The three parcels described below were recently annexed into the City of Dover (AX-22-03). The Craig property (to be Lot A) includes a dwelling and other accessory structures off a private drive named Rocky Road. The north portion of the existing lot contains a large woodland area. The Keller property (to be Lot B) includes an existing single-family detached dwelling directly adjacent to West Denneys Road and continues to be predominately wooded for the balance of the parcel. The Burkett property is a wooded lot with no buildings adjacent to Carlisle Village. These properties are not currently served by City Electric or by City Water & Wastewater 112

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 4 of 15 services. An equitable owner has filed an application for redevelopment of the properties for residential use as an apartment complex. Surrounding Land Uses To the east, the subject area is adjacent to the residential subdivision of Carlisle Village, an existing neighborhood of single-family detached dwellings zoned RS1 (in Kent County). To the south across West Denneys Road is the State owned parkland known as the Anne McClements Woodland as part of the Fork Branch Nature Preserve; it is zoned ROS (Recreational and Open Space Zone). Portions of this park area at the southeast corner of the intersection of Kenton Road and West Denneys Road were previously proposed for development as the Maidstone Subdivision prior to its donation/sale to the State to expand the park. The area consists of open fields and wooded areas. To the west of the subject area are other properties zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District) under the jurisdiction of Kent County including a church, other single family dwellings, and woodland areas. To the north, is a stream that is part of the Fork Branch waterway system and another wooded tract. II. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS: The subject area (three properties) was annexed into the City in early 2023 with Application AX- 22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road. At the time of annexation, the properties were rezoned to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Site Development Plan as submitted by the applicant for the Windward Ridge Apartments consists of thirteen (13) garden style apartment buildings consisting of eleven (11) buildings containing twenty-four (24) units and two (2) buildings containing eighteen (18) units for a total of 300 apartment units. Also proposed are twelve (12) garage buildings, a Club House with Pool, walking paths, parking, and other site improvements. Two (2) existing single family detached dwellings will remain on separate lots (Lot A and Lot B). The site also has a series of parking lots and six (6) small garage buildings each with six interior parking spaces. There is a sidewalk network throughout the site and walking paths/trails connecting to active recreation areas. The Site Plan (Sheets 1-8 dated 8/15/2023) and the Architectural Drawings and Photo Series Set (Set of 8 ½” by 14” Sheets) also describes the approaches to the Active Recreation Area Plan amenities. Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan This Site Plan includes a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan (Sheet 2) to reconfigure the existing three parcels to create a large tract for the apartment development. While the existing single family detached dwellings will remain each on their own lot. Lot A (Craig) at 57 Rocky Road is to consist of 3.5 acres+/- and include a single family detached residence and associated accessory buildings. Lot B (Keller) at 4085 West Denneys Road is to consist of 1.01 acres+/-. The balance of the properties and the other wooded parcel (Burkett) are the subject area for redevelopment. Preliminary Land Use Services Review (PLUS) An application (PLUS Review #2023-07-09) related to this Windward Ridge project was reviewed by the State’s Preliminary Land Use Services, as required by the City of Dover’s 113

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 5 of 15 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It was reviewed by the state at the meeting on July 26, 2023. This MOU requires that non-residential developments of over 75,000 square feet or residential developments containing 125 or more dwelling units complete the PLUS Review process prior to application submission. The development proposal submitted by the developers to PLUS envisioned 312 apartment units* for the total 40.12 acres. Copies of the PLUS Review Comments are provided along with the Applicant’s Response to the PLUS Comments. *Note: The Plan design has since been refined to 300 apartment units. IV. ZONING REVIEW: RM-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) The properties have the zoning of RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The types of permitted uses in the RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) are given in Article 3 §7 of the Zoning Ordinance and referenced sections including Article 3 §1. One-Family Residence Zones. The RM-2 zone allows for a variety of housing unit types ranging from single family detached dwellings, duplexes, multiplexes, and townhouses to garden apartments. The RM-2 zone has a maximum gross residential density limitation of eight dwelling units per acre. The bulk standards are found Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 Section 4.6 and are based on the proposed housing type. SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) The subject area is also partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). In this case, the SWPOZ: Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area crosses through the northern portion of the subject area. The regulations regarding the Tier 3 - Excellent Recharge Areas of the SWPOZ can be found in Article 3 §29.79 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use as garden apartment (residential) is not prohibited in the SWPOZ. For Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Areas, the maximum lot coverage for the site is 30% unless infiltration is utilized then the maximum lot coverage is 60%. In the SWPOZ, the differential volume of stormwater between the 30% and 60% lot coverage must utilize infiltration. The Plan indicates that 18.61 acres of the site is within the SWPOZ and of that 5.03 acres will be impervious; therefore, an impervious coverage of 27%. V. PARKING SUMMARY: The parking requirement for apartments is based on a rate of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.25 space per dwelling unit for visitor parking. Based on the number of dwelling units (300 apartment units), this site would require 675 parking spaces. The plans submitted identify a total of 724 parking spaces located around the perimeter of the complex flanking the drive aisles and including handicapped accessible parking spaces near each building. There are also a series of 12 garage buildings of six spaces each throughout the complex. The Plan also identified EV parking spaces. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking is required at a ratio of one space for every twenty parking spaces. With 724 vehicle parking spaces, then 37 bicycle parking spaces are required. The site plans submitted appear to identify six bike rack locations for a total of 42 bike spaces, but no details on format are provided. 114

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 6 of 15 Upright Curbing The upright cubing for parking lots and drive aisles is required by the requirements of Article 6 Section 3.6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The type of curbing must be clarified on the Site Plan. VI. SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Access The access to this Apartment Complex is with a divided boulevard style entrance/exit from West Denneys Road. The entrance drive is named Windward Boulevard which continues throughout the apartment complex as drive aisles. These drive aisles are named Crosswind Drive, Leeward Way, and Tradewind Way. These are not rights-of-way or roadways to be dedicated as City streets. Subdivision Waiver: Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street The Land Subdivision Regulations outline requirements for streets in Article VI. Subdivision – General Requirements and Design Standards, A. Streets. Subsection 8 lists provisions for interconnected streets including the requirement for two connections to a state or city maintained street for site developments containing more than 150 or more dwelling units. Article VI. Subdivision – General Requirements and Design Standards A. Streets 8. The creation of interconnected streets will be encouraged wherever the commission finds that such layout will not interfere with traffic convenience and safety. The commission shall determine the number of connections of streets in the proposed subdivision with existing streets. At least two connections onto a state-maintained road or a city-maintained street are required unless the Delaware Department of Transportation or the city engineer determines that the second connection will not be permitted or is determined to be nonfeasible. This requirement shall pertain to: (a) Subdivisions containing 20 or more lots, plots, sites, or parcels. (b) Site developments containing 150 or more dwelling units. The Windward Ridge Apartment complex proposes 300 dwelling units. The Plan proposes one entrance connecting to West Denneys Road in the form of a divided boulevard entry. The Applicant has filed a written waiver request citing insufficient road frontage to accommodate two entrances due to length of frontage, the proximity of the existing Carlisle Drive, and the driveway entrances of the single family dwellings; see attached letter. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on this Subdivision Waiver to be forwarded to City Council for action as per Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VII. Special Provisions, A. Variance and waiver. Article VII. Special Provisions A. Variance and waiver. 1. Upon the findings of the commission that, due to special conditions peculiar to a subdivision or a site, certain requirements of these regulations are inappropriate, or that strict compliance with said requirements may cause extraordinary and unnecessary hardships, the commission may recommend to the city council, and the city council may vary or waive said requirements, provided that such variance or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the official ma p, the 115

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 7 of 15 zoning ordinance, the development plan or these regulations. In varying or waiving certain requirements, the council may specify such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the requirements so varied or waived. Rear Emergency Access Rear Emergency Access is required for some residential dwelling types. According to Article 5, Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance an 18 ft. wide Secondary Fire Lane or 18 ft. wide subgrade emergency access lane is required for Apartments that are 2-3 stories to serve as rear access. This is to provide access to rear building areas. The plan calls for an emergency access lane network to reach the rear of each apartment building. The Fire Marshal’s Office will also evaluate these fire protection measures as related to the fire lane requirements of the applicable Fire Codes. Lighting The plan must add a series of lighting fixtures to light the parking lots and access ways to the buildings. Sidewalks Sidewalks are shown on the plans between the parking areas and the building access points. These sidewalks are on the building side of the parking lots and include designated crosswalks at drive aisle crossings. A sidewalk connects from the multi-use path along West Denneys Road frontage into the site on the east side of Windward Boulevard. There are also a series of mulch walking paths the circulate through the woodland areas. Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Sidewalks (Pathways) (Approved for Lots A and B) Sidewalks are required along all street frontages of a property (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 18) for development proposals subject to Site Development Plan review by the Planning Commission. Review of the Plan shows a multi-use path along portions of the West Denneys Road frontage proposed for development of the apartment complex. A written waiver request was submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission to eliminate the sidewalk/pathways for the segments of West Denneys Road in front of the existing single family detached dwellings. The Planning Commission should act on this waiver request as part of their review of the Site Development Plan; see the following Zoning Ordinance citation on waivers of pathways. Sidewalks are a type of pathway. Article 15 §18.5 Waiver of pathway locations requirements. The property owner or developer may request a waiver from the planning commission or city planner, according to the type of plan review required by article 10 of this ordinance, under the following circumstances in order to reduce or eliminate the requirements for pathway installation: a) When the property is isolated from the existing pathway network, with no existing pathways within the immediate vicinity of the property. b) When the proposed use would not generate or attract additional pedestrian, bicycle, or other non-motorized trips. c) When physical characteristics of the property are such that pathway installation is impractical or impossible. Dumpsters The Dumpster requirement for apartments is two Dumpsters for the first 48 units and one Dumpster for each additional 24 units or fraction thereof. Based on 300 apartment units, a total 116

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 8 of 15 of thirteen (13) Dumpsters are required. There fourteen (14) Dumpsters within the parking lot areas. There must be space for both trash and recycling containers in these Dumpsters. VII. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE: The applicant has submitted example elevations (drawings and photographs of similar buildings) for the apartment buildings. These are three story buildings with a slightly pitched roof the gable elements over certain sections. Each unit has a balcony or patio area. The larger buildings have two points of entry as an open stairwell corridor to access the units on each floor. The exterior finishes of the apartment buildings consist of a masonry watertable, horizontal vinyl siding with a band board dividing the second and third floors with a change in siding color. The siding on the select gable elements is vertical. Architectural asphalt shingles are shown for the pitched roofs. The Garage Buildings have a masonry watertable and then horizontal vinyl siding for the wall surface along with an asphalt shingled hipped roof. There are garage doors across the front of the structure leading to individualized garage bays. Turned gable elements are added to the front of the garages including the vertical siding similar to the gable end. VIII. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Flood Hazard Area The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.21 requires that flood hazard areas (100-year floodplain) remain as open natural areas with no impervious surfaces. These properties are found on the FEMA FIRM Panel of Kent County Delaware Map Number 10001C0162H effective date May 5, 2003. Portions of the subject property are within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain/ 1% chance of annual flooding) as Zone AE; it is found in the northern portion of the site. The floodplain areas are not proposed for development. IX. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN: Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 16 lays out the requirements for tree planting and preservation. A new project is required to provide tree planting at a rate of one (1) tree per 3,000 SF of “Development Area.” The Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Section 16 defines “Woodland” as follows: Woodland. An area of contiguous wooded vegetation (7,500 square feet or greater), where trees exist at a density of at least one tree with a caliper dimension of six inches or greater per 375 square feet of land and where the tree branches form a contiguous canopy. According to plans, there are 37.44 acres of existing woods, and they propose to remove a portion of the woodland area to make way for the buildings development and preserving 19.02 acres of woodland (50.8%). The maximum amount of woodland that can be cleared is 50% with anything over that amount requiring mitigation. Based on a development area of 817,561 SF, the minimum required number of trees is 273. The site plans show 273 trees spread over the site around the parking lots on islands, adjacent to the buildings, and in the internal open space areas. The plan does not specify tree species. Wetlands & Buffering The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.22 prescribes provisions related to wetland areas. It requires setbacks from wetland areas that are over 0.25 acres in size. This plan depicts Non-Tidal wetland areas. A 100-foot setback is required; however, this can be reduced to 50 feet with implementation of a Riparian Buffer or reduced to 30 feet with bank stabilization. Adjacent to 117

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 9 of 15 the wetlands, the plan shows a 50 foot riparian buffer where existing woodland vegetation will be maintained. The site circulation drive aisle crosses a small stream in one location and there are several walking path small (wood) bridge crossings. More detail on these crossings is needed. X. ACTIVE RECREATION AREA Active Recreation Area Plan Review The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 10 sets out requirements to preserve areas of open space within residential developments which are designed to provide buffer spaces between developing areas, to preserve existing natural and historic features and to establish a network of open spaces within the built environment to provide a balance between developed and undeveloped lands, wildlife habitat conservation, the preservation of scenic view corridors, and to provide residents opportunities to engage in passive recreational activities. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 10.11 notes the purpose of providing Recreation Areas. Article 5 §10.1 Recreation areas. 10.11 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that active recreation areas are provided as an integral design element within residential developments and that such facilities are of an adequate scale in relation to the size of the residential development and which provide residents with a variety of active recreational pursuits. The amount of Active Recreation Area required is 275 SF per dwelling unit which would require 83,050 SF (1.90 acres) of area (using 302 units). An itemized listing of the Recreation Areas and materials is given on Plan Sheet 8 and example features in the Architectural Packet. The proposed amenities include a Clubhouse with Pool, Tot Lot Playground, Walking Trails, Exercise/Picnic Area, and Dog Park Area. See Recreation Plan Review Report for more detailed review (attached document to be provided). XI. 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) Sidewalks must be provided along the full frontage of West Denneys Road (across all three properties) unless the Waiver Request is approved for the partial elimination of the sidewalk across Lot A and Lot B. 2) Two connections to a street must be provided unless the Subdivision Waiver Request is approved to eliminate the Requirement for the Two Connections to a Public Street. 3) Active Recreation Area: The applicant is responsible for providing an Active Recreation Area of a minimum of 83,050 SF (rate for 302 units). The Plans Applicant has provided information indicating they intend to provide 97,360 SF of Active Recreation Area. See Recreation Plan Review Report for additional comments. a. Any revisions to the Active Recreation Area must be incorporated into the plan drawing and data/notes listings throughout the plan set. b. The Active Recreation Area is scheduled to be reviewed by the Council Committee of the Whole: Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee on October 10, 2023. 118

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 10 of 15 4) Upright curbing shall be provided around all parking and drive areas in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance unless a waiver is granted by the City Planner. Clarify the type of curbing proposed. 5) Sheet 1 – Cover Sheet: a. In Site Data Column: i. Item 3: List information on the size of the existing parcels and the proposed sizes of each parcel/lot and the specific Project Development Area. ii. List height of proposed apartment buildings. iii. List counts by types of parking spaces: regular vehicle, handicapped spaces, EV, and spaces within garages. iv. Clarify the size of the project parcel and ensure it is the area utilized for the various SWPOZ, impervious surface, woodland, and landscape/tree planting calculations. b. Add City of Dover to title of drawing (in center of page). c. Add developer/equitable owner Certification note and signature block. d. General Notes: i. Clarify if a Homeowners Association or a Property Maintenance entity associated with the Apartment complex management will be established. Update references in Notes #1-3. ii. Check spelling in Notes. iii. Check contact information for the Kent Conservation District. iv. Cite source of wetlands delineation. 6) Sheet 2 – Record Plan: A Record Plan sheet was submitted to show the reconfiguration of the three parcels (Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan). The Record Plan must include cross access easements, any easements, or other items affecting the property lines. a. This sheet must include the appropriate site data column and signature block unless Sheet 1 is to be included as part of the Record Plan set. The City of Dover does not require the recordation of the entire Site Plan set. b. Label permanent easements and right-of-way dedications along West Denneys Road. c. Label remaining Lot (Project Development Area Lot) and its area. d. Add Special Flood Hazard Area (floodplain) location. e. Label setbacks for each Lot. f. List Bulk Standards for garden apartment units. g. Add SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) boundary lines. h. Show any proposed utility easements to bring sanitary sewer and/or water to the remaining single family detached dwelling unit Lots. i. Add notes and any waivers received. 7) Sheet 3 – Existing Conditions: a. Label sizes of wetland areas. b. Label that West Denneys Road is a State maintained roadway. c. In Legend identify line as SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone: Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area.) 8) Sheets 4 and 5 - Preliminary Site Plan: 119

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 11 of 15 a. Create a distinct match line between plan sheets. b. Clarify the type of curbing for parking lots and drive aisles. c. Identify accessible ramps for sidewalk crossings at points of intersection with drive aisles and at handicapped parking areas. d. Identify accessible ramps and curb depressions for access to rear emergency access lanes. e. Identify width of walkway trails and sidewalks. f. Add traffic control signage for fire lanes and handicapped parking signage locations. g. Identify or note the number of dumpsters to be accommodated in each enclosure. h. Ensure parking spaces next to garage units can be safely parked in i.e., can a vehicle turn into the space and exit vehicle. i. Clarify if any of the EV parking spaces are handicapped accessible. j. Label locations of bike racks. k. Entrance design of Windward Boulevard intersection with West Denneys Road is subject to DelDOT review. l. Add connecting sidewalks to the playground area and to several of its benches. m. Add crosswalk to southern of Building 10 at trail crossing. 9) Please provide one or more detail sheets depicting required site details, including but not limited to bike racks, Dumpsters, stormwater, curbing, and utility details, etc. 10) Please detail any lighting proposed for this site. Show locations to ensure parking lot and walkway/paths have adequate lighting and include any lights on the buildings. 11) Sheets 6 and 7 Utility Plan: a. It is noted that the water provider is Tidewater Utilities and will require coordination with the City’s Department of Water & Wastewater. b. The plan must show hydrants interior to the site for fire protection. c. Consider design location of water lines. As depicted, there are lines under garage buildings and within areas that are designated for the rear emergency access (paths for fire/emergency response equipment). 12) Sheet 8 – Preliminary Landscape Plan: a. Confirm the woodland area and woodland clearing amounts on the Development Area Lot. b. Add certification notes and design professional signature. c. Add planting details. d. Provide details of the Clubhouse and its amenities i.e., surfaces, shade structures, fencing, etc. e. Identify specific tree species for proposed trees. Label trees on plan and provide planting schedule/tally chart. f. Clarify Dog Park Area as it appears to be placed in a woodland area. g. Identify any landscape planting plan around each apartment building. h. Tree placements providing shade to recreation amenity areas is encouraged. i. Show any required demarcation shrub plantings for rear emergency access lanes. j. Please be aware of placement of any trees/landscaping with regards to any underground utilities/storm water management systems and rear emergency access lanes. 120

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 12 of 15 13) Provide the distance from the edge of parking/drive aisles to each apartment building. Also provide dimensions of typical parking spaces and width of access areas to rear emergency access lanes from parking lot. 14) Provide details on the bridge or culvert crossing of at the non-tidal wetlands/stream. 15) Include a detailed outline of the linear feet length of walking path. 16) Note the number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided. Add detail of bike rack. 17) Signs are subject to a separate review and approval process in the City of Dover. There is a proposed freestanding sign in the median of the entrance (Windward Boulevard). Per the Sign regulations a monument sign or a post and panel sign may be placed at the entrance of certain size limitations. 18) Any Erosion & Sediment Control Plans and Stormwater Management Plans granted approval by the Kent Conservation District must reflect the Site Plan layout and design conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and technical review requirements of other agencies. 19) The Final Plan set must include notes documenting any action taken by the Planning Commission regarding any requested waivers and must list any additional conditions of approval. 20) Additional review comments may be provided in the future as more detailed plans are developed. XII. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.2, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon Site Development Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed in subsections 2.21 to 2.28. 1) Waiver Request: Subdivision Waiver for Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street: Planning Staff recommends approval of the waiver request to eliminate the requirement for two connections to a public street with the condition that the Apartment Complex entrance remain as a divided boulevard-like entrance. This is based on the preliminary comments received from DelDOT regarding options for the entrance design to connect to West Denneys Road. It noted that there a no options for interconnection with the adjoining Carlisle Village Subdivision to the east and to the north are floodplain areas. The only possibility for interconnection would be if any properties to the west or Lot A/Lot B proposed development in the future. The boulevard- 121

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 13 of 15 like entrance format could allow for a potential access/egress option should one lane be blocked by an emergency. 2) Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Sidewalks: Planning Staff recommends approval of the waiver request to eliminate the requirement for the construction of sidewalks along a segment of the north side of West Denneys Road adjacent to the existing single family detached dwellings. This is based on the findings of the physical characteristics of this frontage area with existing driveways, trees, and house proximity. Also, this is a segment unlikely to be traveled by pedestrians as no sidewalks exist to the west. However, if these properties are redeveloped in the future, then reconsideration of this requirement will be warranted. 3) Tree Plantings: Planning Staff encourages the use of native tree species especially in areas adjacent to the existing woodland areas to remain and due to the project’s proximity to area of the Fork Branch Nature Preserve. The applicant is recommended to consult with DNREC Staff on appropriate tree species for this area. 4) Bicycle Parking: Planning Staff encourages providing covered bicycle parking opportunities within the buildings or as an extension of the garage buildings. 5) EV Parking: Planning Staff encourages this project to include the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in its parking lot. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not require them, but many other jurisdictions have implemented such requirements and there also may be State Code requirements for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations formats include EV-Capable, EV-Ready, and EV-Installed. a. Ensure some of the EV spaces are handicapped accessible. b. Clarify if the garage spaces offer EV charging opportunities. XIII. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The Planning Commission should act upon the request for any waivers as part of any motion regarding this project application, or as a separate motion as necessary. Note: All waivers are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may approve or deny waiver requests. The Subdivision Waiver requires review and action by the Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and City Council. 2) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of the Site Plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. Examples include relocation of site components like paving and increases in floor area. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations regarding the Plan. 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. 122

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 14 of 15 4) The site is located within the SWPOZ (Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area) and the Planning Office and Kent Conservation District will coordinate to ensure compliance. 5) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff and the other commenting agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement (Final Plan Approval). The Record Plan must be recorded at the Kent County Recorder of Deeds and a copy returned to the Planning Office prior to Final Site Plan approval. 6) For building new construction, the requirements of the building code and the fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and City of Dover Fire Marshal for these requirements. The resolution of these items may impact the site design including such items as building dimensions and height, building openings, and fire protection needs, etc. 7) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any development or ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections and permits are required. This includes activities to clean up existing vegetation, site grading, etc. 8) The addresses for the new buildings proposed on the property will need to be confirmed with the City’s Tax Assessment Office. Each apartment building will be addressed using the named drive aisles of Crosswind Drive, Leeward Way, and Tradewind Way. 9) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate Site Plan approvals, Pre-Construction meetings, site inspections and permits are required. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. Building Permits will be required for each building. 11) The applicant shall be aware that Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign may require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4. Findings and Recommendations of the Dover Planning Commission At the Planning Commission Meetings (In-Person and Virtual) on October 16, 2023 and on November 20, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Waiver Request as part of its review of the Site Development Plan S-23-19 for the Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road. The Application (S-23-19) was represented by Mr. Doug Motley for the developer/equitable owner of Jack Lingo Asset Management LLC; Mr. Charlie Barnett for the 123

Item 2. S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Site Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Report of October 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 and DAC Report of October 4, 2023 Page 15 of 15 applicant’s engineering firm Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc.; Mr. Joe Caloggero of The Traffic Group; and their attorney Ms. Pamela Scott from Saul Ewing. During the Public Hearing, members of the public spoke on the application. Following a Public Hearing and further consideration, the Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the Site Development Plan, approval of the partial elimination of sidewalks (for Lots A and B), and a recommended approval of the requested Subdivision Waiver of the Requirement for Two Connections to a Public Street (allow one connection). The motion passed 5-4. See also the included excerpts of the Meeting Minutes of the October 16, 2023 and the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Planning Commission meetings. Attachments: • Development Advisory Committee Comments: Comments from City of Dover Public Works Department, Department of Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, Kent Conservation District • Subdivision Waiver Request Letter • Additional Information Received for November 20, 2023 Meeting: o Letter of November 14, 2023 on Windward Ridge – Traffic Coordination Summary from Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc. with Attachments ▪ Attachment A: Traffic Impact Study Scoping Meeting Minutes of 11/7/2022 ▪ Attachment B: Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements Memorandum of 8/2/2023 ▪ Attachment C: DelDOT Application Review Commentary for the City of Dover DAC o Email of November 14, 2023 from DelDOT, Michael Vandevander with attachments ▪ Pre-Submittal – Windward Ridge Meeting Notes from Pre-submittal conference call on 7/19/2023 with DelDOT Staff ▪ Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements Memorandum of 8/2/2023 • Handout of Excerpts from DelDOT Development Coordination Manual at November 20, 2023 Meeting • Site Development Plan Sheets • Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 • Excerpt of DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Note: The Application materials also included the following items which are on file at the Planning Office: Active Recreation Area Plan Report of October 10, 2023 (PRCE); Waiver Request Letter: Sidewalks; PLUS Review Response Letter of September 29, 2023 and PLUS Comment Letter of August 23, 2023; Architectural Set; and Public Comments Received as of 10/6/2023 Set 1 and Additional Email of October 12, 2023 distributed at 10/6/2023 Meeting. 124

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 APPLICATION: Winward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road FILE #: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT PHONE #: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION 1. The proposed plan will require private trash collection services. A note to this effect is to be added to the plan. Dumpster locations should also be provided on the plan. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District is submitted to our office. 2. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all stormwater structures. 3. Please be advised that easements will not be provided for the stormwater infrastructure on this site, it shall be privately maintained. STREETS 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. 2. The street network is to be private and will not be maintained by the City of Dover. WATER 1. The certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for this property is held by Tidewater Utilities. Please obtain approval from Tidewater Utilities for the water design. 2. If the water source to this property is purchased from the City of Dover, by Tidewater Utilities, potential water infrastructure improvements may be necessary, depending on the demand of this development. 3. Staff performed a water model study for this development, based on the current unit count, this site would require a twelve- inch (12”) service line to feed the complex. This assumes that the water is purchased through our water system and not through a separate water source from Tidewater. Additionally, future requirements may be required when the final water demand figures are provided. 125

Item 2. Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road File #: S-23-19 September 27, 2023 Page 2 of 3 WASTEWATER 1. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Any existing sanitary sewer lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater specifications and requirements. b. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Sec. 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes, exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created with the site improvements. 3. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures. 4. Cleanouts must be installed on sanitary sewer laterals within five feet (5’) of the building, one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way and at all bends. Any cleanout located within a traffic bearing location shall be installed with a heavy duty cast iron frame and cover to prevent damage to the cleanout and lateral. 5. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer mains showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. 6. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 7. If kitchen facilities are proposed a minimum 1,000 gallon, two chamber grease trap, meeting all Kent County ordinance requirements, must be provided. A construction detail for the proposed grease trap, as well as the proposed location, must be provided on the plan. 8. Per the Water / Wastewater Handbook, provisions shall be made to extend sewer service to all adjoining properties, parcels or lots, regardless of ownership or control of adjoining properties, parcels or lots. 9. The downstream pump station must be evaluated by the developer / engineer to verify it can handle the additional effluent flow. 10. Provisions shall be made to extend sewer service to all adjoining properties, parcels or lots, regardless of ownership or control of adjoining properties, parcels or lots. 11. The proposed pump station shall be privately maintained. 12. If adjacent properties connect to the sanitary sewer service in this development, the infrastructure can be installed within an easement that the city would maintain, this includes the pump station. Please be advised that all infrastructure must be installed per city requirements for future maintenance by the city. GENERAL 1. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to final grade in accordance with current City of Dover requirements and practices. This must be included as a note on the plan. 2. No trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of utility infrastructure. 3. No structure may be installed within ten feet (10’) of utility infrastructure, please depict all underground utilities and structures on the utility plan sheet to confirm compliance. 4. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2018 (.dwg format). 126

Item 2. Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road File #: S-23-19 September 27, 2023 Page 3 of 3 b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER 1. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Water & Wastewater directly to schedule these tests. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, it may be required to submit the sanitary sewer system plans to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. 3. Profiles of the sanitary sewer main must be provided with the construction plans. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings must be shown on the profiles. 4. Wastewater impact fees will be required to be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy for this project. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . 127

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEP 27, 2023 APPLICATION: Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road FILE #: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Burgett, Engineering Services & System Operations Superintendent CONTACT PHONE #: 302-674-7568 CONTACT EMAIL #: sburgett@dover.de.us 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 existing underground electric, communications and water facilities. 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. 128

Item 2. Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road File #: S-23-19 Sep 27, 2023 Page 2 of 2 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. 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: https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13108.pdf. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. This project is outside of the service area for the City of Dover Electric Department. Please save this document for our general notes if the apartments will be transferred to the city electric department in the future. 2. Provide load sheets if the new load requirements will change as soon as possible to verify proper sizing of transformers and creation of primary fee estimates. Current load sheets can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofdover.com/media/Electric%20Department/COD%20Electric%20Load%20Sheet.pdf. 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 . 129

C F Item 2 S-23-19 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: 09/27/23 D S O H V A E L APPLICATION: Windward Ridge Apartments on West Dennys Road R FILE #: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is residential apartments, storage (garages), and assembly (clubhouse). These comments pertain to the residential apartments. 2. Building Access shall be no further than 50 feet from a primary entrance Where buildings are provided with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, access shall be no further than 100 feet from the primary entrance. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3.4) 3. Parking shall be prohibited in front of the primary entrance for a width of not less than 1.5 times the width of the door(s) or for 10 feet, whichever is greater. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.2) 4. Perimeter access shall be 75% and clearly shown on the plans. Perimeter Access minimum width shall be10 feet for one-story buildings and 15 feet for buildings of two or more stories, measured from the face of the building at grade with a maximum slope of ten percent (10%). Plantings and utility services (includes condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall be permitted within the perimeter access, and shall not interfere with emergency services fire ground operations. If a physical barrier (fence, pond, steep slope, etc) prevents access, that portion of the building perimeter shall not be included in the calculation of Percent of Perimeter Access. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3.5) Where parking is located between the building and perimeter access area, parking shall not be located closer than 10 feet to the exterior wall for one-story buildings and 15 feet to the exterior wall for building of two or more stories. 130

Item 2. 5. Fire lanes shall cover 35% of the proposed building. Fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and run along the front of the building as determined by the primary entrance(s). In cases where there is more than one primary entrance(s), each shall be served by a fire lane even if this exceeds the percentage as required. The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the exterior wall and the closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 feet from the exterior wall if one or two stories in height; 40 feet if three or four stories in height, or 30 feet if over four stories in height. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5) 6. Where parking is located between the building and the fire lane, parking shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the exterior wall. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.4.1) Where parking is located between the building and the perimeter access area, parking shall not be located closer than 10 feet to the exterior wall for one-story buildings and 15 feet to the exterior wall for building of two or more stories. 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3.5.2 7. All Fire Lanes shall be marked as follows: both the inner and outer edges of the fire lane shall be marked, where curbs are present, the top and face of the curb shall be painted yellow, where no curbs are present, a four inch (4”) solid yellow demarcation line shall mark the edge(s) of the fire lane. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 8. The specific color yellow shall be the uniformly accepted yellow as utilized by State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Only vivid and durable paint shall be used and shall be suitable for street surfaces 9. Fire lane signs shall be located as follows: see Figure 5-16 – Approved Sign For Marking Fire Lanes, fire lane signs shall be spaced at 150 foot intervals maximum, all fire lane signs shall be located no less than six feet (6’) and no higher than eight feet (8’) above the pavement, signs shall be placed at each end of the fire lane, and signs shall face all oncoming traffic. Where parking is not restricted roadway markings shall utilize the words "FIRE" and "LANE" in lieu of fire lane signs and shall conform to the specifications of 7.6. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 10. Where overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building or site features must project over any fire lane, an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6” above the fire lane shall be provided and the portion of the building perimeter which contains overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building features shall not apply towards the fire lane accessibility requirements of Section 4.0, Table 5-1 in this chapter. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.8) 11. Emergency access to rear building areas compliant with City of Dover Code (Appendix B-Zoning, Article 5- Supplementary Regulations, Section 17); all four stories and greater buildings require 24ft fire lane at the rear. All two to three story apartment structures require an 18ft Secondary Fire Lane at the rear. 131

Item 2. All townhouses (3-8 units with no fire protection) require a 16ft alley or 18ft secondary fire lane at the rear. 12. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment. 13. Street width shall be in accordance with City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article VII, Section A. 13, Residential areas 24 feet wide with no parking, 30 feet wide with parking on one side, or 36 feet wide with parking on both sides Commercial areas 26 feet wide with no parking, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides Alley 12 feet wide 14. Any dead-end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turnaround or cul-de-sac as outlined in the 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, chapter 5, 2.3. 15. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 16. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the system. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6) 17. Fire hydrants shall be installed per the requirements of City of Dover Public Utilities Water/Wastewater Handbook, NFPA requirements, and Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations. City Ordinance Sec 46-9 (f). 132

Item 2. 5.1.1 Hydrant spacing as shown in the Fire Flow Tables shall be used as a general rule. Hydrants shall be located at the direction of the State Fire Marshal so as to minimize friction in fire hose. All hydrant spacing shall be located along available roads or at the direction of the State Fire Marshal. This measurement shall be calculated by way of accessible thoroughfare(s) from the building to be protected to the hydrant and may not necessarily be a radius. 5.1.3 Additional hydrants shall be provided when the State Fire Marshal deems it necessary based on the configuration of the site, building(s), exposures, construction, occupancy, and/or specific hazard(s). Fire Flow table 2, hydrant spacing shall be 800 feet on center for one and two family detached dwellings, other residential, rowhouses and townhouses, assembly, health care, business, education, storage, industrial, mercantile, and mini storage. (702, Chapter 6) NFPA 1 18.5.2 detached one- and two-family dwellings, fire hydrants shall be provided for detached one- and two-family dwellings in accordance with both of the following: 1. the maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest point on the building shall not exceed 600 feet 2. the maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 800 feet. 18.5.3 buildings other than detached one- and two-family dwellings, fire hydrants shall be provided for buildings other than detached one- and two-family dwellings in accordance with both of the following 1. The maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closet point on the building shall not exceed 400 feet 2. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet 18. 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. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 2) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 19. 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. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 703, Chapter 3. 4) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 20. Hydrants are to be Darling Co. B-62-B Breakaway https://american-usa.com/products/valves-and- hydrants/fire-hydrants/5-1-4-american-darling-b-62-b-5 21. NFPA 72 compliant Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements. 133

Item 2. Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 22. Sprinkler system required. System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. This chapter shall apply to all buildings, structures, marine vessels, premises, and conditions which are modified by more than 50% after the effective date of these Regulations. The 50% figure shall be calculated utilizing the gross square footage of the building, structure, marine vessel, premises and conditions as to arrive at the correct application. Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for review and approval for a building rehabilitation as defined in the 101 Life Safety Code, for less than 50% of the gross square footage of a non-sprinklered building, may not have another such project for the same building submitted for review and approval any sooner than three (3) years after the date of the final inspection unless sprinkler projection is provided throughout the entire building. In all buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of aggregate, gross floor area. In all buildings in excess of 40 feet in height or more than four (4) stories in height. In all buildings or areas thereof used for the storage, fabricating, assembling, manufacturing, processing, display or sale of combustible goods, wares, merchandise, products, or materials when more than two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. In all basement areas exceeding 2,500 square feet floor area. In residential occupancies when of: Type V (0,0,0) or Type III (2,0,0) construction and exceeding two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. Type V (1,1,1) and Type III (2,1,1) or Type IV (2,H,H) construction exceeding three (3) stories or 3In all residential apartment buildings storage areas except individual unit closets that are located within individual residential living units. In all buildings used as health care occupancies as defined in the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. In all buildings or areas classified as "high hazard" under the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, or "extra hazard" under the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. All buildings used as dormitories, in whole or in part, to house students at a public or private school or public or private institution of higher education. (16 Del.C. Ch. 88) This applies to all such dormitories regardless if new or existing. (2015 State of Delaware fire Prevention Regulations, 702, Chapter 4) Places of assembly shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. 134

Item 2. Any interior renovations of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 150 persons. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly that would create an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Places of assembly where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any interior renovation of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 100 persons and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly which would create an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. New educational occupancies of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162) 23. Fire Department Connection is to be a 5-inch stortz connection on a 30-degree elbow located within 50 feet of main entrance. Access to the Fire Department Connection must be clear unobstructed access as defined by the AHJ. Fire department connections. Unless otherwise approved by the fire marshal, fire department connections shall be on the street side of the building and shall be located and arranged so that hose lines can be readily and conveniently attached to without interference from any nearby obstructions as defined by the fire marshal's office. Fire department connections shall be a five- inch Storz. Fire department connections shall be within 300 feet of an approved City of Dover Fire Hydrant and within 50 feet of the main entrance of the structure it serves. All fire department connections shall be not less than three feet nor more than five feet in height above finished grade. The fire marshal shall have the authority to require more stringent requirements when deemed necessary. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162) 24. Parking and/or obstructions shall be prohibited in front of fire department connections for a distance measuring from the center line and extending four feet on both sides. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.4) 25. Fire Department Connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment. 26. All standpipe and sprinkler connections shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All standpipe and sprinkler connections shall have minimum of four inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, Solid yellow demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the connection and extend for a distance of four feet (4') on both sides, and where parking is allow between the building and the street or fire lane the solid yellow demarcation lines shall extend from the end of the sidewalk surface to the street or fire lane (Markings shall not be required on the sidewalk surface). All fire department connections (standpipe and sprinkler) shall have a minimum 135

Item 2. 12" x 18" sign that reads FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION, sign lettering shall be a minimum of 3 inches (3") in height with red scotchlite letters on white scotchlite background. The sign shall be clearly visible from the fire lane or roadway, and signs using NFPA international symbols shall be an acceptable alternative. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 3) 27. Standpipes shall be provided in all areas and buildings as required in the codes and standards listed in Regulation 701 as well as the following areas or buildings: In all Class A and Class B places of assembly and institutional occupancies two (2) stories or 25 feet in height or over, In any building over three (3) stories, In any building over 35 feet in height, In any building that has a floor above the first floor over 10,000 square feet gross floor area, In all buildings where the 1st floor exceeds 60,000 gross square feet, a Class I horizontal standpipe system installed in accordance with the applicable codes and standards listed in Regulation 701 of these Regulations shall be provided. All standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the applicable codes and standards listed in Regulation 701. The standpipe system shall be carried up with each floor and shall be installed and ready for use as each floor progresses. Standpipes shall not be more than one floor below the highest forms of staging, The 2½-inch of hose connections on Class I systems shall be provided in the following locations, At the highest intermediate landing between floor levels in every required exit stairway, Where intermediate landing is not provided, hose connections shall be permitted to be located at the main floor landings in exit stairways when approved by the authority having jurisdiction, Where the local fire department has the capability of providing the required pressure, hydraulically designed standpipe systems in fully sprinklered, non-high-rise buildings shall be designed to provide the required waterflow rate. A sign shall be provided at each landing, in all interior stairways, designating the floor level. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 702, Chapter 4, 2) 28. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. 136

Item 2. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 29. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) 30. A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection. 137

Item 2. Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings. Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level 31. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non-slip surface and leading to and terminating at a public way. NFPA 101 32. All new passenger elevators in a building shall be provided with a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches (609 mm) by 84 inches (2133 mm) in its horizontal open position. Where two or more new passenger elevators are located in a single hoist way and serve all or the same portion of the building, only one elevator car that provides a car sized to accommodate an ambulance cot 24 inches by 84 inches in its horizontal position for each hoist way shall be required. Elevator cars required to comply with 15.1 or 15.2 shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist way door frame. Firefighter recall keys shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the local fire department. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 1, 15) 33. Buildings over 25,000 Sq. Ft are to have radio performance testing done prior to Final CO. This must be scheduled in advance with an authorized vendor. 34. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 35. Full building and fire plan review is required. 36. 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. 37. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 138

Item 2. 38. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, exhaust ducts, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire Marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved. 39. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. 40. The following is City Ordinance, Appendix B-Zoning, Article 8 Enforcement and Penalties: Section 1. - Building permits. No building or structure in any district shall be erected or structurally altered without a building permit duly issued upon application to the building inspector. No building permit shall be issued unless the proposed construction or use is in full conformity with all the provisions of this ordinance. Any building permit issued in violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be null and void and of no effect, without the necessity for any proceedings for revocations or nullification thereof, and any work undertaken or use established pursuant to any such permit shall be unlawful (see section 4 for penalties). 1.1 No building permit shall be issued for the construction or alteration of any building upon a lot without frontage upon, or legal permanent access to, a public street improved to the satisfaction of the planning commission, or without access to a public sewer. 1.2 No building permit shall be issued for any building where the site development plan of such building is subject to approval by the planning commission, except upon approval of such plans approved by the said commission. 1.21 No building permit shall be issued for any building in a subdivision unless the subdivision plot has been approved by the planning commission. 1.3 No building permit shall be issued for a building to be used for any conditional use in any zone where such use is allowed only with approval of the planning commission, unless and until such approval has been duly granted by the said commission. (Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 3) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Please confirm the square footage of the garages to determine perimeter access, fire lane, fire alarm, and sprinkler requirements. 2. Please confirm the square footage, occupant load, and if alcohol will be permitted at the clubhouse to determine perimeter access, fire lane, fire alarm, and sprinkler requirements. 3. Please confirm that the Fire Lanes are 24’ wide 4. Fire hydrant locations need to be shown and in compliance with items # 17 and #25 listed above. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. 139

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Windward Ridge Apartments FILE#: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Vandevander PHONE#: 302-760-2141 =============================================================== 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. A pre-submittal meeting with DelDOT is required to further discuss the project. 2. Site Access. The proposed entrance for this subdivision is located at a position that provides the most sight distance in each direction. The Department is in support of a single access point. This will provide the safest ingress/egress to the site, and maximize the use of the sight distance. 3. Although DelDOT's TIS warrants are met, DelDOT may accept an Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) since the site would generate fewer than 2,000 ADT and fewer than 200 peak hour trips in lieu of a TIS if the Local Land Use Agency does not require a TIS. Please provide documentation stating that the LLUA does NOT require a TIS. Upon receipt of this, DelDOT will issue an AWSF letter stating the required fee and improvements for this project. 4. There is an existing single home on the southwest corner of the project site. This home is to remain. The proposed pedestrian facility (Shared Use Path SUP) will stop at the eastern portion of this existing lot. Continuing the SUP is not advised due to the limited site area. The Department is willing to accept a Permanent Easement at that location. 140

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item 2. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY OCTOBER 2023 APPLICATION: Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road FILE #: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Kate Owens PHONE: (302) 608 – 5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 1 acre, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. The review fee and a completed Application for a Detailed Plan are due at the time of plan submittal to the District’s office. 2. A Stormwater Assessment Study (SAS) and pre-application meeting are required prior to submitting for review. 3. The following notes must appear on the record plan: a) The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to enter private property for purposes of periodic site inspection. b) The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to add, modify, or delete any erosion or sediment control measure, as it deems necessary. c) A clear statement of defined maintenance responsibility for stormwater management facilities must be provided on the Record Plan. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The District does not recommend this site for development due to numerous site limitations such as areas in the Excellent Groundwater Recharge Zone, wooded wetlands, and poor soil conditions. 2. The District will require that a preliminary soil investigation be conducted and completed as part of the SAS. 3. The preferred methods of Stormwater management are those practices that maximize the use of the natural features of a site, promote recharge and minimize the reliance on structural components. 4. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan has been approved. 141

Item 2. MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Date: August 31, 2023 City of Dover Planning and Inspections City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 Attention: Ms. Mary Ellen Gray Subject: Windward Ridge Second Entrance Waiver Request Dear Ms. Gray, On behalf of our client, Jack Lingo Asset Management, Morris & Ritchie Associates (MRA) respectfully requests a waiver from the requirements of Appendix A, Article 6A8(b) of the City of Dover Code for the Windward Ridge Subdivision. This section of the code states: A. Streets 8. The creation of interconnected streets will be encouraged wherever the commission finds that such layout will not interfere with traffic convenience and safety. The commission shall determine the number of connections of streets in the proposed subdivision with existing streets. At least two connections onto a state-maintained road or a city-maintained street are required unless the Delaware Department of Transportation or the city engineer determines that the second connection will not be permitted or is determined to be nonfeasible. This requirement shall pertain to: b. Site Development containing 150 or more dwelling units. The proposed entrance for the Windward Ridge subdivision onto W. Dennys Road has been designed with consideration given to the surrounding properties and existing nearby entrances. The parcel frontage for the proposed development is limited to less than 390’ with the existing entrance to the Carlisle Village subdivision located less than 180’ to the northeast and an existing dual driveway entrance for the remaining single-family residence at 4085 W. Denneys Road. Based upon these site constraints, there is insufficient road frontage to accommodate two entrances and maintain safety for the traffic on W. Dennys Road. Additionally, we held a pre- application meeting with the Delaware Department of Transportation Development Coordination team on July 19, 2023 and discussed the Code requirement for a secondary access. In this meeting, DelDOT stated that they would not be in favor of a second access to W. Dennys Road for this project due to these constraints. We respectfully request that, based on the above circumstances, the Windward Ridge project be granted a waiver from the specific requirement of Appendix A, Article 6A8(b) of the City of Dover Code. 18 Boulden Circle, Suite 36, New Castle, DE 19720 (302) 326-2200 Fax: (302) 326-2399 www.mragta.com Abingdon, MD  Baltimore, MD  Laurel, MD  Towson, MD  Georgetown, DE  New Castle, DE  Purcellville, VA  Raleigh, NC  Orlando, FL (410) 515-9000 (443) 490-7201 (410) 792-9792 (410) 821-1690 (302) 855-5734 (302) 326-2200 (703) 994-4047 (984) 200-2103 (407) 317-6288 142

Item 2. Windward Ridge – Second Entrance Waiver Request August 31, 2023 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of this waiver. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very Truly Yours, MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. Charles Barnett, Principal Cc: Doug Motley, Jack Lingo Asset Management File (21905) 143

Item 2. Additional Information for S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road: The following information has been received for Application S-23-19: • Letter of November 14, 2023 on Windward Ridge – Traffic Coordination Summary from Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc. with Attachments o Attachment A: Traffic Impact Study Scoping Meeting Minutes of 11/7/2022 o Attachment B: Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements Memorandum of 8/2/2023 o Attachment C: DelDOT Application Review Commentary for the City of Dover DAC • Email of November 14, 2023 from DelDOT, Michael Vandevander with attachments o Pre-Submittal – Windward Ridge Meeting Notes from Pre-submittal conference call on 7/19/2023 with DelDOT Staff o Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements Memorandum of 8/2/2023 This application was originally submitted to the Planning Commission for review at their October 16, 2023 meeting. Your Meeting Packet already includes the original submission items of the project reports, comments, plans, etc. A Public Hearing was conducted on October 16, 2023; and the application was deferred seeking additional information. 144

Item 2. MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Date: November 14, 2023 City of Dover Planning and Inspections City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 Attention: Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams Subject: Windward Ridge – Traffic Coordination Summary Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: On behalf of our client, Jack Lingo Asset Management, and for the benefit of the members of the Planning Commission, Morris & Ritchie Associates (MRA) would like to offer the following information about the communications we have had with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) throughout the development process for the Windward Ridge project. We ask that you share this correspondence with the members of the Planning Commission in advance of the hearing scheduled for November 20, 2023. As you know, the typical process for a new land development project begins with a Traffic Impact Study Scoping Meeting between the developer and DelDOT. For the Windward Ridge project, this meeting was held on November 3, 2022 and was attended by six DelDOT employees representing the Planning and Traffic Divisions, Joe Caloggero of the Traffic Group (the traffic engineer representing the developer), and yourself on behalf of the City of Dover. Minutes from this meeting were taken by the DelDOT project engineer, Claudy Joinville, dated November 7, 2022, and provided to both the developer and the City of Dover. A copy of these minutes is provided as Attachment A to this letter. As the minutes show, this meeting discussed the development of the project, the projected traffic to be generated by the project, the warrants that would need to be met for DelDOT to require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and the qualification for providing an Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) in lieu of performing the TIS. As stated in the minutes: “Following the discussion of current traffic conditions at the intersections that would be evaluated if a TIS were conducted for the proposed development, the City indicated that it would not require a TIS and would support DelDOT’s decision to allow the developer to pay the AWSF in lieu of doing a TIS.” As is typical for TIS scoping meetings and as reflected in the minutes, this meeting did include the discussion of current traffic conditions around the proposed development, the impacts to those areas from the traffic to be generated by the proposed development, and what 18 Boulden Circle, Suite 36, New Castle, DE 19720 (302) 326-2200 Fax: (302) 326-2399 www.mragta.com Abingdon, MD  Baltimore, MD  Laurel, MD  Towson, MD  Georgetown, DE  New Castle, DE  Purcellville, VA  Raleigh, NC  Orlando, FL (410) 515-9000 (443) 490-7201 (410) 792-9792 (410) 821-1690 (302) 855-5734 (302) 326-2200 (703) 994-4047 (984) 200-2103 (407) 317-6288 145

Item 2. Windward Ridge – Traffic Coordination Summary November 14, 2023 Page 2 the requirements would have been for a TIS. While DelDOT stated that they did not require a TIS, they did ask the City for their input and as such, both DelDOT and the City of Dover were aligned in the determination that rather than a TIS, an AWSF payment would be made by the developer to DelDOT. In addition, the minutes make clear that the developer may be required to incur additional expenses associated with the proposed development as follows: “… payment of the AWSF does not preclude the developer from making and/or participating in off-site improvements. The developer should coordinate with DelDOT’s Subdivision Section to request a pre-submittal meeting request. DelDOT will supply the developer with an AWSF letter documenting the amount of the fee and off-site improvements during the pre-submittal process.” As directed in the above meeting minutes, during the development of the preliminary plan we (MRA) reached out to DelDOT to request a pre-submittal meeting. This meeting was held on July 19, 2023. Following that meeting, DelDOT provided a memorandum dated August 2, 2023, to address the “Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements.” This document is provided as Attachment B, and begins with the following statement: “The subject development meets DelDOT’s volume warrants to pay the Area Wide Study Fee in lieu of doing a Traffic Impact Study (TIS).” The memorandum continues to list requirements for the developer, both financial and specific improvements related to the proposed development, as part of the project approval process. The final item in this memo (#5) addresses the option for the developer to become part of the proposed Cheswold Area Transportation Improvement District (TID). Doing this would allow the developer to pay a single fee to DelDOT to cover its obligations for improvements required for the proposed development, in lieu of providing the improvements listed in the AWSF memo. However, upon further discussions with DelDOT we learned that this project does not qualify for the TID because it is located within the City of Dover limits and the City of Dover has chosen not to participate in the TID. In addition to the above, DelDOT participated in the City of Dover Development Advisory Committee review of the Windward Ridge project in October 2023 where the reviewing engineer provided four advisory comments in their letter. This document is provided as Attachment C for your reference. Of those four comments, #2 clarifies that DelDOT is in support of providing only one access point for the development and #3 clarifies that DelDOT accepts an AWSF in lieu of a TIS, consistent with DelDOT’s position as set forth in the TIS Scoping Meeting minutes as well as the City of Dover’s position on this matter. Based upon the above, DelDOT’s decision is clear that a TIS is not required for this project and the City of Dover supported DelDOT’s decision. We understand that the PLUS review comments provided by DelDOT in the PLUS review letter dated August 23, 2023, can be confusing as they are general comments, containing references to sections of the DelDOT Development Coordination Manual instead of specific requirements applicable to the proposed development. It should be understood that the PLUS comments are typically provided well 146

Item 2. Windward Ridge – Traffic Coordination Summary November 14, 2023 Page 3 before the formal TIS Scoping Meeting where DelDOT’s engineers have the opportunity to review the specific impacts of the proposed development and make a determination as to what the developer should be required to do as it relates to the traffic generated by the proposed development. With Windward Ridge, the pre-application meeting and PLUS review were held less than two weeks from each other and therefore the comments from PLUS did not reflect the specifics discussed during the pre-application meeting. As part of a site plan review, the Planning Commission is tasked with certain objectives, as outlined in Article 10, Section 2 of the Zoning Code. Specifically related to traffic, Section 2.21 states as follows: 2.21 Maximum safety and convenience of vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic by ensuring that all proposed and impacted streets, driveways and walkways are adequate, but not excessive in number adequate in width, grade, alignment, capacity, and visibility, and suitably located, particularly with respect to their connection to public streets. The internal private street system within the proposed development will be designed to meet the City’s standards. Both internal and off-site vehicular and pedestrian traffic are addressed with safety in mind. In addition, the access point for the subdivision is located on a state- maintained road which is within the jurisdiction of DelDOT. Access is being provided at the safest possible position, as agreed upon by DelDOT and reflected in DelDOT’s comments to the City for the Development Advisory Committee review where they state: “The proposed entrance for this subdivision is located at a position that provides the most sight distance in each direction. The department is in support of a single access point. This will provide the safest ingress/egress to the site, and maximize the use of the sight distance.” West Denneys Road is owned by DelDOT and therefore the maintenance, design, and approval for improvements to that road are under the sole purview of DelDOT. DelDOT will be requiring the developer to improve a portion of W. Denneys Road as part of the Windward Ridge project. The curved portion will be upgraded to provide wider driving lanes and shoulders on both sides and allow for longer sight distances through the curves near the proposed entrance. All of these improvements will provide increased safety for vehicular and pedestrian travelers, in accordance with DelDOT’s requirements. The proposed entrance location for the Windward Ridge subdivision onto W. Dennys Road has been designed with consideration given to the surrounding properties and existing nearby entrances. The process for determining the safety of this project’s entrance and for providing nearby road improvements has been discussed and approved by both the City of Dover and DelDOT. The location of the entrance has been reviewed and approved by DelDOT. 147

Item 2. Windward Ridge – Traffic Coordination Summary November 14, 2023 Page 4 We trust that the information provided in this letter addresses the concerns raised by members of the Planning Commission during the hearing held on October 16, 2023. We will be happy to address any additional questions at the hearing scheduled for November 20, 2023. Very Truly Yours, MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. Charles Barnett, Principal Enc.: Attachment A: Traffic Impact Study Scoping Meeting Minutes Attachment B: Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements Memorandum Attachment C: DelDOT Application Review Commentary for the City of Dover DAC Cc: Doug Motley, Jack Lingo Asset Management Joe Caloggero, The Traffic Group Pamela Scott, Saul Ewing, LLP File (21905) 148

Item 2. Attachment A Traffic Impact Study Scoping Meeting Minutes 149

Item 2. Nicole Majeski secretary MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Claudy Joinville, Project Engineer DATE: November 7, 2022 SUBJECT: Windward Ridge Traffic Impact Study (TIS) – Scoping Meeting Minutes (11/3/2022) ATTENDANCE: Dawn Melson-Williams, City of Dover Joe Caloggero, The Traffic Group, Inc. Sarah Coakley, DelDOT Planning Mark Galipo, DelDOT Traffic Olayiwola Okesola, DelDOT Planning Ryan Schroder, DelDOT Planning Annamaria Furmato, DelDOT Planning Claudy Joinville, DelDOT Planning This memorandum is to document the subject TIS scoping meeting that occurred on November 3, 2022. The subject land is proposed to be developed as a subdivision of 40 single- family detached houses and 264 units of multi-family mid-rise housing on an approximately 41.40- acre assemblage of parcels (Tax Parcels 2-00-05600-01-4000-00001, 4100-00001, and 4200- 00001). The land for the proposed residential development is currently split-zoned as RM (Multi- family Residential) and AR (Agricultural Residential) in Kent County, and the developer plans to annex the land into the City of Dover under RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) zoning with an SWPOZ (Sourced Water Protection Overlay Zone). The subject land, to be developed by Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC, is located on the north side of W. Denneys Road (Kent Road 100), approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection with Kenton Road (Kent Road 104). 150

Item 2. Memorandum to File November 7, 2022 Page 2 of 2 At the start of the meeting, DelDOT, the City of Dover, and the developer’s Consultant discussed that while the proposed residential development meets DelDOT’s warrants for a TIS, it would qualify for payment of the Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) in lieu of doing a TIS as it would generate fewer than 2,000 trips per day and fewer than 200 peak hour trips. DelDOT informed the developer’s Consultant that DelDOT would only be amenable to payment of the fee if the City of Dover does not require a TIS. In addition to the AWSF, DelDOT, the City and the developer’s Consultant discussed potential off-site improvements that may be required of the developer as well as the potential need for a Traffic Operational Analysis (TOA). Following the discussion of current traffic conditions at the intersections that would be evaluated if a TIS were conducted for the proposed development, the City indicated that it would not require a TIS and would support DelDOT’s decision to allow the developer to pay the AWSF in lieu of doing a TIS. The developer’s Consultant decided to pursue payment of the AWSF in lieu of a TIS; as such, a scope of work for a TIS was not established. DelDOT does not anticipate requiring the developer to conduct a TOA. However, payment of the AWSF does not preclude the developer from making and / or participating in off-site improvements. The developer should coordinate with DelDOT’s Subdivision Section to request a pre-submittal meeting request. DelDOT will supply the developer with an AWSF letter documenting the amount of the fee and off-site improvements during the pre-submittal process. By copy of this memorandum I ask those copied to contact me at (302) 760-2124 or Claudy.Joinville@delaware.gov regarding any significant errors or omissions. The Consultant should request any revisions to this memorandum through the PDCA. CJ:cjm cc: Mary Ellen Gray, Director, City of Dover Pam Steinebach, Director, DelDOT Planning Todd Sammons, Assistant Director, Development Coordination Wendy Polasko, Subdivision Engineer, Development Coordination Sireen Muhtaseb, TIS Group Manager, Development Coordination 151

Item 2. Attachment B: Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements Memorandum 152

Item 2. N ic o l e M a j e s k i s e c r e ta r y MEMORANDUM TO: Will Mobley, Acting Kent County Review Coordinator FROM: Sireen Muhtaseb, TIS Group Manager DATE: August 2, 2023 SUBJECT: Windward Ridge (Protocol Tax Parcel # 2-00-05600-01-4000-00001) Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements The subject development meets DelDOT’s volume warrants to pay the Area Wide Study Fee in lieu of doing a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). This memorandum is to address the amount of that fee and the off-site improvements that should be required of the developer in the absence of a TIS. The fee and improvements presented below are an alternative to the developer doing a TIS and the improvements identified through DelDOT’s review of that study. 1. The proposed development consists of 300 dwelling units of multi-family low-rise housing. Based on our review, using Land Use Code 220 of the 11 th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, the proposed development would generate 1,998 average vehicle daily trips (ADT) and 150 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The fee is calculated at ten dollars per daily trip. For the proposed development, the fee would be $19,980. 2. The developer shall improve the State-maintained road(s) on which they front, within the limits of their frontage, to meet DelDOT’s standards for their Functional Classification as found in Section 1.1 of the Development Coordination Manual and elsewhere therein. The improvements shall include both directions of travel, regardless of whether the developer’s lands are on one or both sides of the road. Frontage is defined in Section 1 of the Development Coordination Manual, which states “This length includes the length of roadway perpendicular to lines created by the projection of the outside parcel corners to the roadway.” Questions on or appeals of this requirement should be directed to the DelDOT Subdivision Review Coordinator in whose area the development is located. 153

Item 2. Mr. Will Mobley August 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2 3. Section 2.2.2.2 of the Development Coordination Manual allows DelDOT to accept the AWSF in lieu of a TIS, but only if the local land use agency does not require a TIS. If the City of Dover requires a TIS for this development, DelDOT will support that requirement and will not accept the AWSF. 4. The developer shall enter into a traffic signal agreement for the intersection of McKee Road (Kent Road 156) and W. Denneys Road (Kent Road 100). Or the developer may contribute to the Traffic Signal Revolving Fund (TSRF) in the amount of $50,026.92. The developer should coordinate with the DelDOT Subdivision Section to execute the traffic signal agreement or the TSRF agreement and pay the TSRF amount. 5. The proposed development is located within the boundary of the proposed Cheswold Area Transportation Improvement District (TID). The TID is still under development and is anticipated to become operational at the end of year 2023/early 2024. Although the subject property is within the Cheswold Area TID, the developer would be required to participate in the TID only if they submit a plan to DelDOT for approval after the TID is operational. For more information on the status of the Cheswold Area TID, the developer should contact Sarah Coakley, Principal Planner, within DelDOT’s Statewide & Regional Systems Planning, by phone at 302-760-2236 or email at Sarah.Coakley@delaware.gov. If you have any additional questions or comments, please let me know. SM: km cc: Nick Hammonds, Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC Rob Grenon, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc. Mary Ellen Gray, Director, City of Dover Michael Simmons, Chief of Project Development South, DOTS Wendy Carpenter, Traffic Calming & Subdivision Relations Manager, Traffic, DOTS Sean Humphrey, Traffic Engineer, DelDOT Traffic, DOTS Matthew Lichtenstein, Central District Engineer, Central District Steve McCabe, Central District Public Works Manager, Central District Sarah Coakley, Principal Planner, Statewide & Regional Systems Planning, Planning Todd Sammons, Assistant Director, Development Coordination, Planning Wendy Polasko, Subdivision Engineer, Development Coordination, Planning Michael Vandevander, Subdivision Reviewer, Development Coordination, Planning Annamaria Furmato, TIS Group Engineer, Development Coordination, Planning Tanner Chiamprasert, Johnson, Mirmiran, & Thompson, Inc. 154

Item 2. Attachment C: DelDOT Application Review Commentary for the City of Dover DAC 155

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Windward Ridge Apartments FILE#: S-23-19 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Vandevander PHONE#: 302-760-2141 =============================================================== 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. A pre-submittal meeting with DelDOT is required to further discuss the project. 2. Site Access. The proposed entrance for this subdivision is located at a position that provides the most sight distance in each direction. The Department is in support of a single access point. This will provide the safest ingress/egress to the site, and maximize the use of the sight distance. 3. Although DelDOT's TIS warrants are met, DelDOT may accept an Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) since the site would generate fewer than 2,000 ADT and fewer than 200 peak hour trips in lieu of a TIS if the Local Land Use Agency does not require a TIS. Please provide documentation stating that the LLUA does NOT require a TIS. Upon receipt of this, DelDOT will issue an AWSF letter stating the required fee and improvements for this project. 4. There is an existing single home on the southwest corner of the project site. This home is to remain. The proposed pedestrian facility (Shared Use Path SUP) will stop at the eastern portion of this existing lot. Continuing the SUP is not advised due to the limited site area. The Department is willing to accept a Permanent Easement at that location. 156

Item 2. From: Vandevander, Michael (DelDOT) To: Melson-Williams, Dawn; Charles Barnett Cc: Mobley, Will (DelDOT); Polasko, Wendy (DelDOT) Subject: EXTERNAL: Windward Ridge Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:59:02 PM Attachments: 2023-7-19 - Windward Ridge DelDOT Presubmittal Meeting Minutes (1).docx 2023-08-02_Windward-Ridge_AWSF_Offsite-Requirements - Memo (2).doc WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dawn, Good afternoon, I have attached meeting minutes and the AWSF to clarify that Mr. Charles Barnett from Morris & Ritchie Assoc. INC has been in contact with DelDOT on the Windward Ridge Project. A pre-submittal meeting was held 19 July 2023 at 1:30pm. On 02 August 2023, an Area Wide Study (AWSF) was completed. Also, there was Traffic Impact Study (TIS) – Scoping Meeting on 03 November 2022. Please forward this email to the planning commission as to clarify any doubt they may have in reference to this project. Any questions or concerns please advise. V/R Michael Michael Vandevander Kent County Reviewer Development Coordination/Planning/DELDOT 302-760-2141 michael.vandevander@delaware.gov 157

Item 2. MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Pre-Submittal – Windward Ridge Wednesday, July 19, 2023, 1:30 PM Attendees: Michael Vandevander, Wendy Polasko, Will Mobley, Steve McCabe, Linda DelDOT: Osiecki, Rachel Goff, Sean Humphrey, David Heckman MRA: Robert Grenon, Charlie Barnett Topics of Discussion Windward Ridge – Pre-submittal conference call to discuss proposed improvements for West Denneys Road frontage and entrance improvements MRA Discussion: Robert Grenon provided project overview of the proposed Windward Ridge residential project. The project is located in City of Dover on West Denneys Road. Total project will have 300 apartment dwelling units. The road was engineered in 1933 per DelDOT contract #319 as crowned and not super-elevated. Per topo and field observation the western portion of the S-curve is constructed as crowned and the east curve is constructed as super-elevated. DelDOT Observations / Recommendations: • Will Mobley stated that 11’ lanes and 5’ shoulders are acceptable per the 2022 DelDOT Road Design Manual. • Wendy Polasko suggested looking into joining the Cheswold TID zone. She recommended us contacting Sarah Coakley when she returns to the office. This would eliminate AWS fee and site frontage requirements beyond entrance turn lanes construction, however the fee is unknown at this time. • DelDOT stated that if the developer did not join the TID, W. Denneys Road would need to be improved for the entire projected frontage, which is approximately 1,900 linear feet. • Wendy Polasko stated that the 40 MPH posted speed is also the design speed. • Charlie Barnett (MRA) requested DelDOT’s opinion on the City of Dover request for a 2nd entrance onto West Denneys Road. Will Mobley strongly discouraged this because of limited access. The code, per the road classification, limits to a 250’ distance from existing driveways. In addition, the road is on an S-curve that is superelevated and could be unsafe. DelDOT’s general preference is to consolidate and minimize access points as much as possible. • Michael Vandevander recommended that MRA look at removing the eastern access of the residential crescent driveway near Sta 24+20. • Robert Grenon (MRA) discussed (2) existing utility poles near Sta 22+10 and Sta 28+00 that are within of line of sight. Wendy Polasko stated that because the pole 18 Boulden Circle, Suite 36, New Castle, DE 19720 (302) 326 -2200 Fax: (302) 326-2399 www.mragta.com Abingdon, MD  Baltimore, MD  Laurel, MD  Towson, MD  Georgetown, DE  New Castle, DE  Leesburg, VA  Raleigh, NC 158 (410) 515-9000 (410) 935-5050 (410) 792-9792 (410) 821-1690 (302) 855-5734 (302) 326-2200 (703) 994-4047 (984) 200-2103

Item 2. distances are far enough away from proposed entrance that they wouldn’t be an obstruction and therefore won’t need to be relocated. • Wendy Polasko stated that the Shared Use Path limits as designed are satisfactory and the Permanent Easement limits shown are correct as well. • Robert Grenon (MRA) suggested to reuse the current East superelevation eMAX since it appears to have the eMAX similar to current requirements. DelDOT recommend reviewing this on construction plans. • Steve McCabe mentioned that the existing 12” RCP culvert depicted near Sta 27+60 is a 15” RCP and can be open cut if it is extended or replaced. • Steve McCabe stated that the underground gas main and water main would not need to be replaced and recommended contacting the owners for coordination. • Steve McCabe required relocation of poles to be outside of the clear zone. Any existing breakaway telecommunication boxes, mailboxes, fire hydrants, or signs do not need to be moved. This was confirmed by Wendy Polasko. • Steve McCabe suggested we have pavement cores performed and obtain pavement section and mill overlay recommendations from DelDOT. • Michael Vandevander stated that the next submittal would have a 30-day turn- around period. • Meeting ended 159

Item 2. Nicole Majeski secretary MEMORANDUM TO: Will Mobley, Acting Kent County Review Coordinator FROM: Sireen Muhtaseb, TIS Group Manager DATE: August 2, 2023 SUBJECT: Windward Ridge (Protocol Tax Parcel # 2-00-05600-01-4000-00001) Area Wide Study Fee (AWSF) and Off-site Improvements The subject development meets DelDOT’s volume warrants to pay the Area Wide Study Fee in lieu of doing a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). This memorandum is to address the amount of that fee and the off-site improvements that should be required of the developer in the absence of a TIS. The fee and improvements presented below are an alternative to the developer doing a TIS and the improvements identified through DelDOT’s review of that study. 1. The proposed development consists of 300 dwelling units of multi-family low-rise housing. Based on our review, using Land Use Code 220 of the 11th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, the proposed development would generate 1,998 average vehicle daily trips (ADT) and 150 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The fee is calculated at ten dollars per daily trip. For the proposed development, the fee would be $19,980. 2. The developer shall improve the State-maintained road(s) on which they front, within the limits of their frontage, to meet DelDOT’s standards for their Functional Classification as found in Section 1.1 of the Development Coordination Manual and elsewhere therein. The improvements shall include both directions of travel, regardless of whether the developer’s lands are on one or both sides of the road. Frontage is defined in Section 1 of the Development Coordination Manual, which states “This length includes the length of roadway perpendicular to lines created by the projection of the outside parcel corners to the roadway.” Questions on or appeals of this requirement should be directed to the DelDOT Subdivision Review Coordinator in whose area the development is located. 160

Item 2. Mr. Will Mobley August 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2 3. Section 2.2.2.2 of the Development Coordination Manual allows DelDOT to accept the AWSF in lieu of a TIS, but only if the local land use agency does not require a TIS. If the City of Dover requires a TIS for this development, DelDOT will support that requirement and will not accept the AWSF. 4. The developer shall enter into a traffic signal agreement for the intersection of McKee Road (Kent Road 156) and W. Denneys Road (Kent Road 100). Or the developer may contribute to the Traffic Signal Revolving Fund (TSRF) in the amount of $50,026.92. The developer should coordinate with the DelDOT Subdivision Section to execute the traffic signal agreement or the TSRF agreement and pay the TSRF amount. 5. The proposed development is located within the boundary of the proposed Cheswold Area Transportation Improvement District (TID). The TID is still under development and is anticipated to become operational at the end of year 2023/early 2024. Although the subject property is within the Cheswold Area TID, the developer would be required to participate in the TID only if they submit a plan to DelDOT for approval after the TID is operational. For more information on the status of the Cheswold Area TID, the developer should contact Sarah Coakley, Principal Planner, within DelDOT’s Statewide & Regional Systems Planning, by phone at 302-760-2236 or email at Sarah.Coakley@delaware.gov. If you have any additional questions or comments, please let me know. SM: km cc: Nick Hammonds, Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC Rob Grenon, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc. Mary Ellen Gray, Director, City of Dover Michael Simmons, Chief of Project Development South, DOTS Wendy Carpenter, Traffic Calming & Subdivision Relations Manager, Traffic, DOTS Sean Humphrey, Traffic Engineer, DelDOT Traffic, DOTS Matthew Lichtenstein, Central District Engineer, Central District Steve McCabe, Central District Public Works Manager, Central District Sarah Coakley, Principal Planner, Statewide & Regional Systems Planning, Planning Todd Sammons, Assistant Director, Development Coordination, Planning Wendy Polasko, Subdivision Engineer, Development Coordination, Planning Michael Vandevander, Subdivision Reviewer, Development Coordination, Planning Annamaria Furmato, TIS Group Engineer, Development Coordination, Planning Tanner Chiamprasert, Johnson, Mirmiran, & Thompson, Inc. 161

Item 2. 162

Item 2. 163

Item 2. 164

Item 2. SITE DATA: SITE MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE SUITE 36 NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 302-326-2200 302-326-2399 FAX DEVELOPER JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 (302) 226-6645 LOCATION MAP WINDWARD RIDGE NORTH SITE KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE LOCATION MAP CITY OF DOVER LEGEND: GENERAL NOTES: NW NW FP FP © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET INDEX: OWNER CERTIFICATION (PARCEL OWNER 02.00): CERTIFICATION (PARCEL 03.00): SHEET TITLE PRELIMINARY PLAN TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION: OWNER CERTIFICATION (PARCEL 04.00): 1 OF 8 165

Item 2. LEGEND MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS NORTH 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE CURVE TABLE SUITE 36 NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 302-326-2200 CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH 302-326-2399 FAX DEVELOPER JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 (302) 226-6645 WINDWARD RIDGE LINE TABLE LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE CITY OF DOVER © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE DATA: SHEET TITLE PRELIMINARY PLAN RECORD PLAN SHEET NUMBER 2 OF 8 166

Item 2. FP FP LEGEND FP FP FP FP / SOILS TABLE: FP FP FP FP / FP FP / FP NW NW / FP / NW NW MORRIS & RITCHIE FP / FP / FP ASSOCIATES, INC. FP FP FP FP / FP FP / ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, / / / / SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE FP / FP / FP FgcA ARCHITECTS NORTH FP FP FP / / FP / NW NW NW 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE / SUITE 36 / FP / NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 / FP FP NW CURVE TABLE 302-326-2200 FP / / / / 302-326-2399 FAX NW NW FP / NW CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH / FP / DEVELOPER FP / / FP / Za / / NW NW JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE FP / REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 / FP S (302) 226-6645 /FP NW / SA FP NW N / FP / / FP SA N / Za NW / / NW SA N LINE TABLE / / SA WINDWARD RIDGE / NW NW N LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION / / / S / / SA N / / / SA FgcA / / / N / / SA / N SA / N / SA N FgcA / S / / / / NW NW NW / NW NW / / NW / / NW / / / NW / / KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE G / G / NW / / / G / G / G / / WocA / NW / / / G / / W G / / / G S NW W G / / W NW / G G / / CITY OF DOVER / W G G W / / / G NW W / NW NW NW WdcB W G NW NW / NW W / / G FgcA W G W CoA / / W / G W / / / / G W / / FgcA / G W / / / / W / G HbB / W / / / / / / G / W / / / / / / / / G W / / / / / / / / / / G W / / / / / W G / / / W / / / G / W HbB G / / W / / © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 / / MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. WdcB G W / / / / G W / / / / G W / / / HbB G W / W / / / G / / W / / G W SHEET TITLE / W / G / / W PRELIMINARY PLAN EXISTING CONDITION / W / / W / / W / SHEET NUMBER / W / / W / / / / W W 3 OF 8 / / 167

Item 2. LEGEND RT HNO MORRIS & RITCHIE NW NW ASSOCIATES, INC. NW NW ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, FP FP SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE SUITE 36 NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 302-326-2200 302-326-2399 FAX DEVELOPER JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 (302) 226-6645 WINDWARD RIDGE KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE CITY OF DOVER © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. A A A A A A A A A CZ CZ A A CZ CZ A A A CZ A A CZ CZ CZ A CZ CZ CZ CZ CZ A CZ CZ A A A SHEET TITLE A A A A PRELIMINARY PLAN A A SITE PLAN A A SHEET NUMBER 4 OF 8 168

Item 2. FP FP FP LEGEND FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP RT NW NW H NO MORRIS & RITCHIE FP NW NW FP ASSOCIATES, INC. FP FP FP ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, FP SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FP FP 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE SUITE 36 NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 FP 302-326-2200 302-326-2399 FAX FP FP DEVELOPER FP JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 (302) 226-6645 FP FP FP NW FP FP NW FP WINDWARD RIDGE NW FP NW FP FP FP FP NW FP NW FP FP FP NW FP FP NW FP FP NW FP FP NW NW FP NW NW FP NW NW FP KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE NW FP NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW CITY OF DOVER NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW // NW NW // // NW NW // NW // NW NW NW // // NW NW NW NW NW NW // // NW NW // // NW // NW // NW // NW // // © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET TITLE PRELIMINARY PLAN SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER 5 OF 8 169

Item 2. LEGEND W W W W W W W W W W W W RT HNO NW NW MORRIS & RITCHIE W W NW NW ASSOCIATES, INC. W W FP FP ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE W ARCHITECTS W W W W W W W 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE W W SUITE 36 W W W NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 W 302-326-2200 W 302-326-2399 FAX W W W W DEVELOPER W JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE W REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 W (302) 226-6645 W W W W W W W W W W W W WINDWARD RIDGE W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE W W W W W W W W W CITY OF DOVER W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 W W MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SHEET TITLE W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W PRELIMINARY PLAN W W W W W W W UTILITY PLAN W S W SHEET NUMBER W W W W 6 OF 8 170

Item 2. FP FP FP FP LEGEND FP FP FP FP FP FP FP RT H NO MORRIS & RITCHIE W FP NW NW W FP ASSOCIATES, INC. NW NW W FP ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, FP SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE FP FP ARCHITECTS W FP W W W FP 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE W SUITE 36 W W NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 FP W 302-326-2200 W 302-326-2399 FAX W FP FM FM W FP W DEVELOPER W FP JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT W 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 W (302) 226-6645 W FP FP W W FP NW W FP W W FP NW W FP WINDWARD RIDGE NW W W W FP NW W FP FP FP W FP NW FP NW W FP W FP FP NW W FP W FP NW FP FP NW W FP W FP NW NW W FP W NW W NW FP NW NW W FP KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE W NW W FP W W NW NW W W NW W NW W FM NW W NW NW FM NW W NW CITY OF DOVER NW NW FM NW NW W NW NW W FM NW NW NW W FM NW // NW NW // // W NW FM NW // W NW // NW W NW NW FM // // W NW NW NW W W W NW NW FM NW // // W NW W NW // // FM W W NW // NW // W FM W NW // NW // FM W FM // W W FM W W FM W W FM W W FM © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 W W MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. W W FM W W W FM W W W W W W FM W W W W SHEET TITLE W FM W W W PRELIMINARY PLAN W W UTILITY PLAN W W W W SHEET NUMBER W W W W W W W 7 OF 8 W W W W W W 171

Item 2. FP FP FP FP SITE NOTES: FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP MORRIS & RITCHIE FP FP FP ASSOCIATES, INC. FP FP FP FP ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE FP ARCHITECTS FP FP NORTH FP FP FP FP NW NW NW 18 BOULDEN CIRCLE SUITE 36 FP NEW CASTLE, DE 19720 FP FP NW 302-326-2200 FP 302-326-2399 FAX NW NW NW FP FP FP NOTES: DEVELOPER FP NW JACK LINGO ASSET MANAGEMENT NW 246 REHOBOTH AVENUE FP REHOBOTH BEACH, DE 19971 FP (302) 226-6645 FP NW FP NW FP FP NW NW WINDWARD RIDGE NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE // // // NW // NW // NW // // NW CITY OF DOVER // // // NW NW NW NW NW NW NW LEGEND © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2023 MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. NW NW NW NW FP FP SHEET TITLE PRELIMINARY PLAN // // ACTIVE RECREATION AND LANDSCAPE PLA SHEET NUMBER 8 OF 8 172

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION October 16, 2023 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 16, 2023 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper (virtual – but not present for application MI-23-03), Mr. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. There currently is one vacant member seat that has not been appointed (since the end of Ms. Malone’s Term in June 2023). Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual for part of meeting) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. NEW APPLICATIONS S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Application for the construction of thirteen (13) garden style apartment buildings consisting of eleven (11) buildings containing twenty-four (24) units and two (2) buildings containing eighteen (18) units for a total of 300 apartment units. Also proposed are twelve (12) garage buildings, a Club House with Pool, walking paths, parking, and other site improvements. Two (2) existing single family detached dwellings will remain on separate lots after a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan to reconfigure the three properties. The properties are zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The subject site consists of three parcels totaling 40.12 acres +/- located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of but not adjacent to Carlisle Drive. The owners of record are George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig; Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller; and Bruce A. Burkett and the equitable owner is Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC. Property Addresses: 57 Rocky Road, 4085 West Denneys Road, and an unaddressed parcel on West Denneys Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-056.00-01-02.00-000, ED-05- 056.00-01-03.00-000, and ED-056.00-01-04.00-000. Council District 1. Review of Active Recreation Area. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Sidewalk and Subdivision Waiver of Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street. This subject area was annexed with Application AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road. Representative: Mr. Charlie Barnett, Morris & Ritchie Associates Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is the application for Windward Ridge Apartments S-23- 19. It is a Site Development Plan and it does have a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan as part of it and an Active Recreation Area Plan. It involves three tracts of land currently addressed as 57 Rocky Road, 4085 West Denneys Road, and an unaddressed parcel adjacent to those also found on the north side of West Denneys Road. The image shown on the screen is the plan for the entire site. Denneys Road is at the lower right-hand corner. The property subject to development is located west of Carlisle Village which is a single family residential subdivision that exists already out there. However, Carlisle Village is not in the City of Dover. The three parcels that Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 1 of 13 173

Item 2. make up this tract of just over forty (40) acres were annexed into the City of Dover with an application from 2022 with final action in early January 2023. The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and is also subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Their proposal is for an apartment complex of 300 units. It is spread across a total of thirteen (13) buildings. The project also includes Garages and a Club House building with a pool. Graphically, we see that these are three-story apartment buildings. There are a couple of entry points to each building that are located off the parking area. The parking surrounds the buildings. There is a circulation pattern throughout the development that loops through it. There is one access point to the facility from West Denneys Road. With this, they are meeting the City’s parking requirements for parking of apartment projects and that is a rate of 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit. They would require 675 parking spaces. Their project is currently showing 724 parking spaces and those kind of flank the perimeter of the circulation drive. Also, the spaces are found within the twelve garage buildings that are on the site. With the project, there is the requirement for active recreation and their active recreation is proposed as a Club House facility with a pool. That Active Recreation Plan was required to have a minimum of 1.9 acres of land or facilities, and they are proposing 2.24 acres. It is a mix of spaces within the Club House. We can see that there is a variety of different spaces within that building to serve as yoga, fitness, and a great room that has game tables and the like. There are also restroom facilities that serve it and the adjacent pool area. Throughout the rest of the complex for active recreation, we do see a tot lot playground, a series of walking trails through two of the wooded areas that will remain on the project site, and the exercise and picnic area that is near the pool. There is also a proposal for a dog park area off one of the walking trails. There is an Active Recreation Area Report that focuses on the elements of active recreation. There were some Staff Recommendations made with that Active Recreation Plan that they presented to the Parks and Rec Committee. The Parks and Rec Committee did recommend approval of the proposed Active Recreation Area Plan subject to the plan review comments that Staff had made. With this project, there are a couple of Waivers that we need to talk about. One of them is related to sidewalks. The project is required to have sidewalks or a pathway along its frontage. In the image shown, you can see that a multi-use path will be provided basically from the east across the frontage. They are seeking relief from constructing a sidewalk or pathway across the remaining two lots where the existing single family detached housing units are. That is where they wish to not construct sidewalk. They have had some discussions with DelDOT already about traffic-related improvements and we will hear more from the applicant in that regard. They are seeking relief from having to construct sidewalk along these two areas that are already developed: by the single-family houses and its adjacent neighbor that is also a single-family unit with some other accessory structures. The second Waiver Request is actually called a Subdivision Waiver Request. In this request, the Subdivision Code requires two connections to a public street when a site development consists of more than one hundred and fifty (150) dwelling units. With that, they are only proposing this one entrance and have made that Request to serve this by that one entrance. That one entrance, Staff does note, is a boulevard style entry; meaning that is has a divided median. Planning Staff is supporting this Waiver Request because of the limitations on what actually has a frontage and some of the preliminary comments received from DelDOT regarding the design of that entrance. Which really, there is not an option to get a second entrance onto West Denneys Road in this area. Unfortunately, when Carlisle Village was developed, there was no interconnection planned with that and then the remaining areas surrounding this proposed development tract, in some cases are impacted by wetland areas or to Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 2 of 13 174

Item 2. the north, there is actually a floodplain area where the City would prohibit construction in that area anyway. This is the second Waiver for you to consider this evening. The DAC Report is rather extensive. It includes the comments from the other regulatory agencies. This project did go through the PLUS Review process and the initial PLUS comments as well as the applicant’s response to those are part of the packet. The Minor Lot Line is just to reconfigure the three existing parcels that we are dealing with to the configuration to place the large development on the overall tract and adjust what was the rear areas of the existing single-family residences. Some of that property land mass turns into the development area. We do have the applicant representative here. She would just remind the Planning Commission that this is a Site Development Plan. It is an allowed use for garden apartments in the RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). With the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), that has some limitations on impervious surface coverage which they’ve shown us the initial calculations for that and they will be continuing to work with the Kent Conservation District regarding stormwater management planning for the site. Tonight, the Planning Commission will need to act on the partial elimination of sidewalk Waiver and then make a recommendation regarding the Subdivision Waiver for the requirement of two connections to a public street. Mr. Barnett stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams’ introduction was very thorough. As mentioned, the project does have two Waivers that we will be looking for. Prior to submitting the plans to the City of Dover, they met with the City Fire Marshal. They discussed the single entrance, the circulation of emergency vehicles within the development, and the access to the buildings. They actually sat down together to delineate and show where those were requested by the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal made comment during the DAC Meeting that they had met those requested locations and there was no problem on that behalf with the single entrance or the design of the entrance. As stated, they did have a pre-application meeting with DelDOT in which they reiterated to us that it is their intent and wishes to only have one entrance to this subdivision off of West Denneys Road. West Denneys Road is a major collector in their hierarchy of streets and their Subdivision Code states to only allow one entrance per subdivision onto roads of that sort. Due to the remaining parcels around us, there aren’t any other connections to either State or City owned roads to have another entrance to. They have also made comments in the DAC Meeting packet that also states that they recommend the Waiver that was approved for a single entrance access. Also, the other Waiver speaking towards the sidewalks, as stated, they have sidewalks throughout the entire Site Plan provided for all of the residents. The only location that we are requesting for it not to be is in front of the existing homestead for the Keller Family as well as the Craig Family immediately west. They are proposing to have a multi-use path on the east or the right of the entrance as shown on the plan. It will tie into the actual street frontage on both sides; however, to extend that across the neighboring existing homesteads that sidewalk would cut right through the middle of her driveway. It would be fifteen feet off the front of her house and it would be quite cumbersome for Ms. Keller to continue to live there. We are required per DelDOT at our entrance there in front of her house to have an acceleration lane as people come out of the subdivision to turn right and go west. There will be a bike lane that then turns into the shoulder of West Denneys Road. So, there will be a way for people to walk along that bike lane and pedestrian way to that side. But DelDOT will not want the sidewalk to be within their right of way and due to the dedication of the additional right of way, it leaves a very small area. We are going to still dedicate and show a fifteen-foot-wide easement in front of her Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 3 of 13 175

Item 2. home and along the front of both of those properties there. If in the future, there is any sidewalk to the west then this could potentially connect to. If for some reason in the future she moves away and something else happens with that property, there would be an easement that would allow for a sidewalk to be constructed. But at this time, there is no pedestrian facilities to the west, no real logical reason to have this be built at this time. Therefore, we are requesting that waiver. Mr. Hartman stated that according to the PLUS statement, if there’s fifty (50) vehicle trips in per hour in any hour of the day, there is TIS required. Is that correct? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that he thinks that number is two hundred (200); that is the limit of when DelDOT requires a TIS. Mr. Hartman asked if he could review Comment 5 to your reply to the PLUS comment. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that he thinks the comment is verbatim as we received it. But in addition to that, we have another letter from DelDOT dated August 2, 2023 and the City was copied on it that says that “they will accept the areawide study fee for this as they do not meet the necessity for a Traffic Impact Study.” He thought that it was going to have that information in here, but he doesn’t see it in their language. Mr. Hartman stated that the comments letter is dated September 29, 2023 and the requirement here in your answer is fifty (50) vehicle trips per hour in any hour of the day. How many vehicle trips do you project from this? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that number that you are reading is not his response. That is the initial question that was written. Mr. Hartman stated that they are saying that the requirement is per Section 2.2.2.1 of the Manual. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that there are two parts to the question. The first of which is that they report that during the maximum hour, the highest peak hour. They have seventy-six (76) trips. Mr. Hartman stated that they exceed what DelDOT has said first of all with about fifty (50) vehicle trip ins per any hour of the day. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that they are exceeding what was made in that comment here. He just found DelDOT’s other letter to us where they do say that “this project would qualify for a payment to the Area Wide Study fee in lieu of doing a TIS as it would generate fewer than 2,000 trips per day and fewer than 200 peak hour trips.” He believes that the one from PLUS is a typographical error. Mr. Hartman stated that it is also addressed in the same letter as Comment 6. So, which one is this body supposed to take, Comment 5 or Comment 6? What is an area wide survey fee? What do you anticipate paying for an area wide survey? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that he believes that the language in Comment 6 is more accurate and is reflected of what is in the Development Coordination Manual. He can’t speak to the typographical error in Comment 5. To the second question about the Area Wide Study fee, he believes that the letter from DelDOT says that the Area Wide Study fee would be $19,980. In case you are not familiar, that is not the fee that the developer would pay for improvements to DELDOT streets or to do anything. It is just for DelDOT to double check their numbers and calculate everything. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 4 of 13 176

Item 2. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that but could he explain what good is this Area Wide Study fee going to do for this development and for the adjacent developments. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that the Area Wide Study fee allows DelDOT to do their own traffic calculations to determine if there are areas that have problematic intersections or if additional improvements are needed in order to maintain safe traffic maneuvering. Mr. Hartman stated that this Area Wide Study fee of $19,980 will not specifically address concerns from Carlisle Village, Maple Glen, Farthing Woods, or this proposed development. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that it very well could as the result of that. Mr. Hartman asked if he could stop him on “could”. This body is supposed to make decisions to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public and you are telling me that it “could.” We have disagreeing comments here to the PLUS Committee. He doesn’t understand how this body could make a decision tonight based on our responsibilities to the public to approve this. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that West Denneys Road is a DelDOT State maintained street. DelDOT does studies from time to time. Some are done by developers and some are done internally. In those studies, they determine if the portions of street, intersections, traffic are safe and if improvements are needed in order to keep those operating at their standards. The Area Wide Study fee is the thing that a developer can pay to help DelDOT offset the costs of doing those counts, but it in no way changes what requirements the developer is required to do in order to update, improve and maintain those same areas. DelDOT still has the opportunity to come to the developer and require them to make improvements to the road down the street and intersections between the development and other high traffic areas. It does not prohibit or preclude any of those things from happening. Mr. Hartman asked who the local land use authority was here. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the reference to the local land use authority would be the City of Dover and in its adopted regulations. That would be the Zoning Ordinance and the process that we have for review which involves the Planning Commission. Collectively yes. She does want to comment on the two different statements that DelDOT has made in the PLUS letter and in the applicant’s response in Comments 5 and 6. They actually refer to two different sections of the Development Coordination Manual. She thinks that there is one test for Traffic Impact Studies. There is a different test which is the Comment 6 for if it would be eligible for an Area Wide Study fee payment in lieu. So, there are two different threshold tests there. In the case of West Denneys Road, DelDOT is the regulatory authority. They will have to meet the requirements of DelDOT for the design of their entrance and connection to that roadway. It may involve other off-site improvements to that segment of West Denneys Road or beyond. That will be part of any kind of Entrance Plan review process with that regulatory agency. Mr. Hartman stated that Article 7 of the special provisions, which you quote a variance and waiver states that “City Council may vary or waive said requirements provided that such variance or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.” This has happened before with traffic. He likes this proposal except for the traffic. It looks like a beautiful development and he agrees with everything else except for the lack of a Traffic impact study. Why did our Planning Office as the local land use authority not see this? You are looking at DelDOT which looks at a chart and you are looking at it if as there is no other option than just Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 5 of 13 177

Item 2. one entrance so we have to grant this variance. We, as the Commission, have to look at the public health, safety and welfare and every time this issue comes up, we are left holding the bag. We have to make a decision on public safety and welfare with no information except DelDOT reading the chart and Planning Staff saying “well there is no other option.” It is quoted in this PLUS comment that the DelDOT Manual requires a TIS with fifty (50) peak trips a day. They are having seventy-six (76) so he plans to vote no on this application based on that. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that he would again just reiterate that whether a Traffic Impact Study is done by the developer or whether DelDOT uses the Area Wide Study fee to do their own traffic analysis, it does not change what requirements will or will not impose on the project in order to make sure that the surrounding roads and intersections are up kept to their standards. He has seen two things from Mr. Hartman. One, he is concerned about there only being one entrance. He would say that the traffic on West Denneys Road would be the same if we had two entrances versus one. It is still the same number of units and traffic out on the road. Two, DelDOT is going to determine what the developer is responsible to do because of their traffic impact. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they do a Traffic Impact Study or whether DelDOT uses information gained through their Area Wide Study fee. Mr. Hartman stated that he wishes it was in the Ordinance that it was DelDOT’s responsibility to approve this thing and protect the public health and welfare. But it’s our responsibility and here we are without any information from you or DelDOT and we have to make a decision to protect the public health and safety. He thinks that they should come down on the side of public health and safety rather than what could be or might be. Mrs. Denney stated that she had questions along that line about the applicant’s statement that there is no other entrance available. Even if for some reason there were able to come up with a plan, it would still force the traffic on Denneys Road which is already an issue. She feels like it is all over Delaware. All of our roads were built a long time ago and not to serve as many people and so everything forces impacts. She sometimes looks at things and thinks okay another traffic light, which only just makes everybody’s commutes longer especially in peak hours. Then she thinks about school buses and things like that. It doesn’t appear as though there is really much opportunity for widening there or to make another lane or even to have turn lanes. That gives her great concern. She realizes that the ingress and egress and all of that traffic impact is all of the responsibility of DelDOT and we can’t say that someone can only have so many cars. That is DelDOT; it is a State maintained road and that is up to them. She really has a concern and she is wondering if there was a way to have two areas for ingress and egress on West Denneys Road, would that help? She is not an engineer so she wouldn’t proclaim yes or no but she is asking that question. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Barnett stated that if you looked at Google Earth or a wide view map of where this project is located, it’s just nowhere close where you can put another road out to West Denneys Road. The closest thing that you have is to try to connect it somewhere into Carlisle Village and as stated before, there is really not room to do that. He would imagine that the residents of Carlisle Village wouldn’t want these people driving through their neighborhood and yet again, if they would, they would move 300 feet down the road and exit onto West Denneys Road. If the concern is traffic along West Denneys Road, it would still be the same number of cars whether they went through Carlisle Village or came out of their own entrance. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 6 of 13 178

Item 2. Mrs. Denney stated these buildings are not designed as a senior community, so you are going to have school buses. You may have even bus stops, people waiting along the road to take a bus in town or to shop or to work, because we have more people doing that these days. She happens to live on State Street and it’s an absolute walking community. At 8:00AM you have people out there waiting for buses with their children, you have people who are biking and walking to jobs that she assumes are in Downtown Dover because she never follows anybody. They generally go by around 8:00AM and then again at 5:30-6:00PM in the opposite direction. So she is making a broad assumption that they are going and coming from work. She is just concerned with the width of the road, where the entrance is, or if there is like a DART bus stop. She knows that that is up to DelDOT where they would make the area for the bus station, but she is just concerned. Is there room for that? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Barnett stated that there will be dedicated turn lanes out of the subdivision. We have been able to display that to DelDOT at our pre- application meeting that there is the room to do that. It is his understanding that school buses and other bus stops would be internal; so, they would come off of West Denneys Road and into the neighborhood. Mrs. Denney stated that the school bus thing makes sense that they will go in. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Barnett stated that they have provided very wide drive aisles through the entrance. As stated before, they have a boulevard entrance so there is a nice landscaped island in the middle, but then it’s a twenty foot wide lane on either side. There is plenty of room for buses and emergency vehicles to get in and out without having to worry about any of that. They should be able to get into the internal part of the subdivision to be able to do any kind of bus stops or pickups without backing up traffic on West Denneys Road. Mrs. Denney stated that when she looks at these plans, the other thing is that there is already going to be an impact on Carlisle Village. But there would be no reason that they could accomplish anything by going through Carlisle Village in any way. We also need to think about the people who are established in Carlisle Village. We don’t want their homes, their daily commutes, or their lives to be anymore disrupted than getting a new neighbor would be. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Barnett stated that unfortunately when that subdivision was designed there was no provisions made for a future connection. It is single lots all along that side and there is really not a gap anywhere to be able to connect the road through. Mrs. Denney stated that at this point, they all have to come out through the new development to get out on Denneys Road. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Barnett stated that there will be no cross traffic straight between Carlisle Village and Windward Ridge either way. Mr. Hartman asked about Lot B, if that lot was part of the development and would that help in the exit in any way? That is one of the owners, correct? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated correct, one of the existing landowners in going to retain that parcel to continue to live in. Mr. Hartman asked that if they were to give up that parcel, would engineering permit a better outlet to Denneys Road. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Barnett stated that he would say two things to that. One, DelDOT’s Development Coordination Manual very clearly states that for major collector roads, any subdivisions shall have access through one single access point, and they would not allow a second one. They stated to us in the meeting as well that they wouldn’t Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 7 of 13 179

Item 2. and again, it will not change the amount of traffic on West Denneys Road one bit. It would still be the exact same number of cars. You would then have a traffic congestion area with two entrances so close to each other. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that and agrees with it but he was just thinking about road widening. Dr. Jones stated that she concurs with the concern about the traffic. There are three other developments in that area that use West Denneys Road. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Barnett stated yes, he thinks that there might be three. Dr. Jones stated that they all access that road that doesn’t even have much of a shoulder. So the number of cars or trips to which you refer, basically you are referring to those that would be generated by the apartments. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Barnett stated that is correct. Dr. Jones stated that does not really take into consideration every trip. She has a lot of testimony from people in that area and that is one of their major concerns. One even mentioned that of course housing is desirable, but the traffic will be a nightmare. So that will be one of her concerns as well because it really is a bad road. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Barnett stated that the best response to that would be that the developer will be providing money to DelDOT for improvements as part of their entrance design and requirements. DelDOT often collects these monies from different subdivisions and then puts them towards their capital projects. If they determine that West Denneys Road needs to be improved between the entrance here and the light at McKee Road or anything like that, they can do one of two things. They can require the developer to actually pay for that upfront or pay into a kitty that as it builds up with enough money that they can then make those kinds of improvements on a statewide basis. Obviously, for the developer to do that might impact other landowners up and down West Denneys Road and that is difficult to do from a private side. But if the developer pays money to DelDOT, then they can do it as a capital project. Dr. Jones stated that she can appreciate that but of course what happens normally, the improvements are not concurrent with the completion of new developments. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Brandon Politt – 3232 Kenton Road Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Politt stated that he is the landowner of 3232 Kenton Road which is connected to the northern side. He travels West Denneys Road quite frequently and it is very heavily traveled. He does ask Council to keep in mind that you do have two more proposed developments coming up. Stonebrook East and Stonebrook West are going to add additional traffic to West Denneys Road. He has already seen accidents at Carlisle Village and the house on the corner has already been run through. His other concern is what is going to be done to keep people out of other people’s properties. Are there going to be fences, privacy barriers or anything along those lines? Mr. Kenny Clendaniel – 3867 West Denneys Road Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Clendaniel stated that his property is approximately four (4) properties west of this entrance Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 8 of 13 180

Item 2. that goes into this new development. If Mrs. Melson-Williams’ statement was correct that there are 2.25 cars that they need parking spaces for, that’s about 672 cars that could be coming out of there and this entrance is in the middle of a S-curve. There is a curve to the east and a curve to the west. There is very little chance to see either way whether there are cars coming or not. He has lived on West Denneys Road for 73 years and he has seen it grow up to the point now where there are no shoulders at all from Dover Kenton Road all the way to McKee Road. There is not one bit of shoulders on that road. He belongs to the fire department that covers that road and we have run many accidents between Carlisle Village and that S curve there. He thinks that is something that we need to keep in mind. Mr. C.J. Palmer – 48 Ardsley Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Palmer stated that he lives in Carlisle Village. Looking at this project, it is a pretty large project and it is actually bumping right up against Carlisle Village. We have the environmental piece and a security and safety piece. Will this property be separated from Carlisle Village? Talking about that entrance from a security and safety piece, regardless of how many spaces you have, these buildings look like three to four stories high. For emergency vehicles to get in there, especially ladder trucks that are going to cause an issue especially for turnarounds and things of that nature. For the security up against the Carlisle Village community, is there going to be a separation fence line? How do we plan on doing that because whoever is occupying these buildings, they may find it necessary to cross through people’s yards or something to find a way out or an easy way through. You were talking about sidewalks and things along that area. How is that going to really affect Carlisle Village? From a resident’s point of view, what type of residents because we have assisted living? Will there be assisted living or low income apartments in there? These are things that he would like to know. Where can he go to see the studies that have been done on this? Just by living there, like the gentlemen before him, there have been many accidents. He has seen the Carlisle Village entrance get hit three or four times. But the other piece is the environmental piece. When it rains heavily, are they redirecting all that water or are they going to be redirecting it into Carlisle Village? Right now, it flows right across Denneys Road especially at that bend right there. There are a lot of nuisances that we need to address or if they have been addressed, how can we get that information and read up on it to see if it’s been addressed appropriately? Mrs. Melson-Williams stated to answer a couple of questions, there is an open area between the planned improvements for the apartment project and where Carlisle Village is. She believes that there is a woods line there and she doesn’t believe that it is intended to be fenced. But there is definitely a separation there. What would be the closest to Carlisle Village is a series of parking spaces and a couple of the garage buildings for a portion of the site. For the other question about the types of residents, she believes that this is what they would call a “market rate” apartment complex. It is not specifically targeted to any particular income group or need group that has been mentioned. Our Code does not require them to identify that as part of their process. And the environmental question about rain, they will have to manage the stormwater i.e. the rain that falls on their property on their site. They will be working with the Kent Conservation District as to plans for where they need to add ponds or other facilities to manage their water on their site. Mr. Palmer, if you would like to view their plans more closely, you can certainly reach out to the Planning Office. We are located here in Downtown Dover in the City Hall building. We are open 8:30AM-5:00PM and we would be happy to show you the plans and help you understand those. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 9 of 13 181

Item 2. If you reach out to us, they could also provide some things to you electronically. They are posted on the City’s website as part of tonight’s meeting packet as well. Mr. Barnett stated that the only thing that he was going to add was that along the common property line of Carlisle Village, they are proposing to retain at minimum, a twenty (20) foot wide strip of trees in that setback. In most places, it is a little bit wider than that. The narrowest part is down at the southern end at the closest parking spaces to West Denneys Road. As you travel back into the neighborhood just because of the way the two property lines aren’t parallel to each other, it actually gets wider towards the back end. It is closer to about forty (40) foot wide of trees that will be saved. In addition, up against those remaining trees there is all parking spaces, none of the buildings are right there. The closest buildings are going to be over 95 feet away from the property lines. The parking spaces up against there will have islands in them and those islands will have additional landscape trees planted. As Mrs. Melson-Williams stated, they will be working with the Kent Conservation District for stormwater management. They have already had discussions with them and technical exploration have been done to determine if we can do infiltration which they were hoping to do on this site in some places. The stormwater management will be designed so that no additional runoff will leave the property onto any of the surrounding sites. Mr. Joseph Blevins – 39 Ardsley Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Blevins stated that he agrees with what Mr. Palmer was saying. He understands that it was said that these are market rate apartment housing which is fine but there are 300 units. Are we assuming that everybody living in this apartment complex is going to be automobile dependent because if not, all of West Denneys Road doesn’t have sidewalks and the nearest place to get groceries is 2.3 miles away at Redners. He kind of heard all of that conversation but the audio has been very in and out. Additionally, there are no bus stops along that way and that’s not really the developer’s problem. It would be a City of Dover decision to put bus stops in, correct? To put an apartment complex that is isolated like that and expect everyone to have an automobile, just seems a little far-fetched to him. He knows that they are talking about one entrance in. Yes, Carlisle Village has one entrance, but Carlisle Village was built in 1996. It had different rules and regulations. They have changed since then and for good reason. In regards to the buffer, twenty foot of growth is not actually a big buffer. Are you ripping out all of the old growth and putting in new? He would like to actually see a fence in addition to the wooded buffer. Finally, his question is when the developers do come in and start clearing out all of these old growth trees for their development that have been there for quite some time, there is quite a bit of wildlife that lives there that is now going to want to live in his front yard. Does he get to charge the developer for damages to his property for the wildlife that they have disrupted? Responding to Mr. Blevins, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that on the question about the bus stop location, that is not a City decision. Public transportation is part of the DART First State Program. They look at development activities and would identify if a bus stop location is necessary and where that should be placed in that corridor area. Mr. Blevins stated that Denneys Road is just a really dangerous road to be walking on. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for the concern with the buffer, she believes that their intention is to leave the existing trees in that area. There will be some additional, in close proximity, tree plantings of new trees to meet the tree planting requirements for the overall site as well. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 10 of 13 182

Item 2. Mr. Jordan Ford – 4193 West Denneys Road Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Ford stated he does like lot of what was mentioned in regards to the proposal of the project. He has two main concerns with it. One is that his property is right on the edge of Carlisle Drive on West Denneys Road. He is right on that S curve. If we are going to be putting in that entrance, he sees that as a huge issue because time and time again, people are already speeding through this road. We are already having people pull out of Carlisle Village without that stop sign. He is not sure if this is for DelDOT, but he would propose at minimum, a traffic light to be implemented here or at least onto that new apartment complex. Another thing that he would mention is the wildlife impact that it would have. Right now he has that woods as his backyard and it is really a shame to have that taken away. As the other caller mentioned, to have that displaced is definitely going to put damage onto his property. He would like to know how that would be used. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there was a particular question that Mr. Ford was looking for an answer on because it wasn’t real clear. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Ford stated that he just wanted to make those statements. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there were two items of public comment that were received in writing. The first one was received in time and it went out in our packets to the Planning Commission members. That was an email dated September 29, 2023 from Mr. Joseph Blevins. In his email, he notes the need for housing but then also listed some questions which she thinks that he reiterated in his statement this evening about questions on its proximity to really anything service-wise, the concern about Denneys Road with bust stops, the road itself, and the lack of sidewalks. So that is presented for the Planning Commission. This evening, it was on the Commissioner’s desks and was distributed by email as well, is an email that was received on October 12, 2023 from Ms. Beth Knight. She notes that she is a longtime resident and homeowner in Carlisle Village. She notes some concerns about the apartment buildings. Mainly, her statement is focused on West Denneys Road itself, noting the makeup of that road with no shoulders, turn lanes or sidewalks in this area and the levels of traffic over time and the potential for concerns with if there are accidents in the area and the ability to exit various neighborhoods. Her closing statement is that she has other concerns but the traffic situation is probably the priority. She disagrees with a large apartment complex being built at that location. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that six or seven of the public commenting tonight either here or virtually or by email, mentioned their concerns with traffic and three or four of them mentioned their experiences with accidents in that area. He just wanted to again state that their responsibility to protect the public’s safety, health and welfare and that is the same with City Council. He is disappointed that they weren’t given a Traffic Impact Study. Mr. Baldwin stated that he has listened to the testimony and read the technical data. This afternoon, he spent 2 hours on that curve. He would drive to McKee Road to Kenton Road and he would wait at the curve just to observe the traffic that was coming at that curve. In the two hours that he was there, he was almost hit twice. So, he is imagining what would happen if Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 11 of 13 183

Item 2. something happened in front of the entrance to this apartment complex. The people would be trapped in there and would not be able to get out. He is just uncomfortable going with one entrance. He is thinking that maybe there is something else that can be done to make that curve safer for the people who are going in and out. Secondly, is there going to be a left and right in and out or is it just going to be a left in and a right out? Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Barnett stated that it will be a full movement left and right in and out. Mr. Baldwin asked if they were going to have acceleration and deacceleration lanes. Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Barnett stated yes. There will be acceleration and deacceleration lanes and there will be safety area for someone to turn left into the subdivision and to be able to get around the vehicle that is stopped there. DelDOT will require us to widen the road through the S turn. If there is an ability to soften the sharpness of the curves, they will have that done as well. It will all be part of the final engineering and design. At this time, we are not at that process but that’s something that DelDOT’s safety engineers will review and require as part of the entrance. In addition to widening that, he believes that the site lines will be opened up so that you can see better through that S-turn DelDOT will require them to take out some of the trees right along the edge of that road that kind of blocks that now. That should hopefully make it have a better viewpoint in both directions. Mr. Hartman moved to table application S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road for construction of 13 garden style apartment buildings until this body is provided a Traffic Impact Study or other proof that 300 apartments in this development will not be adding to the safety hazard that apparently already exists on West Denneys Road. He bases that partly on the PLUS Report, the DelDOT comments specifically their comments in Section 2.2.2.1 of the Development Coordination Manual which requires a Traffic Impact Study where development generates in trips of 50 or more vehicles in any hour of the day. As the applicant stated, they have 76 in trips at peak. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones. (Discussion continued.) Mrs. Maucher asked if there was a proposal of how to bring it back. Are you looking for a letter from DelDOT? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Hartman stated that he is looking for something from either the City, the developer or DelDOT that would alay the fears of the public and of himself and others in this body that they would not be creating a safety hazard with approval of this application based on the 300 apartment units. He is looking for something to base a recommendation that yes, it provides safety, health and welfare for the public and he is not there yet. He doesn’t see anywhere in here that says that. Mrs. Maucher asked Planning Staff if there was a requirement on timing to bring it back. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in the current motion that was put forth by Mr. Hartman, it was a motion to table. She would suggest that it is changed to a motion to defer. He requested specific information so it would be upon receipt of that information, they could then place it back on your meeting agenda to complete the consideration of that should this motion that was put forth be successful this evening. Mr. Hartman moved to defer application S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road for construction of 13 garden style apartment buildings until this body is provided a Traffic Impact Study or other proof that 300 apartments in this development will not be adding to the safety hazard that apparently already exists on West Denneys Road. He bases that partly on the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 12 of 13 184

Item 2. PLUS Report, the DelDOT comments specifically their comments in Section 2.2.2.1 of the Development Coordination Manual which requires a Traffic Impact Study where development generates in trips of 50 or more vehicles in any hour of the day. As the applicant stated, they have 76 in trips at peak. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mr. Cooper absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on his earlier statements. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on prior statements. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons that have been stated and the concerns of the residents in that area as well as other information that has been discussed. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she would like more information herself. In looking at the plan, the current location of the entrance does appear to be one of the most unsafe locations from her point of view that it could be located. Mr. Roach voting yes; in regards to the concerns of the residents of the area and the entrance way and also the traffic. He does believe that they need a little bit more information just so they can make a better informed decision. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks that she would like to be better informed most especially about DelDOT’s information because obviously already by testimony given by people this evening, there are lots of accidents along that road. And whether they recommend a traffic light or whatever DelDOT recommends, she thinks that it would be important information for us to hear. It’s more than just the traffic. She always thinks what if there is an accident and what if we have fire and rescue equipment trying to get into one of the apartments but the roads are all blocked because there really isn’t much shoulder. She just really would like to hear back, for safety’s sake, what DelDOT has to say. She also just wants to state that she has concerns for the residents who have expressed safety concerns and would like more than just a distance buffer between them and the neighboring development of Carlisle Village. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; particularly on information regarding the safety concerns around the curve and the improvements that will be made to ensure safety with that. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2023 Page 13 of 13 185

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 2023 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes - Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Mark Reaves (new Planning Commission member), and Mrs. Maucher. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. NEW APPLICATIONS S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys Road – Continued Review of a Site Development Application for the construction of thirteen (13) garden style apartment buildings consisting of eleven (11) buildings containing twenty-four (24) units and two (2) buildings containing eighteen (18) units for a total of 300 apartment units. Also proposed are twelve (12) garage buildings, a Club House with Pool, walking paths, parking, and other site improvements. Two (2) existing single family detached dwellings will remain on separate lots after a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan to reconfigure the three properties. The properties are zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The subject site consists of three parcels totaling 40.12 acres +/- located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of but not adjacent to Carlisle Drive. The owners of record are George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig; Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller; and Bruce A. Burkett and the equitable owner is Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC. Property Addresses: 57 Rocky Road, 4085 West Denneys Road, and an unaddressed parcel on West Denneys Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-056.00-01-02.00-000, ED-05-056.00-01-03.00-000, and ED- 056.00-01-04.00-000. Council District 1. Review of Active Recreation Area. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Sidewalk and Subdivision Waiver of Requirement for Two Connections to Public Street. This subject area was annexed with Application AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road. At the October 16, 2023 Meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and then deferred action on Application S-23-19 seeking additional information. Representative: Ms. Pam Scott, Saul Ewing; Mr. Charlie Barnett, Morris & Ritchie Associates; Mr. Doug Motley, Jack Lingo Asset Management, Mr. Joe Caloggero, The Traffic Group Mrs. Denney moved that they continue to review of application S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments Project, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is for a project that proposes a complex of thirteen garden style apartment buildings and also a series of garage buildings. There are active recreation amenities in the form of a Clubhouse with pool, walking paths, a tot lot and some other improvements. This application began review at the October meeting of the Planning Commission. At that time, a public hearing was conducted and closed on the application. The Planning Commission, at that meeting, deferred action on the application seeking some additional information. First, she wants to highlight a couple of things about the project itself. It is located on the north side of West Denneys Road and involves a Minor Lot Line Adjustment to Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 1 of 10 186

Item 2. actually recreate three tracts of land. Two of the tracts have existing single family residences that will remain and the third becomes a larger tract for the development of this apartment complex. The project itself is meeting the parking requirement for apartments. They do have two Waiver Requests. One is the partial elimination of sidewalk which is to eliminate the sidewalk along the portions of the properties that are where the single family residences are to remain. The second Waiver Request is related to a provision of our Subdivision Regulations where there is a requirement for two connections to a public street. The DAC Report was previously entered into the record and still remains which includes the narrative and Planning Office review and then the review comments from the series of Development Advisory Committee member. The Planning Staff is recommending approval of both of the Waiver Requests regarding the sidewalk and the requirement to waive the requirement for two connections to a public street. In preparation for this meeting, we did receive additional information from the applicant focused on the transportation related aspects of this project. It is a letter of summary with attachments, and this was distributed to the members of the Planning Commission last week as an addition to their meeting packet. Specifically, there is a letter of November 14, 2024 on this project that provides a traffic coordination summary that was prepared by Morris & Ritchie Associates and includes three attachments. It included the Traffic Impact Study scoping meeting minutes from November 2022, the Area-Wide Study Fee and Off-site Improvements Memo of August 2023, and an additional copy of the DelDOT application review commentary (otherwise known as their DAC comments). Additionally, they also included an email of November 14, 2023 that was received from the DelDOT plan reviewer assigned to the City of Dover who is Michael Vandevander. His email included attachments of the pre-submittal meeting notes for the project that was held as a conference call in July 2023 and also another copy of that Area-Wide Study Fee and Off-site Improvements Memorandum from August 2023. Ms. Scott stated that as Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated, they did provide a letter to the Planning Commission dated November 14, 2023 which was our attempt to address a number of the issues that arose during the October 16, 2023 Planning Commission meeting that really were focused on issues involving DelDOT; both with respect to the DelDOT requirements with respect to the review of this project as well as the location of the proposed access for this project and the Waiver Request that they are making with respect to requesting that only one entrance be provided in connection with this project. She doesn’t know whether this letter may have caused any additional questions from the Planning Commission as to the information that we have provided. If so, they would certainly be happy to answer any of those questions at this time. Mr. Hartman stated that he didn’t see anything newly disclosed or any new information from the actual submittal. Dr. Jones asked if there was an attempt at all to meet with the residents about their concerns about the project. There were quite a few comments regarding safety in that area and access and so forth. Do you know if there was any attempt to meet with the residents? Responding to Dr. Jones, Ms. Scott stated that she doesn’t believe that there was outside of the hearings that have occurred to date with respect to this project. She thinks that she would say that she knows that a lot of the concerns that were raised had to do with traffic. This project is obviously being proposed to have an entrance on a State maintained highway, West Denneys Road. Because of that, they are largely subject to having to meet DelDOT’s rules and regulations with respect to access and with respect to any other requirements that they may have about this project. They have met all of those requirements. She believes that Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that one of the things that was received was an email from the gentleman from DelDOT. He was following Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 2 of 10 187

Item 2. up on the preliminary review meeting that they had with DelDOT with respect to the proposed access to this site. In any event, Mr. Vandevander stated that “the proposed entrance for this subdivision is located at a position that provides the most sight distance in each direction. The Department is in support of a single access point. This will provide the safety ingress/egress to the site and maximize the use of the sight distance.” DelDOT will not entertain the concept of having a second access on West Denneys Road mainly because of the fact that we only have about 390 feet of frontage on West Denneys Road and that does not provide enough distance between the two possible entrance locations in DelDOT’s opinion, for that to be safe access with two separate entrance points. What they have done is, they have worked with them to design an entrance which they have determined to be safe and appropriate with respect to this particular project. Beyond that, she knows that there was some questions about did they or did they not have to do a Traffic Impact Study. The short answer to that is no, we did not. The reason is because there is a provision in DelDOT’s handbook that essentially provides that even though there are some requirements for a Traffic Impact Study that they may in fact fall within; DelDOT has the authority to rather than require a TIS, to require that they pay an Area-Wide Study Fee. In this particular instance, that was the decision made by the Department of Transportation. That was also made in accordance with the City of Dover because the City of Dover had the opportunity during the course of those conversations to request a TIS and the City of Dover was comfortable with what DelDOT was proposing with respect to the Area-Wide Study Fee. Ms. Scott asked to hand out some information to the Commissioners (the Handout was excerpts from the Development Coordination Manual.) They are specific provisions from DelDOT’s Development Coordination Manual. These are specific provisions with respect to the requirements for Traffic Impact Studies and then also the specific provisions as they relate to the Area-Wide Study Fee. As she stated, they have requested the Waiver with respect to providing two entrances. Clearly in the information that has been received and has been provided in the record that you have been given, there is no other ability to provide a second access on any other street. The only option for a second access would be on West Denneys Road and again, that is a decision that relies solely within the jurisdiction and authority of the Department of Transportation. She does understand that there are some concerns that the one of the objectives of the Planning Commission is to ensure the safety and welfare of the general public. But she doesn’t think that at the end of the day, that supersedes DelDOT’s authority with respect to the design, access and control of the roads that they are responsible to maintain under Title 17 of the Delaware Code. She believes that the Waiver that they are requesting, meets the requirements of your Code with respect to there being unnecessary hardship and exceptional practical difficulty in being able to meet that requirement because as she said, they really don’t have any options for providing that second access for this particular project. Mr. Hartman stated that as late as the DAC Meeting of October 16, 2023, DelDOT said it was still offering if the local land use authority requires it, it would require a TIS. We are the local land use authority and from what you say, we are not. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Ms. Scott stated that she believes that the local land use authority in that instance was the Planning Department who attended those meetings and had the communications with DelDOT and who clearly indicated in the minutes in the DAC Meeting that they were not requiring a Traffic Impact Study. Mr. Hartman stated that the cut off is 2,000 vehicles a day. We have here, two (2) short of 2,000 vehicles a day so he is calling in to question our Planning Office’s agreement with this. He doesn’t understand why they offered an Area-Wide Study Fee based on the comments from the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 3 of 10 188

Item 2. residents. The residents are worried about accidents because there are 1,998 vehicles a day that is two (2) short of what would require a Traffic Impact Study. Plus, there is only one access. That, in his mind, would require a Traffic Impact Study or something to look at the area and none of that was done. Last week, he asked the Planning Office if they were part of the local land use authority, and she answered in the affirmative. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Ms. Scott stated that what she would point to again is, while there are provisions in DelDOT’s Coordination Manual about when a TIS is required, clearly Section 2.2.2.2 (which is one of the pages that she provided the Commission), states that “notwithstanding those requirements if a development will generate a net increase of fewer than 2,000 vehicles per day and fewer than 200 vehicles in any hour of any day, the applicant has not been required to conduct a TIS under certain provisions, the applicant may be permitted in lieu of conducting a TIS, to contribute funds equal to a certain amount as an area-wide study fee.” Again, that is DelDOT’s call potentially, as to whether they think that whatever additional information would be generated as a result of TIS for this project is such information that they need or whether they don’t need that information and instead, prefer to have these additional funds to look at other aspects of this project. Mr. Hartman stated that they are paying almost $20,000 for the fee. You are paying the time it’s taking for us to consider this and you are paying an attorney here tonight. How much would it have costed you to do a TIS at the very beginning? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Ms. Scott stated that is not really the question. The question is, is the regulating agency requiring that and they are not. They have rules and regulations that they follow which we are also following, and, in that vein, they are following very specifically what they told us they are requiring with respect to access to the roadways that are within their jurisdiction. They will be making other improvements to the roadways, and she thinks Mr. Barnett mentioned that the last time that he was here. As part of the entrance approval process that they also still have to go through with DelDOT, there will be other improvements that they are going to have to make. Mr. Barnett stated that they did speak about this a little bit last time. To clarify a little bit and he will ask Mr. Joe Caloggero with The Traffic Group to yell at him if he over speaks and he can get in to fix these specific comments. As he tried to elaborate in the latest letter submitted, during the Scoping Meeting that was held on November 2022, there was more to the meeting than just deciding whether or not a fee can take a place of a Traffic Impact Study. What happens in that meeting is DelDOT, the Traffic Engineer themselves, and the City Planning Office looked at what is typically done in a Traffic Impact Study. They looked at the various surrounding intersections, portions of the roads that are nearby the site, and the traffic that would be generated by the development. They make a determination of whether or not they think that these proposed improvements are going to impact those intersections. For the traffic at those surrounding intersections and the existing traffic on those roads, it is not just a blind number that if you are a couple trips under this limit, you don’t have to do any work. That is not the case, but he wonders if there is a misunderstanding of the difference between the Area-Wide Study Fee and what has to get done as part of a development that falls underneath that category and a full Traffic Impact Study and a development that has to be underneath that. It does not prevent them from having to do any off-site improvements. It does not prevent the developer from having to pay into any improvements for surrounding intersections or other upgrades that aren’t directly involved with the entrance. It doesn’t keep them from needing to improve certain portions of West Denneys Road along the front of their subdivision. It doesn’t do any of those things. It doesn’t cut any corners. It doesn’t shortcut a process or a safety factor or any of those kinds of design elements that need to get done. It merely looks at what’s in the surrounding area, what DelDOT knows about intersections, what their existing traffic numbers say about those Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 4 of 10 189

Item 2. intersections, and determines does this project require further studies for those intersections? Do we know enough about them, and do we know enough about how much traffic is going to be coming that we know what to anticipate and we know what to require that developer to do as part of this subdivision? That is the answer that they came up with at that meeting. Dr. Jones stated that she is reading that DelDOT’s decision is clear that a TIS is not required for this project. She would ask the applicant to address the concern that it may not be required but does that mean that it wasn’t feasible. Responding to Dr. Jones, Ms. Scott stated that a Traffic Impact Study, in her experience, is only performed when the Transportation Department and/or the local jurisdiction require it. It is an expensive undertaking. She is not aware of, for the most part, applicants developing a piece of property are not going to perform that study unless DelDOT specifically requests it, or the local jurisdiction does. Dr. Jones stated that her concern would be that Mrs. Melson-Williams was privy to all of the concerns that were raised during the last meeting. she thinks that the minutes indicated that she pretty much went along with the decision or she sort of influenced the decision or she was not in opposition to the decision to not have the TIS. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated the City of Dover Planning Staff typically has a representative try to attend any kind of scoping meeting that occurs with a project. As mentioned by Mr. Barnett, there is a discussion of traffic in the area, what intersections are within so many intersections of the subject site, and any known issues in the area. In this case, we are talking about a State maintained road at the edge of the community. There was obviously a decision that there will be improvements made to the road section that’s in front of the project site in order to accommodate the entrance and its various turn lanes. Planning Staff, in general, did not feel that a TIS would bear out anything that wasn’t already going to probably happen as part of their entrance plan review process. There will be off-site improvements that are required for this project just like any other subdivision project. There are improvements that have happened over the years. Two of the closest main intersections are already signalized. So, if some of those DelDOT off-site improvements trigger paying into signal agreements and she thinks that one of those are actually mentioned in some of their letters already, then those improvements and participation will have to happen. They are on the hook for making the necessary improvements on their segment of West Denneys Road. We do have other projects for development further to the east of here that have gone through the process and will be making intersection and their own entrance improvements. We cannot deal with things that were built a number of years ago such as the entrance to Carlisle Village; it is not in the City. But the additional subdivisions along that corridor that have already have been built, had to make improvements to the segment of road there. So, they felt comfortable that them going the Area-Wide Study route was feasible in this instance because they would be still making improvements as required to meet this type of road segment for this type of entrance under the provisions that are established by DelDOT. Mr. Hartman stated those improvements that are envisioned have mostly to deal with the aspect of just one entrance. It’s not dealing with the amount of traffic at the 1,998 vehicles per day. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is not a traffic engineer. The improvements that they will have to design for their entrance are much more in the traffic engineering world. It deals with the section of road, the travel lanes, the need for turn lanes, deceleration and acceleration lanes, and the form of the road itself. There are a number of things that from a traffic engineering standpoint they will have to improve on this segment of the road. DelDOT would deal with how the rest of the roadway, if there are other additional improvements beyond the frontage of the subject site. You may want to direct a question to the applicant since Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 5 of 10 190

Item 2. they do have their traffic engineer with them this evening to understand a little bit more about how that Entrance Plan review process works and what types of improvements could be anticipated here. Mr. Caloggero stated that he is with The Traffic Group and is the Vice President, Professional Engineer, professional traffic operations engineer, and a professional transportation planner. He has been doing projects in Delaware since 2000. He has worked very close with DelDOT and a lot of the local municipalities. He did, prior to this evening, his own independent study based on data that he could obtain. As they are going through the process for a Scoping Meeting, they will look at the peak hour trips. He knows that it has been mentioned about 2,000 daily trips but they are also looking at the peak hour trips. There are 116 peak hour trips in the morning and about 150 peak hour trips in the evening. The peak hour in the morning is typically one hour between 7-9AM and in the evening it is one hour between 4-6PM. They have a national manual and it’s from numerous studies of different types of residential developments that will provide you calculations to determine how many trips this development would expect on a regular basis. They could be higher some days or they could be lower. But in general, these are the numbers that were calculated. When we look at 116 in the morning, it’s 2 per minute; so, one car every 30 seconds. In the evening, it is 150; so, it would be just over 2 per minute but less than 3 per minute. We look at that and we look at the roadway network. West Denneys Road has two traffic signals on either end of the development and that provides gaps. As the traffic signals allow traffic to come on West Denneys Road, they come in platoons and then there are gaps. That’s when traffic can exit the site accordingly. It is great that there are two signalized intersections on each side. That, in itself, provides a necessary safety feature. Site distance is outstanding in this area. There is over 560 feet in one direction and 660 feet in the other direction. He is not saying that people travel at 60 MPH, but it allows for people to make decisions if people traveling at 60 MPH on West Denneys Road and someone were to pull out. That safety feature is built in. They did another evaluation based on traffic counts that they were able to obtain from DelDOT from 2019 and it shows what is called the volume to capacity ratio. This type of road based on national standards can accommodate 1,700 vehicles in 1 hour. Today, based on 2019 data, they had a maximum of 250 so the volume to capacity ratio was 15% in the worst peak hour of the road. So, there is plenty of available capacity for this development to utilize without over burdening this section of road. In his professional opinion, a lot of the reasons why a Traffic Impact Study wasn’t necessary is that DelDOT had this information. They talked about it in the Scoping Meeting, and he thinks they would have found acceptable levels of service. That is the reason that DelDOT requests a check. They pay them the money and they can take that money and use it for a different study that may have more needs than this area. He knows that it may not suit the needs exactly for this hearing today, but in general they are looking at that money and how can they maybe fix something else, or can they study something that is really worthwhile to really make improvements that have an issue. Those are all the reasons why, in his opinion, that a Traffic Impact Study was not required. This is all information that DelDOT had at their fingertips that they provided to him. Mr. Hartman asked if they could explain the 250 trips per hour a little more. Does that include the proposed development and all the five developments that are around there? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Caloggero stated that he looked at existing. He was provided traffic counts from 2019 in September when schools were in session. In the peak hour, there were 250 vehicles traveling in one hour along West Denneys Road between McKee Road and Kenton Road. That takes up 15% of the capacity of the road. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 6 of 10 191

Item 2. Mr. Reaves stated that where this development is and you talk about the lights that give a gap to the traffic; however, the traffic that comes down McKee Road over the bridge, there is no light there for that traffic to stop. It just continues on through that intersection. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Caloggero stated that on either end of the two major DelDOT roads, there are traffic signals. Mr. Reaves stated that what he is saying is, the traffic that is going from McKee Road to Kenton Road comes around that curve. There is no traffic light that stops that traffic, so it just continues through. The only traffic that would be stopped is the traffic that is waiting for a left turn. Everyone coming from McKee Road from the bridge would not be stopping so that would not give a complete gap in that particular situation. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Caloggero stated that from the amount of trips that are on that part of the road, and he is going back to capacity, it is only 15% absorbed. So, there are a lot of other times where those gaps are available because it’s not a free flow. It is not coming down Route 1 when there is a race and traffic gets backed up and you can’t get in and out. They are looking at a two-lane road with traffic signals on either end. They kind of meter how traffic flows through the area and there is going to be natural gaps from those meters. There is not a lot of traffic volume on that road today as well; so, there will be gaps to turn left to come out. Mr. Reaves stated that when the traffic comes down from that road, all traffic does not stop at a traffic light. He needs to make that clear for the record. All traffic does not stop at two lights on either end of the road. You have to make that crystal clear. Let’s just say for all intents and purposes, the traffic that comes from Delaware Tech does not stop at all at the traffic light. It has no significance to the traffic that is traveling down that road at that particular time. There is no gap that is created by that traffic that comes from that direction. He also has a follow up to a question that was proposed to the applicant. The question was about communication to the existing homes in that particular area. What was the communication, if anything, with the residents that currently have properties in that area? Also, following up to that, what would be the impact to those residents during the construction and getting out to the road because there is a particular easement after the construction is completed? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Barnett stated that he is not sure of specific individual communication to those residents other than the public notices that were sent out on behalf of these meetings as well as the ones that were sent out approximately one year ago with the annexation was done to bring these parcels into the City of Dover. Mr. Reaves stated that what he is trying to ascertain from the applicant is what type of impact would your development’s construction create for those residents that are currently there and how do you plan to mitigate any inconvenience to those residents that are there currently? After the project is completed, how will they be able to access the road? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Ms. Scott asked if he was talking about the residents of Carlisle Village. Mr. Reaves stated that he is talking about the existing properties that are in that location. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Caloggero asked if he meant the two single family homes that are going to stay? Mr. Reaves stated yes. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Caloggero stated that there have been continual communications with the applicant and the developer with those individuals. Their access will be fully open and maintained through the construction process. As you can see on the screen as well, the nearest home will still have driveway access as work is being done behind Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 7 of 10 192

Item 2. them in the development. And then, the other residents to the west, their driveway will still have access to West Denneys Road the entire time. As West Denneys Road is improved, turn lanes are put in, the lanes are going to be widened, shoulders are going to be created, paved shoulders for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. As those things are done, those will be phased and DelDOT will do them under their standards. They will probably close one half of the lane down with flaggers as that work is done and it will be staged in segments so that they can still have full access at all times. He doesn’t believe that any discussions have been made or any requests have been made for them to have any other access during that time. Mr. Reaves stated that in regard to the traffic that comes from the Del-Tech side. Has there been any communication with DelDOT as far as changing that traffic regulatory symbol from a yield sign to a stop sign and how would that impact your traffic if that was the case? That would create a significant gap in traffic. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Caloggero stated that he isn’t exactly sure where Mr. Reaves is referencing. Mr. Barnett stated that the intersection of McKee Road and West Denneys Road is something that DelDOT did list in their correspondence. He thinks that it is included as Attachment B to the letter that he most recently provided that the developer will be required to aid in the improvements to that light and intersection at McKee Road and West Denneys Road. Mr. Caloggero stated that the intersection in question was at Scarborough Road and DE Route 15/ McKee Road. They have what is a south bound free right turn and there was concern about the safety of that area. This is a great comment, and this leads to why an Area-Wide Study Fee would be important because that Area-Wide Study Fee could be used to study this intersection which has a safety concern. But more than likely, that would not have been in their Traffic Study. That would be something to suggest that they let DelDOT know that maybe you would like to see that intersection studied for safety improvements. Mrs. Welsh stated that she wants to express concern. Throughout this whole thing, she has had significant concerns about safety, as other people have mentioned, because she drives this road maybe four or five times a week. It is daunting. That “S” curve that is right where this development is planned. She read the information here that the single access point is the safest ingress and egress, and she can see that. She can see that versus the two points. It also says that it will provide the safest ingress/egress to the site and maximize the use of the sight distance. To her, this is the safest that they can make it, but the unsaid thing was “safe”. She thanks them for the information about the 500 feet in one direction and 600 feet in the other direction because that gives a better understanding of the distance that it is there. She can see much more about the safety that you are providing for the entrance. Tonight’s meeting where Mrs. Melson-Williams said that DelDOT will be working to provide other road improvements. She hopes that with the turn lanes that she mentioned and maybe some other improvements that aren’t really on the table right now but could be on the table that will do a little bit more to alleviate the anxiety about the situation and where it is. She will say that she travels that road three to four times a week and it really is intimidating going around that curve. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Barnett stated that as part of the entrance improvements and what they will be required to do to West Denneys Road immediately in front at the entrance there is DelDOT’s discussion and the engineering hasn’t been done yet. But the curves will be softened a little bit as they widen it. It is the intent to make that a safer transition for people not just coming and going from the subdivision but the through traffic will also have further sight distances and the road grades and the widening of the lanes will make that a safer travel way as well. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 8 of 10 193

Item 2. Mrs. Welsh stated that the softening of the curves is exactly what she was hoping to hear. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Barnett stated that they don’t have specific details on that yet just because it hasn’t been done but as they move forward with DelDOT that is what will be designed. Mrs. Denney stated that she also sits on a Board for the County and frankly, many times when this type of discussion comes up, she is sitting here thinking, “DelDOT, great theory.” But in the practical application rarely does anybody do the speed limit. You can put up all the stop signs that you want and very few young people (i.e. college students) are running out of a class trying to get to a job or another class now at another campus. It used to be what they called in her young days the “California roll” but now they just run them. She lives on State Street and she could be a millionaire probably if every time somebody leaving college now especially coming or going, just didn’t stop. She just holds her breath, and it is not good for her blood pressure either. She really thinks that all of this sounds neatly buttoned up but the practical application of this is that there is a danger. She knows that the lawyers and the engineers, practical application is not what you apply but especially when you come out onto Saulsbury Road out of Kenton Road, especially at certain times a day. By the way, it is not what you guys consider peak hours. A lot of that is based upon when the classes get out. Trying to get from Kenton Road and merge on Saulsbury Road, these are issues that are huge and to her, they are dangerous. She just wants to add those comments. Not everybody that travels those roads are seasoned drivers either. (Note: It is unclear which roads she was referring to as Kenton Road and Saulsbury Road do not intersect.) Dr. Jones stated that when Mrs. Melson-Williams gave her report regarding outcomes of City Council meetings, did you say that the Active Recreation Area has been approved? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that as part of a review of a residential development, there is an Active Recreation Area Plan. That Active Recreation Area Plan is reviewed by the City Council Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee for their technical expertise related to active recreation. The Committee reports to City Council their findings and then those findings related to the Active Recreation Area Plan, (technically that Report) is adopted by City Council. As part of the Consent Agenda on the City Council Meeting of October 23, 2023, the Report from the Parks and Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee on this project’s Active Recreation Area Plan was approved or accepted. That Active Recreation Area Report is part of the review packet that was provided to the Planning Commission. It focuses specifically on the active recreation components. In this case, they have a variety of amenities and meet the minimum size requirement for Active Recreation Area for a project of this size. Mrs. Maucher noted that for Application S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys, a public hearing was conducted during the meeting of October 16, 2023; therefore, there is no public hearing tonight. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-23-19 Windward Ridge Apartments on West Denneys inclusive of the Waiver Request for the partial elimination of sidewalk and the Subdivision Waiver of the requirement for two connections to the public street, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was carried 5-4 by roll call vote. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; as she said previously, she still has concerns safety wise and she is hoping that the plans that the applicant has for alleviating some of those concerns will actually come to fruition with the construction of this project. Mr. Cooper Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 9 of 10 194

Item 2. voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mrs. Denney voting no; she does have the same concerns with regard to safety matters and she would rather wait to vote on this with a yes vote once she absolutely has written on paper and in the plan, what steps are going to be taken, how and when. She doesn’t feel like she can make a “yes” vote on a promise to do a little more and maybe fix a little more. She wants something that comes from DelDOT that says this is what’s happening because it is truly in her opinion, even with the softening of the curve, that it is a public safety issue. We have accidents there all the time and they had testimony to that at the last meeting. People get hurt and people get killed. Mr. Hartman voting no; in recognition of what was just said. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the Staff recommendation and the study from DelDOT to make this project happen. Dr. Jones voting no; she is not in favor because she does have some concerns as have been raised by fellow Commissioners and she would have thought that there would have been some kind of attempt to meet with those very concerned residents to alleviate some of their concerns and fears about the safety of that area. Mr. Reaves voting no; with regards to some of the concerns that they have for the safety of that intersection, and he also agrees with the understanding of having the concessions in writing as to what is going to be actually done as far as DelDOT and the softening of the curve and the line of sight that comes from the Kenton Road area. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the DAC Report and the additional information provided by the applicant this evening and the clarification of the information available to us and she thinks that the suggested road improvements should alleviate a lot of the concerns. It is not going to cure bad driving, but the applicant is doing what it can. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2023 Page 10 of 10 195

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Legislative, Finance & Administration) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Water & Wastewater SUBMITTED ON: December 1, 2023 PREPARED BY: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services REVIEWED BY: David S. Hugg, III City Manager and Lori Peddicord, Controller / Treasurer SUBJECT: Evaluation of Proposals – Water Street Flooding Improvements Design TIMETABLE: Notice to proceed to be issued within thirty (30) days of Council approval. Project anticipated to be completed in one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days. RELATED PROJECT: X REFERENCE: X EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $115,000 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $110,000 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Department of Public Works - Stormwater Management, CIP Project #SW2407, CIP Project Name: Water Street Flooding Improvements Account No.: 403-41-69-99- 000-54031. Remainder of costs will be supplemented by savings from ST2302 Street Program, Account No.: 101-12-18-35-000- 54031 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award contract to Century Engineering, LLC for the engineering design of Water Street Flooding Improvements, RFP #24-0003WW, for $115,000. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This project, identified within the stormwater master plan, will provide engineering design to upgrade the stormwater infrastructure on Water Street, specifically between West Street and State Street. This area consistently floods with a moderate rain event in the city. This project will provide improved capacity and conveyance of stormwater in this area. Failure to improve this system could result in a future failure of the infrastructure and property damage. The proposal was advertised to the public as a Request for Proposal in accordance with the City’s 196

Item 1. purchasing policy by the City’s Purchasing Agent under ITB #24-0003W. Proposals were opened on September 14, 2023. The City of Dover received three (3) proposals. The city requested a best and final offer from these companies and received new costs from each firm. The best and final offer was due on October 16, 2023. The three (3) proposals were reviewed by staff and scored based on the evaluation criteria provided in the proposal documents. AVERAGE CONTRACTOR LOCATION SCORE CENTURY ENGINEERING, LLC* DOVER, DE 96 DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. MILFORD, DE 78 VERDANTAS, LLC* DOVER, DE 78 *The evaluated cost of the proposal was reduced by 3% due to local vendor preference. The shortfall will be covered by the following breakdown: Funding Description Current Spent / Savings / Requested Proposed Source Budget Encumbered Remaining Change Budget Remaining General – SW2407 – $110,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $115,000 Stormwater Water Street Flooding Improvements General – ST2302 – $1,185,000 $933,294 $251,706 ($5,000) $246,706 Streets Street Program City staff reviewed the submissions and found that Century Engineering, LLC proposal met all requirements for the qualifications of the project. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Century Engineering, LLC in the amount of $115,000 for the Water Street Flooding Improvements Design. 197

Item 1. LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA MEETING HOUSE BRANCH IMPROVEMENTS ST R T R S R T R STR T DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER DRAWN: RLL DATE: 11/30/2023 198 CKD: --- SCALE: NTS APRVD: --- DWG. NO: ---

Item 3. Explanation of program objective 199

Item 3. What is an Enterprise Fund? A type of fund used in governmental accounting to account for activities that provide goods or services to the public for a fee that is meant to make the entity self-sustaining. The intent is for the expenses of providing the service to the general public on a continuing basis be financed primarily through user charges. In doing so, this would lessen the burden on the General Fund. 200

Enterprise Fund Item 3. Financed through user charges instead of taxes Charges are modeled to make sure revenues are adequate to pay expenses Charges used exclusively for the cost of services provided. Healthy Self-sustaining Fund 201

Item 3. Sanitation Services Provided • Weekly can collection • Weekly yard waste collection • Every other week recycling collection • Every other week bulk household waste collection • Every other week bulk brush collection • Paid pickups • Spring Cleanup 202

Item 3. Exploring a Sanitation Enterprise Fund The updated model used was originally developed and approved by a previous City Manager. At the current rate of $27, it is projected that $723,500.00 will need to be supplemented from the General Fund to cover expenses in FY25. 5 Year Projection (Ending in FY2029). Surveyed other Delaware Municipalities to gather service type and costing information. 203

Item 3. Sanitation Survey Results Public Works sent a survey to 10 municipalities. Of the three responses submitted back, two are comparable to the sanitation services provided by the City of Dover. • City of Newark charges $87.50 per month • Kent County charges $56 per month 204

Item 3. Proposed Costs Based on projections, there Container Size # of Containers Rate is a proposed rate increase 90-1 10,211 $33.00 MHP 280 $33.00 from the current cost of $27 90-2 203 $66.00 to $33 per container. 90-3 8 $99.00 These prices would hold true 300-1 211 $99.00 for a 5-year term (pending 90-4 3 $132.00 any unplanned cost 300-2 9 $198.00 increases). * 300-gallon containers grandfathered in; these will eventually fall off inventory 205

Item 3. Cost Comparison How does the proposed increase stack up against the comparable municipalities: • City of Newark is $54.50 per customer above our proposed rate • Kent County is $23 per customer above our proposed rate and is only locked in at a 3-year guarantee (as opposed to our 5-year rate guarantee) 206

Item 3. Conclusion The goal of the Sanitation Enterprise Fund is to have long term financial stability for the sanitation services provided by the City of Dover. 207

Item 4. Reimagining Recruitment and Retention Rivka Liss-Levinson, Ph.D. MissionSquare Research Institute 1 208

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute MissionSquare Research Institute Promote excellence in state and local government and other public service organizations so they can attract and retain talented public servants R 2 209

Item 4. Background on Public Sector Workforce 3 210

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Local Government - Employment Levels 14,800,000 14,576,000 14,600,000 14,400,000 14,210,000 14,200,000 14,000,000 13,800,000 13,600,000 13,400,000 Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source: BLS Current Employment Statistics 4 211

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Labor Turnover  In the first four months following the declaration of the public health emergency (February 2020), layoffs spiked by approximately 160% from 20- year averages.  For 2022, quit rates were 57% higher than 20-year averages and separations such as retirements have spiked almost twice their typical rate in the Summer of 2020 and again in late 2021.  At the same time, job openings have continued to consistently increase and were over double their 20-year averages in 2022. Source: BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey 5 212

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Key Employment Notes Notes 11years Mid-2024 1.4% For government Projected return to pre- Projected Employment employment to recover pandemic levels, Change, Local from the Great assuming current Government, 2021-2031 Recession growth rates Sources: BLS Employment Projections Program (local government, excluding education and hospitals) and MissionSquare Research Institute analysis of BLS Current Employment Statistics 6 213

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Examples of local government occupations with notable changes projected over next 10 years… +10% or more -15% or more Data Scientists Parking Enforcement Landscape Maintenance Data Entry Construction Managers Executive Computer System Managers Secretaries/Assistants Payroll Clerks Source: BLS Employment Projections Program (local government, excluding education and hospitals) Source: BLS Employment Projections Program (local government, excluding education and hospitals) 7 214

Item 4. Public Sector Recruitment and Retention Challenges 8 215

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Aging Workforce and Accelerating Retirements Source: State and Local Workforce Survey 2023 9 216

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Burnout and Stress from the COVID-19 Pandemic Source: Continued Impact of COVID-19 on Public Sector Employee Job and Financial Outlook, Satisfaction, and Retention 10 217

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Hard-to-Fill Positions 2013 2017 2020 8% 21% 25% 12% 14% 28% 17% 19% *% Source: State and Local Workforce Survey 2023; *data not comparable as broken up into multiple sub-categories. 11 218

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute So…how do we recruit and retain the next generation of public sector workers??? 12 12 219

Item 4. 7 Strategies to Bolster Recruitment and Retention 13 220

Item 4. 1. Increase Compensation 14 221

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Top Retention Recommendations by Public Sector Employees Source: State and Local Government Employees: Morale, Public Service Motivation, Financial Concerns and Retention 15 222

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Source: 35 and Under in the Public Sector: Why Younger Workers Enter and Why They Stay (or Don’t) ; Note: see report for complete figure 16 223

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute But increasing compensation isn’t always feasible…  While only 55% of HR managers feel the wage compensation that they offer their employees is competitive with the labor market, 89% feel the benefits compensation offered is competitive.  Focus on communicating full value of total compensation package  Only 39% of employees are very or extremely satisfied with the communication they receive from their employer about the total value of their compensation (including salary, retirement, insurance, bonuses, other employer-provided benefits) Source: State and Local Workforce Survey 2023; State and Local Government Employees: Morale, Public Service Motivation, Financial Concerns and Retention 17 224

Item 4. 2. Show Appreciation and Recognition 18 225

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Source: 35 and Under in the Public Sector: Why Younger Workers Enter and Why They Stay (or Don’t) 19 226

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Showing Appreciation and Recognition Sample forms of recognition:  Provide more flexible work schedules  Acknowledge individuals at team meetings  Write personalized thank you notes to employees  Highlight employees who have gone “above and beyond”  Showcase staff to the wider community Source: State and Local Government Employees: Morale, Public Service Motivation, Financial Concerns and Retention 20 227

Item 4. 3. Provide Financial Wellness Resources 21 228

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute This is up from 29% in 2019 Opportunity for employers to fill unmet employee interest and need Source: Public Sector Employee Financial Wellness Program Needs and Preferences 22 229

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Source: Public Sector Employee Financial Wellness Program Needs and Preferences 23 230

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Additional Resource: Financial Wellness Fact Sheets  Summarizes each of 24 grantees’ financial wellness programs, with information on:  Jurisdiction background  Program basics  Key program components  Program evaluation  Key takeaways, lessons learned, and future plans  Point of contact  Provides ideas, advice, and networking opportunities for other S/L govts. https://slge.org/financial-wellness-grant-fact-sheets 24 231

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Additional Resource: Financial Wellness Case Studies  Provides in-depth analysis of 5 of grantee jurisdiction’s financial wellness programs  Case studies selected for diversity in  Government type  Workforce size  Geographic location  Industry  Workforce demographics  Approach to implementation  Innovation  Evaluation methods https://mission-sq.org/finwell_casestudies 25 232

Item 4. 4. Prioritize Employee Mental Health and Well-Being 26 233

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Employees are stressed, burnt-out, and anxious Source: State and Local Government Employees: Morale, Public Service Motivation, Financial Concerns and Retention; Survey Results: 27 Continued Impact of COVID-19 on Public Sector Employee Job and Financial Outlook, Satisfaction, and Retention 234

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Go beyond the standard EAP program offering and provide additional supports to improve employee health and well-being 28 Source: State and Local Workforce Survey 2023 235

Item 4. 5. Emphasize Employee Impact on Community 29 236

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute How Early Career Entrants Rank Various Workplace Aspects #1 - Meaningful Work / Mission #2 - Workplace Culture #3 - Compensation and Benefits #4 - Professional Development #5 - Location #6 - Organizational Reputation #7 - Hiring Process and Timeline Source: New Career Entrants to Public Service: Lessons for Employers from Fellowship Applicants 30 237

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Top Factors Attracting Current State and Local Employees to Current Public Sector Job Job Security Personal Satisfaction the Job Gives Me Retirement Benefits Salary Work/Life Balance 0% 50% 100% Major Factor Minor Factor Source: State and Local Government Employees: Morale, Public Service Motivation, Financial Concerns and Retention 31 238

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Source: 35 and Under in the Public Sector: Why Younger Workers Enter and Why They Stay (or Don’t) 32 239

Item 4. 6. Implement Workforce DEI Initiatives 33 240

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Impacts of Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Source: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Public Service Workforce 34 241

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Impacts of Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Almost 10% of LGBTQIA+ employees have left an employer due to feeling unwelcome Source: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Public Service Workforce 35 242

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute DEI as a Priority for Employers vs. Employees But 63% of 35 and under public sector workers say that it’s important that their workplace creates an inclusive and welcoming environment for all identities. Source: State and Local Workforce Survey 2023; 35 and Under in the Public Sector: Why Younger Workers Enter and Why They Stay (or Don’t) . 36 243

Item 4. 7. Foster Employee Development and Engagement 37 244

Item 4. MissionSquare Research Institute Develop talent and leadership potential throughout organization To preserve institutional knowledge and maximize retention of remaining staff, prioritize: • Training • Mentoring • Job rotation opportunities Source: State and Local Workforce Survey 2023 38 245

Item 4. Q&A Twitter: @MSQInstitute Web: research.missionsq.org Email: research@missionsq.org 246

Item 4. Thank You 2023 NLC City Summit 247